    [House Hearing, 106 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                        FIRSTGOV.GOV: IS IT A GOOD IDEA?

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT,
                          INFORMATION, AND TECHNOLOGY

                                     of the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                               GOVERNMENT REFORM

                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                OCTOBER 2, 2000

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 106-271

                                   __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

      Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house
                          http://www.house.gov/reform

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    74-926                     WASHINGTON : 2001

    _______________________________________________________________________
     For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
                                     Office
    Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: (202) 512-1800  Fax: (202) 512-2250
                   Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001

                         COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

                         DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman
    BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York         HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
    CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland       TOM LANTOS, California
    CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut       ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virginia
    ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida         MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
    JOHN M. McHUGH, New York             EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
    STEPHEN HORN, California             PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
    JOHN L. MICA, Florida                PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
    THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia            CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
    DAVID M. McINTOSH, Indiana           ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,
    MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana                  DC
    JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida             CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
    STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio           ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
    MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South     DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
        Carolina                         ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
    BOB BARR, Georgia                    DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
    DAN MILLER, Florida                  JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
    ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas             JIM TURNER, Texas
    LEE TERRY, Nebraska                  THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
    JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois               HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee
    GREG WALDEN, Oregon                  JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
    DOUG OSE, California                             ------
    PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin                 BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
    HELEN CHENOWETH-HAGE, Idaho              (Independent)
    DAVID VITTER, Louisiana

                          Kevin Binger, Staff Director
                     Daniel R. Moll, Deputy Staff Director
                         James C. Wilson, Chief Counsel
                         Robert A. Briggs, Chief Clerk
                     Phil Schiliro, Minority Staff Director
                                     ------

       Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology

                       STEPHEN HORN, California, Chairman
    JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois               JIM TURNER, Texas
    THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia            PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
    GREG WALDEN, Oregon                  MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
    DOUG OSE, California                 PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
    PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin                 CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

                                   Ex Officio

    DAN BURTON, Indiana                  HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
              J. Russell George, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
                             Randy Kaplan, Counsel
                               Bryan Sisk, Clerk
                        Trey Henderson, Minority Counsel

                               C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hearing held on October 2, 2000..................................     1
    Statement of:
        Barram, David, Administrator, General Services Administration    10
        Bohannon, Mark, general counsel and vice president, Software
          and Information Industry Association.......................    80
        Brewer, Eric, founder and chairman, the Federal Search
          Foundation, co-founder and chief scientist, Inktomi Corp...    18
        Katzen, Sally, Deputy Director for Management, Office of
          Management and Budget......................................     3
        McClure, David, Director, Information Technology Management,
          U.S. General Accounting Office.............................    25
        McDermott, Patrice, information policy analyst, OMB Watch....    40
    Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
        Barram, David, Administrator, General Services
          Administration, prepared statement of......................    14
        Bohannon, Mark, general counsel and vice president, Software
          and Information Industry Association:
            Letter dated June 23, 2000...............................    81
            Prepared statement of....................................    87
        Brewer, Eric, founder and chairman, the Federal Search
          Foundation, co-founder and chief scientist, Inktomi Corp.,
          prepared statement of......................................    20
        Fleisher, Michael D., CEO, Gartner, prepared statement of....   111
        Katzen, Sally, Deputy Director for Management, Office of
          Management and Budget, prepared statement of...............     5
        McClure, David, Director, Information Technology Management,
          U.S. General Accounting Office:
            NASIRE study.............................................   120
            Prepared statement of....................................    28
        McDermott, Patrice, information policy analyst, OMB Watch,
          prepared statement of......................................    43

                        FIRSTGOV.GOV: IS IT A GOOD IDEA?

                                  ----------

                            MONDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2000

                      House of Representatives,
    Subcommittee on Government Management, Information,
                                        and Technology,
                                Committee on Government Reform,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in
    room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Stephen Horn
    (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Horn and Turner.
        Staff present: J. Russell George, staff director/chief
    counsel; Randy Kaplan, counsel; Ben Ritt, professional staff
    member; Bonnie Heald, director of communications/professional
    staff member; Bryan Sisk, clerk; Elizabeth Seong, staff
    assistant; George Fraser, Rachael Reddick, and Trevor Pedigo,
    interns; Trey Henderson, minority counsel; Jean Gosa, minority
    clerk; and Michelle Ash, minority professional staff member.
        Mr. Horn. A quorum being present, this hearing of the
    Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and
    Technology will come to order.
        On Friday, September 22nd, the President unveiled FirstGov,
    a centralized Web site that allows anyone with a computer and
    modem to one-stop shop for information on the government's 27
    million Web pages.
        By accessing FirstGov located at www.FirstGov.gov, computer
    users can locate a wealth of government information and
    services. A single search can produce information on subjects
    from Social Security benefits to the latest advances in health
    care. Businesses can find the government's most recent
    procurement opportunities, and prospective applicants can
    search for Federal grants. By the end of this year, nearly 40
    million Americans will communicate with the government
    electronically. That demand will undoubtedly swell as even more
    people join the information age.
        FirstGov is an important step in making government
    information and services available to the public 7 days a week,
    24 hours a day. FirstGov and electronic government in general,
    offer the potential to revolutionize the way citizens and
    businesses interact with their government. The benefits of this
    instant communication are plentiful, but the challenges are
    equally profound.
        To be successful, government information must be current,
    well-organized and readily accessible. Citizens and businesses
    should expect government Web sites to offer the same quality
    and service found on many business Web sites. They must be
    confident that their on-line communications are secure and that
    personal information is fully protected. The government's
    electronic infrastructure must be planned and managed carefully
    to avoid risking the loss of billions of taxpayer dollars.
        Equally important, we must bridge the digital divide so
    that all citizens have access to this new electronic
    environment.
        The FirstGov Web site uses technology developed by Dr. Eric
    Brewer, who is co-founder of Inktomi--and I don't know how fast
    I am to say that, or do I spell out each syllable? Which is it?
        Mr. Brewer. You got it right. Inktomi.
        Mr. Horn. Inktomi Corp., and a professor of computer
    science at the University of California, Berkeley.
        Dr. Brewer, who is with us today, has offered his search
    technology to the FirstGov project at no cost for 2 years.
        Dr. Brewer, I understand you flew all night from Japan to
    be with us, and I welcome you and thank you. I am looking
    forward to learning more about this new project and its
    potential for providing citizens with a greater opportunity to
    communicate with their government.
        I welcome all of our witnesses today, look forward to your
    testimony; and I now yield time to the ranking member, the
    gentleman from Texas, Mr. Turner, for an opening statement.
        Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        FirstGov is the first-ever government Web site to provide
    the public with easy, one-stop access to all on-line Federal
    Government resources. This site will bring government closer to
    the people, expand the reach of our democracy and make
    government more consumer friendly.
        Launched on September 22, 2000, FirstGov allows users to
    browse a wealth of information, everything from researching at
    the Library of Congress to tracking a NASA mission. It also
    enables users to conduct important business on-line, such as
    applying for student loans, tracking Social Security benefits,
    comparing Medicare options and administering government grants
    and contracts. It is expected that this monumental breakthrough
    in one-stop shopping for government services will help
    Americans across the country and around the world find
    information and resources quickly and easily.
        As an advocate of e-government, I commend the
    administration for making this effort; and I am pleased to see
    FirstGov.gov up and running. The Internet offers us
    unparalleled opportunities to literally put government at the
    fingertips of the citizens. While the private sector has been
    quick to capitalize on the new opportunities created by the
    digital revolution, it is widely acknowledged that the Federal
    Government is behind the curve.
        Projects like FirstGov.gov show that we are making an
    effort to head in the right direction. Hopefully, this is just
    the first of many steps the Federal Government will be making
    in order to ensure that 1 day ``dot gov'' is as commonplace as
    ``dot com.''
        Again, I commend the chairman on holding the hearing to
    bring this important step forward to the attention of the
    American people, and I welcome each of our witnesses who have
    come here this morning.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Horn. Thank you very much.
        The tradition of the committee on Government Reform and its
    subcommittees is to swear all witnesses as to the knowledge
    they give us. So if you will stand and raise your right hands.
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        Mr. Horn. The clerk will note that all the witnesses have
    affirmed.
        We will now start with the Honorable Sally Katzen, Deputy
    Director for Management, Office of Management and Budget.

      STATEMENT OF SALLY KATZEN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR MANAGEMENT,
                    OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

        Ms. Katzen. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Turner, I am delighted to be
    here again.
        FirstGov, the Federal Government's new and most
    comprehensive Web portal, is a timely and important topic for
    the government and the Nation; and we are glad that you
    convened this hearing to explore its great potential so soon
    after it was launched.
        As the chairman noted, FirstGov is a piece of a much larger
    effort of this administration to bring the American people
    electronic government. Much of my written testimony is devoted
    to the administration's work in this area, but in the interest
    of time, let me move to the specific subject of this hearing.
        Last December, the President issued a memorandum on
    electronic government. It called for the establishment of a
    one-stop gateway to government information available on the
    Internet, organized by the type of service or information that
    people are seeking rather than by the agency. That is FirstGov.
        But the roots of FirstGov predate that memo. For several
    years now, a dedicated team at GSA has been doing the spade
    work on what was then known as WebGov. The President's memo
    accelerated the process. In the very early spring, the
    President's Management Council gave it enthusiastic support.
        Shortly thereafter, we were approached by Internet
    entrepreneur Eric Brewer with the offer of a powerful search
    engine and data base that he would develop. That offer was a
    major catalyst in bringing all government information together
    in a way that the American people can find quickly and easily.
    We chose the name FirstGov to signify the citizens' first click
    to electronic government.
        In June 2000, the President announced FirstGov in his
    first-ever Webcast address to the Nation, challenging
    government and industry to finish creating it in 90 days.
    Exactly 90 days later, some would say in Internet time, the
    President announced the launch of the site.
        The site, located at www.FirstGov.gov, provides a single
    on-line portal that connects Americans to one of the largest
    and most useful collections of Web pages in the world. It
    allows users to search all 27 million Federal agency Web pages
    at one time, and it has plenty of room to grow because it can
    search half a billion documents in less than a quarter of a
    second and handle millions of searches a day. This is somewhat
    mind-boggling but true.
        Both the Director of OMB and I have given special attention
    to this project, and I sit on the governing board of FirstGov.
    GSA Administrator Dave Barram will give more details on some of
    the arrangements.
        The initial response to FirstGov has been largely
    favorable. Initial estimates show that during the first 4 days,
    about a quarter of a million people visited the site. More
    interesting, Web traffic at various agency sites increased with
    the launch of FirstGov. The Department of Transportation
    reported a large increase and also cross-agency sites,
    including disability.gov, reported a nearly threefold increase.
        In addition, the on-line customer feedback we received is
    widely supportive. Of roughly 700 messages received by FirstGov
    in its first week, the vast majority were both supportive of
    the site and excited about the opportunity to make the site
    better through their comments.
        Finally, to demonstrate the support for FirstGov among IT
    professionals, there was a conference last week of State CIOs,
    Chief Information Officers, and the States said they thought
    FirstGov was a tremendous advance and asked how they could work
    with us to become a part of it.
        FirstGov is, in my mind, a revolutionary step in the way
    this government provides information and services. A visitor
    need not know what agency provides student loans to get
    information on student loans. The search engine as well as the
    topic directory can provide this. And FirstGov partners may
    offer yet a third way to access the information in a way that
    fits the user's needs.
        Moreover, the site will get better over time. The search
    engine will learn which pages are the most useful to the
    citizens and display them more readily. The topic index will
    grow and encompass those sites most commonly looked for and
    accessed by the public. Ultimately, as agencies put more
    information on-line, FirstGov will be the catalyst for
    additional agency and cross-agency portals that continue to
    break down the existing stovepipes and lead to a real
    transformation in the way the government delivers information
    and services.
        Most importantly, citizen feedback will lead our efforts to
    make our information and services more available on-line. The
    public will point our way, and through their direction we will
    give them a comprehensive and responsive electronic government
    that expands opportunities for their participation in our
    democracy.
        Thank you very much for the opportunity to talk about
    FirstGov and for your support in this area. I look forward to
    answering your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Katzen follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.001

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.002

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.003

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.004

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.005

        Mr. Horn. Our next witness is the Honorable David Barram,
    the Administrator of the General Services Administration. Mr.
    Barram.

      STATEMENT OF DAVID BARRAM, ADMINISTRATOR, GENERAL SERVICES
                             ADMINISTRATION

        Mr. Barram. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Turner.
    I want to add my appreciation to you for providing this
    opportunity to explain the power of the elegantly simple idea
    that is FirstGov. I believe FirstGov is a singular achievement
    and one that will keep getting better--in fact, it must get
    better.
        This administration has been devoted to making a government
    that works better and costs less. I believe we have done that.
    In that context, we had to do FirstGov. By now, the American
    people have come to expect that kind of productivity of us.
        In my comments today I would like to briefly describe the
    three modules of FirstGov and then explain the least well-
    developed and least well-understood part of the FirstGov
    partners.
        The first module, and most visible, is the main portal
    called FirstGov.gov. Behind that portal is the second module, a
    powerful searching and indexing technology provided to us by
    Fed-Search, the foundation created by Dr. Eric Brewer. The
    third module is our idea of offering continuous, direct access
    to the index behind FirstGov to a cadre of interested FirstGov
    partners, rather than giving it to ourselves as a proprietary
    government resource.
        The FirstGov.gov portal was developed by the government
    following the letter and spirit of all competitive procurement
    processes using a fixed-price contract and, as Sally said, in
    90 days--an amazingly short 90 days. When you sign on to
    FirstGov.gov, up comes this simple, elegant, easy-to-look-at,
    mainly blue and white page that has already received accolades
    in focus groups and through feedback directly to FirstGov. It
    invites you to find what you want in the way you want and when
    you want it because it is open 24 hours a day.
        You can click on a topic, such as learning, and get to a
    page with a whole list of excellent government Web sites about
    learning. You can click on Congress and get to Thomas or to the
    House Web sites. You can click to a site where you can be
    directed to State and local government sites.
        You can click to one of the periodically changing featured
    sites. Right now, we are featuring ``severe weather'' and
    ``school stuff.'' Or you can decide you just have to say
    something to your government to give us feedback, and if you
    want to search by keyword we have a comprehensive index waiting
    for your search query.
        That index was built by Dr. Eric Brewer's Fed-Search
    Foundation. A few people seem to be skeptical of the Fed-
    Search-government relationship. I would like to see us get over
    that, and soon. Eric Brewer is here today, and you can hear the
    Fed-Search story directly from him.
        Eric Brewer and Dave Binetti, who is the president and CEO
    of Fed-Search, have been magnificent partners throughout this
    effort. At every turn when we presented them with one more need
    of government, they gave it to us because they wanted to do
    this right and wanted to be sure that it was above reproach.
    Those who subscribe to the ``don't believe what I say until you
    see what I do'' credo will like Eric Brewer. He is what he said
    he was, a private citizen simply interested in giving a gift, a
    very generous gift, to his country, a gift that will help
    strengthen our democracy.
        Fed-Search uses the Inktomi technology to do its searching
    and index. In a few weeks, they spidered--searched--all
    publicly available government Web pages and indexed the 27
    million pages. Fed-Search will keep the index updated.
        The third part of FirstGov is the FirstGov partner idea.
        As we were developing FirstGov we knew that most Internet
    users had a favorite portal, or a small group of portals, they
    almost always used. Something like 85 percent of users navigate
    the Web via the big three--Yahoo, AOL, NetScape or MSN. In
    addition, there are over 200 other portals serving the
    increasingly large base of regular users. These portals have
    flourished because they innovate and provide a service to their
    customers. They get their customers the information they want,
    their customers want, in the way they want it, at the speed
    they want it; and the portals that survive will survive because
    they get better and better.
        So we figured we should design FirstGov to be attractive to
    these successful portals and thereby allow our ultimate
    customers, the American citizens, more choice. We believe
    FirstGov.gov is good, and we plan to keep it at the state-of-
    the-art. But citizens are used to picking from their own
    personal views of the best. They should have that choice,
    rather than being forced to use only the government-provided
    site if they want quick access to all government information.
        We had some conditions, though. These conditions resulted
    directly from concerns some citizens have expressed about the
    ``wild west'' character of the Internet. One condition is that
    citizens should have free first use of all government
    information. The Fed-Search index has all the publicly
    available government pages, all 27 million pages. Through
    FirstGov, the first use of government information will be free
    to all citizens.
        Another condition is that no individual can be tracked
    while browsing government pages. We require that security must
    be excellent, and there can be no advertising on pages
    displaying government Web sites. You get all that when you log
    on to FirstGov.gov, and that's what we will require of any
    FirstGov partner's portal.
        All these things led us to the idea to allow other portals,
    public and private, to become FirstGov partners. We would like
    them and, therefore, their customers to have access to the
    results of a search in Fed-Search should they so choose, rather
    than being forced to rely exclusively on their own proprietary
    and incomplete data bases.
        When you want to search for government information on
    FirstGov, there are four ways to go.
        One is the most obvious. Any portal, whether or not a
    partner, can point to the FirstGov URL and when the user clicks
    that user is transported to the FirstGov.gov portal. That's the
    same as if you typed in the URL on any browser.
        The other three are simply three ways any independent
    portal can join the FirstGov world and demonstrate to its
    customers that it subscribes to a basic set of principles
    governing the privacy and quality of those accessing government
    information. The independent portal benefits by being able to
    provide better service to its customers, the FirstGov brand
    benefits by having more people know about and use it, and the
    American people benefit by knowing they can count on certain
    safeguards while navigating government information.
        In the three models, each portal agrees to the FirstGov
    conditions. Along with the protections, the agreement provides,
    it sets a high standard for access to government information
    and transactions that benefit all involved.
        In the first of the three models, the bronze model, the
    portal puts a FirstGov logo, or words, with a link to FirstGov
    on the portal site. Clicking there takes the user directly to
    the FirstGov.gov page, the government page, and she proceeds as
    if she had come there originally. This level of partnership is
    at no cost to the partner.
        The second model, silver, has a FirstGov search box, where
    the user can enter a word or words directly from the partner's
    page, with the promise of a keyword search. The keyword is
    processed by Fed-Search, and results are returned to the user
    on a FirstGov page displayed on the user's PC. Now the user is
    in FirstGov, the government portal. This service is free from
    Fed-Search. There is no cost to the partner.
        In the third model, gold, the portal displays the search
    box as though it were on the portal's own--as though it were
    the portal's own search box. When the results are returned,
    they appear as though they were on the portal's own search
    return page. The portal retains the option to advertise on the
    search return page, providing a revenue stream for the portal.
    But let me be clear. When the user then clicks to the
    government site from that portal, that user is now in the
    government site and all those conditions that government sites
    have prevail.
        For this industrial-strength access and customized
    formatting, the portal pays Fed-Search a nominal charge to
    process the search, a sum designed to simply cover costs. The
    portal provides its own bandwidth to Fed-Search, and Fed-Search
    provides proprietary software, engineering support and training
    to the portal, guaranteeing optimal performance of the portal.
    The portal still adheres to FirstGov principles.
        As of Friday--and in my testimony I think I have 178
    companies--that number is now 226, I believe, companies and
    nonprofits have already shown serious interest in becoming
    FirstGov partners. They know the conditions, and they see the
    value. We are pleased because we feel this validates our
    initial thinking that offering access to the index could result
    in innovative, new, citizen-centric business models that were
    not previously feasible.
        The FirstGov partners program is not a mystery. It is just
    what I described and has been for weeks. When we first
    introduced the idea, we listened to the concerns and excitement
    from all quarters and have responded by modifying the
    partnership concept and conditions substantially to make it the
    best we could.
        Mr. Chairman, I consider this a proud moment for the
    Federal Government. I hope you do, too. In just a week,
    FirstGov has captured the imagination of tens of thousands of
    people. By now, citizens have likely made over a million visits
    to the FirstGov.gov portal. Many have told us how much they
    like it and a few things we should get better at.
        Thank you again for your constant attention to the efforts
    of so many to making a better government. It makes it easier
    for people to do what they need to do and uses their money
    wisely.
        Mr. Horn. Is that the statement?
        Mr. Barram. That's my statement.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Barram follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.006

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.007

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.008

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.009

        Mr. Barram. I would like to do a quick little demo.
        Mr. Horn. All right. Go ahead.
        I want to ask Ms. Katzen, you have to leave when?
        Ms. Katzen. 11:05.
        Mr. Horn. OK. 11:05. Because I want to make sure we have
    enough for 20 minutes of questioning before you leave. So I
    will have to interrupt some of the presenters, but go ahead,
    Mr. Barram.
        Mr. Barram. Let me take just a minute.
        What you see up on the screens on the two sides of you, and
    up front you can see it on yours, is a picture of the FirstGov
    page. I trust many of you have already seen it. It looks good,
    and it is very functional.
        Do something, Bill, anything.
        He just typed in the words ``Social Security,'' and up came
    a list of results. He is clicking on the first one, and it
    takes you to the Social Security page and the top 10 most
    requested services from Social Security on-line. So click,
    click and we were there.
        Now he is back at the FirstGov home page. He clicked on
    featured subject under severe weather and got to the second
    page under severe weather and is looking for Hurricane Keith, I
    think.
        This is a NOAA page, National Hurricane Center. So we are
    into the Department of Commerce's NOAA's page now, and there it
    is. It is still down there circling around the Yucatan, not a
    place to be.
        We could do 2 hours of this. That's enough. You get the
    idea. We will have it available. If there are other questions
    you can ask about, we can find it. Find out how many times you
    are listed, Mr. Chairman, in the government Web pages.
        Mr. Horn. Just so they aren't in Federal prison pages.
        Dr. Brewer, it is a great pleasure to have you here. You
    have a very distinguished record. Please make your
    presentation, and that will help round out on the positive
    side.

      STATEMENT OF ERIC BREWER, FOUNDER AND CHAIRMAN, THE FEDERAL
      SEARCH FOUNDATION, CO-FOUNDER AND CHIEF SCIENTIST, INKTOMI
                                 CORP.

        Mr. Brewer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Turner. I am
    really glad to have this opportunity to speak to you today
    about the Federal Search Foundation.
        The free flow of information is a basic tenet of American
    government. Freedom of speech, our judicial system and even the
    basic principles of capitalism all revolve around the free flow
    of information. The Internet is the greatest tool for this flow
    in the history of the world; and, as such, it can be the most
    potent ally for the citizens since the Constitution itself.
        The mission of the Federal Search Foundation is not just to
    build a government search engine but rather to catalyze an
    Internet-enabled government. We seek to empower citizens with
    comprehensive, unbiased information and interactive services
    that make government more responsive to the public. The
    creation of a comprehensive search engine and its inspiration
    of the FirstGov portal are the first steps toward this goal.
        Early in my career as a faculty member at UC Berkeley, I
    received Federal assistance in the form of a DARPA research
    grant. This grant led to novel search technology, which led to
    Inktomi, an Internet infrastructure company, and then led to
    the Federal Search Foundation. Thus, in creating the
    Foundation, I am giving something back while I also hope to
    promote truly American values of open, participatory democracy.
    In fact, I hope my whole generation of Internet entrepreneurs
    finds equally meaningful ways to give back to society.
        But, by design, the gift is only a catalyst. The FirstGov
    site was not built by me, nor by Inktomi, nor by Fed-Search. It
    was built by the government itself, which is the only reason
    that FirstGov is an important step toward an Internet-enabled
    government.
        The effects of this catalyst continue to grow. In addition
    to the FirstGov site, we have seen increased focus by all three
    branches on their Internet presence, an increase in the quality
    of government sites, and an increase in traffic and feedback.
    The feedback has been overwhelmingly positive. In fact, much of
    the feedback thanks us for sites that existed before FirstGov,
    such as the NOAA site. We simply brought them to the public.
        I hope that others, private and public, will continue the
    momentum and put their own government-related services on-line,
    leading to the same kind of diversity that we see for
    television, radio, and print media. In fact, the Fed-Search
    Foundation hopes that our mission as catalyst will be complete
    in a few years and that we can simply cease to exist. To me,
    the most valuable and personally rewarding part of the gift is
    the confidence it gave Federal employees that they could build
    a great site and that they could do it on Internet time.
        The Internet is a deeply American phenomenon, not because
    of its origin but because it reflects our values. It is the
    ultimate expression of freedom of speech, it is fundamentally
    open, and it has transformed our economy in the classic
    American way, by enabling individuals to achieve their dreams
    through inspiration and hard work.
        I am fortunate to be one such American. I am honored to be
    able to give something back. But, I am even more honored to be
    able to help the government achieve the kind of deep
    understanding and use of the Internet that will promote these
    values well beyond the information age.
        Thank you for your time.
        Mr. Horn. We thank you again, Dr. Brewer. That's very
    generous of you, and we will get into some of those questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Brewer follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.010

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.011

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.012

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.013

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.014

        Mr. Horn. Our next presenter, as we always have at these
    hearings, the very able staff of the U.S. General Accounting
    Office. So we have this morning David McClure, the Director of
    Information Technology Management of GAO. Dr. McClure.

     STATEMENT OF DAVID MCCLURE, DIRECTOR, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
               MANAGEMENT, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE

        Mr. McClure. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Turner, it is a pleasure to
    be here.
        FirstGov represents, I think, an important milestone in
    evolving toward Federal electronic government. There is no
    question about that. Portals like this are being used with
    increasing frequency at all levels of government.
        As is evident from some of the information searches that
    have been presented this morning and in some of the testimonies
    that are being presented to you today, FirstGov is not yet
    overly context sensitive. As is the case with commercial
    Internet searches, the queries on FirstGov can yield hundreds
    and even thousands of URL references, some of which may not
    necessarily be relevant to the information or services that the
    user is looking for.
        However, I think it is very important to point out that the
    capability, the search capability, is not the end game for
    FirstGov. It is an evolving concept, and we would expect many
    opportunities to emerge for increasing the capability and the
    functionality of this site.
        Not all issues associated with running FirstGov today and
    on a permanent basis have been settled, and I just want to
    briefly mention four of those issues to you.
        The first of them deals with maintaining the security of
    the FirstGov Web site itself. Computer and network
    vulnerabilities swell to immense proportions in the Internet
    age. The opportunities to create and cause problems for the
    site accentuate the need for careful, coordinated information
    security planning.
        Based on the available information and discussions we have
    had with GSA, FirstGov representatives and even representatives
    from Inktomi, there are good security measures that have been
    put in place for the FirstGov site. However, there are several
    elements associated with a comprehensive security program that
    are lacking. These include the establishment of a comprehensive
    computer security plan, adequate coordination of security
    measures being supplied by the different contractors that are
    being used for the operation and maintenance of FirstGov, and
    completion and independent validation and verification of risk
    assessments on the site. These are fundamental computer
    security steps.
        FirstGov represents one of the most important national
    sites on the Internet today. Given its visibility and its
    importance, we would urge that these kinds of security measures
    be put in place; and indeed, in conversations with GSA, we are
    confident that a great deal of action has already been
    initiated.
        A second challenge deals with taking reasonable, practical
    steps to ensure that FirstGov does not enhance abuse of the
    government's information resources. We cannot ignore the
    assistance that such a tool provides to those with malicious
    intentions who regularly conduct tedious electronic
    reconnaissance of Federal Web sites in search of information
    that can assist in their wrongdoings.
        FirstGov search results provide perhaps the most
    comprehensive index of all information on the U.S. Government's
    public Web sites. Commercial search engines commonly index only
    a fraction of the government sites and pages. The search
    engine, to be perfectly clear, does not search classified or
    for sensitive information on government sites. That's not its
    purpose. But it is imperative that agencies provide effective
    frontlines of defense by ensuring that their own public Web
    sites do not post or facilitate access to inappropriate
    information, and it is also important that FirstGov itself
    provide an effective reinforcement by considering formal
    policies and procedures to routinely check, identify
    questionable or sensitive materials and removing them as
    quickly as possible from the FirstGov index.
        The point here is not to make FirstGov a governmentwide
    monitor, for computer security or privacy. It is a logical
    extension of what we would consider practical steps that can be
    put in place.
        The third challenge deals with alleviating concerns that
    have been raised about the impact of the government's
    relationship both with the Federal Search Foundation and with
    official partners that are being established in the private
    sector. In 2 to 3 years, when an open, competitive bidding
    process is expected to occur for FirstGov, its systems
    operations, its development and its maintenance, it is
    important for everyone to understand how the transition will
    take place from the current arrangement to that new situation.
    It is also important that policymakers throughout the
    government have assurances that the Federal Government has
    adequate control of how official data from its Web sites are
    being collected and used now by the Federal Search Foundation
    and by whatever vendor or private entity assumes control of
    this project in the future.
        With respect to the official sponsors or partners to
    FirstGov, the board may simply need to explain the advantages
    it sees behind why these partnerships are essential to
    FirstGov's success, given the controversies that can emerge
    with these kinds of relationships.
        The fourth challenge lies with extending, tailoring and
    coordinating access to government information. FirstGov is a
    mechanism that should be adaptable to changing technology and
    to changing needs of users. In its present form, there are
    other government data bases and information that can be
    indexed, more so than the public Web pages that it currently
    searches. These are just issues that need to be addressed as
    the site continues in development.
        Surveys also indicate that an increasing number of Internet
    users prefer to tailor their views of information based on
    their personal needs and preferences. In the public sector,
    legitimate privacy concerns and policies prohibit these
    practices which are conducive to the type of electronic
    interaction and Web page customization that you might want to
    see in the government. So these are, again, issues that need to
    be brought to everyone's attention.
        So let me say, in conclusion, that the FirstGov effort
    represents a significant achievement toward enabling electronic
    government. Larger issues do indeed loom on how to sustain the
    site as a permanent feature of the Federal Government, and it
    takes on even greater significance in today's Internet
    environment.
        An overall management strategy and blueprint for setting
    expectations, showing direction and demonstrating results would
    be very helpful to see. However, this plan should also be
    flexible to allow for creative approaches to accessing
    information and responding to the dynamic technology changes in
    today's environment.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and I will be happy to answer any
    questions.
        Mr. Horn. Thank you. We will get further testimony, I am
    sure, from you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. McClure follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.015

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.016

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.017

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.018

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.019

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.020

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.021

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.022

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.023

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.024

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.025

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.026

        Mr. Horn. Dr. Patrice McDermott is the information policy
    analyst at OMB Watch, and then we will have two more witnesses,
    Mr. Bohannon and Mr. Fleisher.
        Dr. McDermott.

    STATEMENT OF PATRICE MCDERMOTT, INFORMATION POLICY ANALYST, OMB
                                 WATCH

        Dr. McDermott. Good morning. I want to thank you, Mr.
    Chairman and Mr. Turner, for the opportunity today, the fourth
    anniversary of the signing of the E-FOIA, to testify on
    FirstGov, the Federal Government's new Web portal.
        My name is Patrice McDermott. I am a policy analyst at OMB
    Watch, a nonprofit research advocacy organization that works to
    encourage a more open, responsive, and accountable Federal
    Government.
        For more than 15 years, OMB Watch has been calling for
    improved public access to government information, and we have
    encouraged the Federal Government to make use of the new
    electronic technologies to assist in that improved access. But
    even though the Internet has grown increasingly ubiquitous, the
    Clinton administration has done little to make access easy for
    the average citizen--until now.
        FirstGov is an enormously important first step, actually a
    giant leap, in harnessing newer information technologies to
    make the Federal Government more accessible to the public. We
    applaud Dr. Brewer for his commitment to democracy and
    information access, and we applaud the administration for
    listening to and responding to our criticisms during the
    developmental stages of FirstGov.
        We also wanted to recognize, as Ms. Katzen did, that
    FirstGov is built on the significant groundwork that was
    undertaken for several years under the auspices of WebGov, an
    effort with appreciable input from many people both inside and
    outside the government.
        While credit should be given to the President for his
    leadership and his team for getting the task done, this should,
    as others have noted, be recognized as a first step. Our
    submitted testimony describes improvements that still need to
    be made to FirstGov. In that, we also raise a number of
    important policy issues raised by FirstGov, including its
    relationship to the Federal Search Foundation, that have not
    been fully addressed and must be resolved.
        Our review of the FirstGov site can be summarized as
    follows: The search engine is very fast and very impressive,
    but, as Mr. McClure noted, to get search results relevant to
    user requests often requires significant work. Indeed, we often
    found government information for which we were looking more
    easily through other search engines, and in some cases the
    information was not retrieved at all through the FirstGov
    search engine.
        Second, the directory of topics is also a great first step
    but also needs significant work. The topics need refinement,
    and procedures for their being kept up to date need to be
    established. I know that OMB and GSA have some plans for this,
    but it can't depend just on what happens in the agencies.
        The privacy statement on FirstGov is very clear and useful.
    Unfortunately, however, when you click on some other government
    sites from FirstGov, cookies are being sent in a number of
    cases. Although OMB has issued guidelines, strong leadership is
    needed to help agencies uniformly comply with privacy
    protections. The details of some of those sites are in the
    printed testimony.
        Opportunities for feedback for the public to comment on
    various aspects of obtaining government information are readily
    at hand. This is great. While these comments should prove very
    useful, there is still a need to conduct focus groups with
    different types of users to identify ways to improve the
    portal.
        As has been noted and will be talked about also by Mr.
    Bohannon--the subject of his testimony I have seen--the concept
    of certified partners were confusing in earlier presentations
    about FirstGov and is no clearer now that FirstGov is public.
    As the portal is now operational, that is, the rush to get it
    done in 90 days is over, GSA should not rush into these
    partnerships without public debate on what is to be achieved
    and what a partnership truly entails.
        Some other issues about the site. Information about
    FirstGov itself should be improved, which could be done through
    FAQs--frequently asked questions. An example of useful
    information is how often spiders are set to crawl agency Web
    sites. The frequency determines how current information on
    FirstGov is at any point and very likely relates to a problem
    of phantom URLs that we and others have encountered. Also,
    there are questions of what are the criteria for establishing
    links; what the criteria for establishing the priority of what
    appears as search results.
        As I have said, the Web portal is a major accomplishment.
    However, there are a number of major policy issues created or
    highlighted that have been left unattended. These include, is a
    privileged relationship being created? This has been addressed
    by Mr. McClure, and SIIA will address it, and we share many of
    the concerns.
        Access to what? FirstGov needs to address a number of
    access issues. It does not include an easy way to find current,
    timely information, as searches do not capture the context of
    important government data bases such as Federal Register and
    WAIS data bases. And it will not find nor will it notify users
    of the vast amount of government information that exists only
    in print, nor of the records of the Federal Government.
    FirstGov should be an important part of a comprehensive effort
    to maximize access to government information.
        Permanent public access. FirstGov's ability to retrieve
    pages highlights the problem of Web pages that might be here
    today and gone tomorrow. It is possible that Fed Search's index
    data base could help facilitate permanent public access, but
    technology could not solve the policy problems that exist.
        Privacy. As I have noted, a number of Web sites yield the
    cookies----
        Mr. Horn. Ms. McDermott, we are going to have to bring the
    gavel down on the next three, and you are one of them, if we
    are going to get questions, because that's the only way we can
    get it.
    They are all anxious to leave.
        Dr. McDermott. I understand. I thought I had it down to 5
    minutes, but I didn't.
        Mr. Horn. Well, thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. McDermott follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.027

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.028

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.029

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.030

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.031

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.032

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.033

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.034

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.035

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.036

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.037

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.038

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.039

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.040

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.041

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.042

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.043

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.044

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.045

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.046

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.047

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.048

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.049

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.050

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.051

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.052

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.053

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.054

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.055

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.056

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.057

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.058

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.059

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.060

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.061

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.062

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.063

        Mr. Horn. Mark Bohannon--and we can get back to a lot of it
    afterwards. Mark Bohannon, general counsel and vice president,
    Software and Information Industry Association.

    STATEMENT OF MARK BOHANNON, GENERAL COUNSEL AND VICE PRESIDENT,
             SOFTWARE AND INFORMATION INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION

        Mr. Bohannon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Turner, for
    the opportunity to testify today on the FirstGov project.
        We do not come here today believing that either we have all
    the answers or that there is a one-size-fits-all solution to
    this tremendous challenge that Ms. Katzen, Mr. Barram, and Dr.
    Brewer are trying to undertake. Rather, our concern, which you
    find in our testimony and our recommendations, necessary steps
    to improve the project, are actually drawn from the unique
    vantage point of over 1,000 companies in 33 countries who are
    developing the backbone of access to the Web, developing unique
    applications that meet a variety of consumer, educational,
    business and governmental needs. Our members also include many
    of the longstanding publishers in the off-line and digital
    world. We are providing services and products that meet
    virtually every market and every area imaginable, including
    those incorporating information from government sources.
        I also want to emphasize that the vision of e-government
    that has been discussed today, the longstanding policy of this
    administration and as reinforced by Ms. Katzen, is one that
    SIIA shares and is at the forefront of encouraging both in the
    digitization of government and in the provision of services.
        We also want to note that we are very pleased that Director
    Sally Katzen has been given a leadership role in reviewing on a
    governmentwide basis all of these e-government initiatives,
    particularly looking at the possibility which we have growing
    concerns about, that there is increasing competition by the
    government in the provision of electronic and commerce service.
        Mr. Chairman, Mr. Turner, we have stated our concerns on a
    number of occasions, and we would be glad to provide that
    information for the record.
        In our prepared testimony for this hearing----
        Mr. Horn. Without objection, that will be put in the record
    at this point.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.064

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.065

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.066

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.067

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.068

        Mr. Bohannon. Our testimony has been presented for the
    record.
        We also want to note that Mr. Barram was very, very kind
    and gave us a very, very thoughtful response to our earlier
    comments to GSA. With this background and with additional
    information, it is important to understand that we want to
    focus on FirstGov as a system, not merely as a portal, what one
    sees up front. Quite frankly, we could get 10 experts in a room
    and have 15 opinions about what the portal would look like.
        Our focus really is on the system and the implications for
    ensuring that there is access to all government information on
    a timely basis, consistent with legal and public policy
    principles.
        This is a very unique venture by every measure, and we
    commend Dr. Brewer for stepping up. It is not always easy to
    work with the government.
        It is also important to understand that out of this there
    is a special exclusive relationship between the General
    Services Administration and with the not-for-profit Fed-Search
    Foundation. In this exclusive position, the Foundation will
    build, operate and maintain the search engine. They will also
    be responsible for indexing all U.S. Government Web sites. This
    task is not merely technical nor ministerial. It will, in fact,
    determine what citizens see about their government. It will
    also determine what are priority queries and results in this
    process.
        Access to this index and, for that matter, any aspect of
    FirstGov can only be done by being a certified partner. In our
    view, imposing those conditions, regardless of which level you
    are at, is inconsistent with Federal law and policy, including
    the Paperwork Reduction Act, which prohibits agencies from
    restricting or regulating the use, resale, or redissemination
    of public information to the public.
        Moreover, to be a gold or truly certified partner, in our
    view, also requires you to enter into a number of agreements
    with the Fed-Search Foundation. These dual negotiations, we
    need to be cognizant of, create a ripe opportunity for
    confusion. It also raises questions about whether we are all
    benefiting from a gift or, in fact, reimbursing costs that we
    just do not understand.
        It also, based on the information we have today, might
    raise the possibility that many of the existing redisseminators
    or other access providers may have to change their business
    models, their customer relationships, but again these are
    questions that many of those who are interested in
    participating are raising but yet we do not have information at
    this point to answer these questions.
        With the time remaining, let me quickly focus on our
    recommendations.
        First----
        Mr. Horn. Well, could we ask that the things that Ms.
    Katzen should be addressed to, if you feel it hasn't been here,
    we will get back with you, but I don't want us to go without
    questions by both Members.
        Mr. Bohannon. That's fine. I would like to get back to our
    recommendations.
        Mr. Horn. All right, fine.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Bohannon follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.069

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.070

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.071

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.072

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.073

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.074

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.075

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.076

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.077

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.078

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.079

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.080

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.081

        Mr. Horn. Mr. Fleisher, I will give you 1 minute on this,
    and then you can have all you want after we are done, and then
    we will get back to it.
        Mr. Fleisher. Why don't I actually save you that 1 minute,
    and why don't you get to the questions that you want to get to,
    and I can come back to my thoughts.
        Mr. Horn. All right. We will give you plenty of time.
        Ms. Katzen, some of these only you can answer, and that is
    the privacy situation. How many agencies have a privacy policy
    now?
        Ms. Katzen. Virtually all. We had sent out a memorandum
    earlier in the year requiring agencies to post their privacy
    policy on their Web pages, and GAO their report approximately 2
    or 3 weeks ago. I think it was something like 9 sites out of
    2,700 that did not actually have the privacy policy posted, and
    we have been following up with those agencies. So I would say
    virtually all is an understatement.
        Mr. Horn. Now is there one basic approach to this in the
    agencies or are they all different?
        Ms. Katzen. Well, there are differences, but the
    fundamental proposition is that personally identifiable
    information should not be made available without the consent of
    the individual, and unlike the commercial sector, the
    government is subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, which sets in
    place the rules and regulations for privacy information being
    disseminated.
        There are routine uses and other kinds of procedures that
    have been in effect for the last 25 years, where agencies will
    let people know when personal information would be used, and
    those are published in the Federal Register, and there is an
    entire process on that.
        The issue that Ms. McDermott raised and that came up this
    past summer was the use of persistent cookies. These are not
    chocolate chip or oatmeal raisin. They are software devices.
        Mr. Horn. Let's translate that for the layperson.
        Ms. Katzen. I was going to say, they are software devices.
        Mr. Horn. I love pricking bureaucracy.
        Ms. Katzen. It is not my term. It is industry's term, but
    these are software devices that track users over time and over
    different Web sites. Now, there is a reason for this. If you
    don't have this kind of a device, you don't know whether
    somebody is coming to your site 12 times or if 12 different
    people are coming to your site.
        You also heard from Mr. McClure that he would like at some
    point for us to be able to get back to individuals to give them
    updated information. That means we have to know who they are.
    But our position is that, unlike the commercial sector, we
    should not be tracking individual information. You should not
    have to reveal who you are or have some record kept of who you
    are to access government information.
        So one of the conditions that Mr. Barram talked about in
    our policy on partners, and one of the policies of the Federal
    Government and Mr. McClure raised, is our adamant position that
    persistent cookies are inappropriate. Where we find them, we
    take them down.
        Mr. Horn. Let me move from privacy, which we can talk about
    with the Administrator, to the fee structure 2 years from now.
    What is the administration anticipating that the options might
    be and has any guidance gone from OMB to GSA? How are we
    thinking this through? It is a very generous offer that Dr.
    Brewer makes, but 2 years can go fast and pretty soon is
    everybody going to be billed $1 or something to get information
    from the government?
        Ms. Katzen. No. Our anticipation is that as technology
    continues to improve and as FirstGov proves itself, this will
    be something which Congress, in its infinite wisdom, will
    choose to appropriate for so that we can have the funds
    necessary.
        The actual processes to date has been the funds needed to
    set up the first page, the portal, and to administer the site--
    which cost us $1 and there is $165,000 a month to maintain the
    site over the next 2 years--that was achieved by a pass-the-
    hat. I said that we took this to the President's Management
    Council--the chief operating officers of all the major
    agencies, usually the deputy secretaries--and it was
    enthusiastically supported and agencies made contributions to
    fund the maintenance of the portal for the next 2 years out of
    existing funds because we did not have any appropriations for
    this at this time.
        The search engine itself was donated by Dr. Brewer, and his
    arrangement for 2 years from now, or it is almost 3 years, will
    be to leave a lot of options open for how we would proceed, and
    Dave Barram can talk about the kinds of things that we are
    thinking. Two years from now there will be a new
    administration. It will also be, most importantly, after the
    system has been tested. It will depend on whether it works, if
    it is well received and it needs to go forward, and don't want
    to lock anything in now, but there are a variety of options
    available.
        Mr. Barram. Let me add to that. We, as Sally said, we
    passed the hat and I think in fiscal year--and in fiscal 2001
    we are going to pass the hat to cover the costs we have still
    to go in 2001, but for 2002 we should be getting an
    appropriation. That's one point.
        Second, as Sally said, when we get--the agreement we have
    with the Fed Search Foundation, which is an independent,
    private, nonprofit foundation, is that what they are doing, the
    kind of technology they are using, will not be such that it is
    proprietary and can't be assumed by someone else.
        So we will have an open bidding process that will begin.
    The process will begin 6 months before the end of the period,
    which is two, two and a quarter years, or whatever. I forget. I
    don't know exactly the date, but 6 months before that we will
    begin the process to figure out where we go from there.
        And we will--another really important thing is we will have
    been knowing, understanding, collecting information on the
    costs to do it. That's one of the things that Fed Search has
    agreed to, that they will make open the costs of running it so
    that we can have an open, fair bid.
        Now here is something else that we all should always keep
    in mind. Internet time is an amazingly new experience and in 2
    years I am not going to sit here and try to predict what life
    will be like. I don't know how old Inktomi is but they have
    come from not very long ago to an amazing place in the world,
    and technology is growing dramatically, so we don't--there is
    no point, I don't think, in spending a lot of time figuring out
    what the technology is going to be in 2 years, as long as we
    have the right process for someone else, or even Inktomi, to
    take this over. As long as it is there, that's what we have set
    up.
        Mr. Horn. Mr. Barram, I am going to yield the rest of the
    questioning of 10 minutes to my colleague from Texas, Mr.
    Turner. So go ahead.
        Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        First, I want to thank Dr. Brewer for the contribution that
    he has made. I can see you have provided us with something that
    moved us forward on a much more rapid basis than we ever could
    have done without your contribution. To think that this was a
    90-day project and that it succeeded on that timetable is truly
    amazing.
        I do know the sense and motivation that you have, as all of
    us do here in public service, and you have taken your talent
    and have, in your way, attempted to give back some of what you
    have been so fortunate to receive. So for that we are very
    grateful.
        Mr. Brewer. Thank you, Mr. Turner.
        Mr. Turner. I know that some of the questions that were
    raised today are the kinds of issues that this committee and
    all of us would be wise to diligently pursue, because obviously
    your intent in making this gift of a search engine to the
    government has a limited timeframe on it, and understandably
    so.
        But understanding how slow sometimes the government does
    move, we would be best advised to be sure that we are prepared
    to deal with the problems that we face and to make the
    transition that you expect government to make and that has been
    agreed to by you and the GSA.
        I might just ask you, by way of overview, having heard some
    of the comments here today, some of the questions that were
    raised regarding the partners and the arrangements with
    partners, some of the issues regarding whether or not others
    may at the appropriate time be able to bid on an equal footing
    to continue this operation of the search engine, to just share
    with us your general overview and thoughts about the direction
    you see this as the primary donor of this project.
        Mr. Brewer. I would be happy to. To start, I think maybe
    the first place to start is to realize that it has a fixed
    lifetime in part because I want it to be done the right way
    through a normal procurement process that is fair and even and
    internal. It should not be something done outside the
    government. It should be done by the government itself.
        Second, I would point out we have no special relationship
    with the government. The things we are doing is basically
    visiting Web sites to collect information to build a data base.
    Many other companies can and do that now. We are just doing it
    as a foundation, so that we can donate it not only to the
    government but to libraries and schools and other groups.
        In fact, the government has no obligation to use the
    Federal Search engine data base. They can use their own or
    create a new one whenever they like, and I would love to see
    that. There is no attachment to us being the solution. I think
    my only attachment is to getting the process started, which I
    am happy to say we have done.
        So there--in my mind there is no special privilege that we
    have, that we are using public information that anyone else can
    go get from the same Web sites that we get it from.
        Finally, I think it is worth pointing out that we have been
    a bit more practicable than that. We have agreed not to affect
    the requirements for the procurement process so that we are not
    affecting what the requirements are in any way. We will stay
    out of that process, and we have also agreed to continue to run
    our data base not only until the decision for replacement has
    been done but until it has been put in place, so that there is
    no pressure on anyone to hurry up and make a bad decision. So,
    in good faith I think we will run it as long as necessary to
    get all of those things done.
        At the same time, I would like it to be aimed for 2002
    because I think it is one of those things where we ought to
    focus on keeping the momentum, and if we set it at 5 years
    nothing would get done for 3 of them. So let's--it should have
    a fixed time line. That's definitely part of the design.
        Mr. Turner. Could you give us some sense of what we are
    likely to be facing in terms of cost? I know from the testimony
    that we have heard already, the cost of maintaining the Web
    site itself, I believe, Sally, didn't you say it was $165,000 a
    month?
        Ms. Katzen. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Turner. Which has been raised by the agencies pooling
    their resources.
        Obviously, I am sure the agencies would prefer a direct
    appropriation to take care of that some time in the near
    future. But in terms of the cost, the estimated cost of taking
    over and operating the search engine, what range are we talking
    about?
        Mr. Brewer. It is a little hard to tell at the moment
    because it depends on two things that are very hard to predict.
    One is the number of documents on-line, government documents,
    which at the moment is 27 million, but my hope is that number
    will increase dramatically. That will raise the cost pretty
    much proportionately with the number of documents on-line. The
    other one that is hard to predict is the amount of traffic. In
    some sense, the more popular the site is, the more effective it
    is, the more traffic it will have and the more it will cost to
    operate.
        So the underlying costs are tied directly to traffic and
    data base size, neither of which is predictable. That being
    said, I expect in the 2 years that it will cost me on the order
    of $5 million to $10 million. That includes some subsidies from
    both Inktomi and Sun Microsystems, and I obviously hope to
    raise money from many other parties and in-kind contributions,
    all the normal things that a charity would do.
        Mr. Turner. It is obvious that the cost far exceeds just
    the cost that we have talked about already that the government
    has provided by pooling the $165,000 a month, is that right,
    Sally?
        Ms. Katzen. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Turner. Have you all looked at any estimates? Is there
    any way to try to determine what kind of costs we may need to
    be prepared to appropriate?
        Mr. Brewer. The plan is to do exactly that as we gather
    more information, and I think we have the time to do that well.
        Mr. Turner. OK.
        Mr. Brewer. Also, there is a certain inefficiency in the
    fact that we are completely keeping the systems completely
    separate, and so I think there would be some cost reduction if
    you actually did do a full procurement and did it with one
    contractor.
        Mr. Turner. I would like to hear some comments from any of
    you who would like to address this issue. Obviously there are
    reasons for government sites to be accessible at no charge, and
    yet we all know the primary way of funding many of these sites
    is through advertising. Give me, if you will, from your
    perspectives, the pros and cons of operating this site solely
    at government taxpayer expense versus the merits of perhaps--or
    if there are merits of considering some source of private
    outside revenue for support of this type of site.
        Sally, I will start with you.
        Ms. Katzen. Yes, sir. Well, the Paperwork Reduction Act
    makes it quite clear that government information should be made
    available to the citizens at no cost. It was the taxpayers'
    money which generated the data in the first instance and they
    shouldn't have to pay twice to get it back. That philosophy has
    governed our approach to making government information as
    widely accessible as possible at no cost.
        The presence of advertising is viewed as a cost by those
    who are distracted or disturbed by the boxes that flip up or
    the frames that are created around the Web pages to entice
    people to do certain types of activities that are commercial in
    nature.
        Information is, I think, at the heart of our democracy. It
    helps us know better what it is that the government is doing
    and to appreciate in some instances the complexity of that. As
    we move into an information age from an industrial base on
    manufacturing, it does produce certain challenges, and things
    like privacy that the chairman mentioned and security are
    terribly important concerns as we have these interconnected
    networks. But the technology is really giving us a key and it
    is opening the door here for us to be able to have much better
    dissemination of information.
        We just don't believe, and we think the Congress has spoken
    eloquently on the subject, that it should not be paid for.
        Mr. Turner. So that includes any form of consideration of
    advertising on this site of any type, in your view?
        Ms. Katzen. That is in my view, yes.
        Mr. Turner. Does anyone have a contrary view? No one?
        Mr. Brewer. It is certainly worth pointing out that many of
    the partners would be able to have advertising, and I think as
    long as there is one primary source of government information,
    it is OK if there are others that are more economically minded
    and may be more biased.
        Ms. Katzen. They could have advertising on the gold model
    that Dave is referring to.
        Mr. Brewer. And the silver model.
        Ms. Katzen. And the silver model, on their own pages,
    because they are creating value added and that's their
    compensation for their value added. But as to the underlying
    documents, which are the government's property, those are to be
    accessible without charge.
        Mr. Turner. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Horn. Let me just ask and maybe we pursued it but not
    enough, if the data bases are not in the public domain, what
    impact does that have on the control of FirstGov and access to
    government information?
        Ms. Katzen. Well, actually the data base is in the public
    domain, because what the search engine does is spider documents
    that the agencies in the first instance have determined to make
    on-line. Dr. Brewer's hope is that agencies will put more
    documents on-line, but right now the agency makes the
    determination, puts them on-line, and then the spider picks
    them up and brings them into the data base. Those are all
    public documents, and any citizen can go to the FirstGov page
    and get access to any of them. It is absolutely free and it is
    in the public domain. That is not an issue.
        If others want to add value, if they want to do this in a
    different way by asking questions rather than by keyword
    search, if they want to use a different model, and there is a
    number of them and we would like to see as many models bloom as
    possible, we are hoping that universities will do so. We are
    hoping that the private sector will do so--we have done a lot
    in this administration on public-private partnerships, and this
    is one place where we think there is a golden opportunity. We
    are going to give it to you straight, and they can add whatever
    value they want in whatever size they want, but the data are
    all in the public domain. And that's why I disagree with Mr.
    Bohannon about the Paperwork Reduction Act. I think that it is
    quite clear that this is not a violation.
        If I could just add one more thing, sir, before regrettably
    I do have to go, I agree with a number of the comments that
    have been made about what things we have to think about as we
    mature the system. I am particularly sympathetic to the call
    for clarifying or explaining how the partnerships work, and how
    the data base will be developed over time and 2 years from now.
    It seems that no good deed goes unpunished. When we first
    started on this process, Dave Barram put together in his own
    PowerPoint an explanation of what this thing could look like,
    and to get feedback we put it out; in response, we got all of
    these questions and concerns that we now understand how they
    could have raised those questions, but that was not what we had
    been planning. It was not what we were thinking about.
        The speed with which we have tried to put this up and get
    it started, and this is just a start, has meant that we have
    spoken our language, maybe bureaucratic, maybe technical. We
    have used shorthand for what we are thinking, and I agree
    completely with the need to go slowly now to clarify.
        Mr. Horn. Now on that point, is it OMB or GSA that would
    develop a strategic plan that included anticipated
    capabilities, costs, revenues and responsibilities?
        Ms. Katzen. This would be the responsibility of the
    FirstGov board on which I sit and Dave Barram sits, as do
    several other members of the PMC, the President's Management
    Council, and several of the CIOs from the relevant committees
    of the Chief Information Officers Council. That board has been
    meeting more than some of us would like, and we are going to
    continue to do that.
        Mr. Horn. You are going to expose Dr. Brewer to
    bureaucracy. They don't have that in Silicon Valley. They are
    doing things.
        Mr. Barram. But he might have it at Berkeley, though. He
    may know about this.
        Ms. Katzen. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Horn. You are quite welcome. Thank you for coming.
        Mr. Barram. Can I just add one thing to what Sally said.
    She answered your question about who had the documents, the
    public domain. What the Fed Search Foundation does is bring
    back full text copies of all 27 million pages into a data base,
    and from that people can search. They are simply copies of all
    the data on the government's pages. So when you are given a--
    when you ask a question, it comes back and says, you will find
    what you want at the URL of, and you go to that and now you are
    in the Federal Government page, which is in the public domain.
        So for a moment these pages, the copies of these pages, are
    in Fed Search's possession, if you will, but anybody can get to
    those, the originals of those pages, and does.
        Mr. Horn. Dr. Brewer, let me ask you this question: As I
    understand it, the search engine donated by the Federal Search
    Foundation includes a massive index data base. Now, who owns
    this data base and can anyone gain access?
        Mr. Brewer. Let's see. It is a bit complicated, frankly.
    The data base, although it contains public documents, is in
    fact a separate and new creation done by a private foundation
    with private funding. So technically the Fed Search Foundation
    has created this piece of intellectual property.
        That being said, we want people to use it. Therefore, we
    give it away, not only to the government but to libraries and
    schools and in particular to anyone else the government tells
    us to, a module of constraints which I will get to but roughly
    that was the premise of the partner program. We are in some
    sense agnostic about the definition of the partner. We simply
    want to have the government decide what an appropriate partner
    is rather than us having to decide.
        So the thing that is, I think, subtle is because this is a
    privately owned data base. In fact, we are not allowed to give
    it to other corporations and we are not allowed to subsidize
    their business. That's specifically against the rules about
    charities.
        So we can give it to them at cost, which we are happy to
    do, but we cannot--we cannot subsidize their businesses. So if
    they go through the government sites, FirstGov or any other
    government site, then they can have it free because we are
    subsidizing the government or the library or the school. If
    they want direct access to do their own portal with this
    information without going through the government, they can do
    that but now it is a relationship to an ongoing business and we
    cannot subsidize them.
        We will provide it at cost, but that's really our only
    issue.
        Mr. Horn. Well, they are patented or copyrighted, the
    software, or what? How does that work?
        Mr. Brewer. In practice, the data base doesn't--isn't of
    any use outside the servers that it runs on. So when you
    actually do a query, the query has to physically travel to the
    data base and then get returned. This is how all Internet
    search engines work. So there is nothing special about this
    from the Fed Search Foundation.
        When we say give access, what we really mean is we will
    have a connection, a network connection, to their servers and
    they can send us traffic to our computers that will send them
    the answers, but these have real costs. There are real
    computers that the stuff has to run on. There is band width we
    have to pay for. We have our own suppliers that have their own
    restrictions that we have to follow, but those are, to some
    extent, those costs.
        Mr. Horn. What kind of security do you have against that
    process so that when our unfriendly people that are engaging
    our networks all over the world, what can you do to stop that
    or slow that down?
        Mr. Brewer. I would say two things. First, the most
    important perhaps is that this is--we only have public
    information. So in some sense the penalty for security
    violations is mitigated by the kind of information that's in
    the data base. That being said, we take very seriously that the
    data base has to be secure, and these are the same constraints
    that existing search engine portals have, and I think our
    experience with groups like AOL and Yahoo has been educational
    and I don't see any reason why the security measures taken in
    those situations wouldn't work well here. So we do take it very
    seriously; firewalls, private access, the whole nine yards. But
    I do have to admit I find some comfort in the fact that it is
    already public data.
        Mr. Horn. Well, do you see your colleagues in Silicon
    Valley, be it East, West, North or South, working on something
    of diversion, shall we say, when that type of signal gets in
    when they really shouldn't have access? And how are those
    doing? It seems to me there will be millions of dollars made
    that way if somebody can figure out how to divert the entry
    systems that we see, whether they are in the Philippines or
    Latvia. We had a whole number from around the world a few weeks
    ago before this committee, and it is happening everywhere.
        Mr. Brewer. I am not quite sure I understand--we don't
    actually run the Web sites themselves so we don't operate the
    FirstGov Web site. The servers we own have very few parties
    that can connect to them and, in fact, one obviously being the
    government, but we don't get traffic directly from end users
    and that makes it much easier to secure.
        So all the traffic of Fed Search today comes through the
    FirstGov portal and we have a direct connection with them and
    can authenticate that connection to know that it really is
    traffic from them. In fact, that's part of the cost of adding
    partners that don't want to go through FirstGov, is that we
    have to then set up a direct connection with their servers for
    the same reasons, to ensure the security and that again has
    real costs that we simply pass on.
        Mr. Horn. So you are saying that despite your system that
    gets access to them, you are saying that those hackers could
    not get into the governmental computers that way, or could
    they?
        Mr. Brewer. When you actually visit--so when you see a
    result page, a set of links, that information has already left
    Fed Search, is now being displayed by a server, in this case
    the FirstGov server. So the information is actually there, not
    at Fed Search, and then when you click on that link you go
    directly from the FirstGov server to the branch or agency
    server. You do not go back to Fed Search at any time during
    that visit. So we have no effect, positive or negative, on the
    security of particular government Web sites.
        Mr. Barram. Let me just add a comment. You will remember
    that when Bill did the demo, you saw the FirstGov page. That's
    FirstGov. That's a government run thing on servers that are
    contracted by the government, with appropriate security. When
    he typed in Social Security, that search went to Fed Search and
    back came a list on FirstGov.gov again. So from Fed Search, the
    lists came back to the government page. When he clicked on the
    top choice, it went to a Social Security site with all the
    security around there.
        It is now two levels away from the Fed Search search
    engine.
        Mr. Horn. So you don't see a problem, and if you do, it is
    up to the government agency to worry about it and not the
    process here?
        Mr. Barram. You know, Eric has described what security they
    have, and it is important that we--they have that security, and
    there are a limited number of people who have pipes into the
    Fed Search engine. The bigger security questions of course are
    at the agency, and in a much less way at FirstGov, but the real
    issues on security are, I think, at the agency level where all
    the Web pages are managed.
        Mr. Horn. Do any of our colleagues on this side, the ones
    that have raised some questions, do you want to ask those and
    we can get an answer to them and complete the record?
        Mr. Fleisher in particular, I feel we have passed you by a
    little bit, but your firm has a very distinguished position
    with this subcommittee. You were our first witness in April
    1996.
        Mr. Fleisher. Thank you. I think the key reason for me
    being here today was to focus on our findings on the digital
    divide. I don't think those are 100 percent tied into the
    detailed level of questions you are asking about FirstGov.
        My 2 cents on it, my firm's 2 cents on it, is that FirstGov
    is a good, powerful, first initiative for the government. We
    are excited to see the government doing what we advised the
    private sector to do, which is go out there and build something
    and get feedback from your constituents, your clients, your
    customers, and then adapt and iterate. That's a pretty
    important process in the Internet world, and we are excited
    seeing the government doing it that way.
        Mr. Horn. Any other thoughts, Mr. Bohannon?
        Mr. Bohannon. Well, if I might have a chance to respond. I
    think there has been a tremendous amount of very useful
    clarification and information provided by all the witnesses.
    Let me try to address a couple of points that have been made.
        First of all, it is very, very helpful from Ms. Katzen and
    Dr. Brewer to point out that some aspects of the data base may
    be in the public domain right now. We still go back, I think,
    to recognizing that as this unique gift was provided to the
    U.S. Government it is still nonetheless a special exclusive
    relationship between GSA and the Fed Search Foundation. If, in
    fact, there is a genuine offer by the Fed Search Foundation to
    make both the data base of original URLs, as well as any index
    that has been further developed based on any particular
    technology available at cost, we are very willing to sit down
    and discuss that.
        The problem right now, and this is, I think, at the heart
    of why we need to sit down, get a strategic plan, understand
    what everyone's responsibilities are, is that right now you are
    being given two choices. You can either become a certified
    partner or not, and we clearly have concerns that the only way
    in which this information will be disseminated is if you agree
    to both GSA's and the Fed Search Foundation's conditions.
        With all due respect to Ms. Katzen, we do not believe that
    the Paperwork Reduction Act should be interpreted merely by
    saying if one document is available with those conditions the
    law is met. We believe that the Paperwork Reduction Act applies
    to all government information, not just a couple of examples
    that can be pointed out.
        Clearly, and we have a number of recommendations which you
    can read in the testimony, I think we need to have a very real
    discussion with the Fed Search Foundation, with GSA, about
    making sure that bulk access to the index which has been
    enhanced by the Foundation is available, in our view, under
    existing government rules, at marginal cost. We need to sit
    down and make sure there is access to that without having in
    every instance to meet the conditions that have been imposed by
    GSA, nor inherently to rely on the technological
    implementations that may, in fact, be offered right now for
    access. I think that is a real discussion that we need to have.
    I think that will go far toward addressing a number of concerns
    making sure that there is independently available information
    that is not designed in a particular way that may affect what
    citizens see.
        I think that is one very, very important discussion that is
    worth focusing on. We appreciate very much the opportunity to
    have this clarified because it has been very helpful and this
    will allow some of the companies who do have a lot of interest,
    who are members of our association, to know more about what
    kind of business deal they are getting into.
        I think that's the kind of information that we need to the
    strategic plan, making sure that the way the GSA is
    implementing this is done consistent with legal parameters,
    with the goal of ensuring a diversity of information sources.
    That is what is in the public interest here, and we appreciate
    the candid answers today.
        Mr. Barram. Can I make a couple of comments in response?
        Mr. Horn. Sure.
        Mr. Barram. I appreciate Mark's both recognizing this as a
    valuable beginning--and I can assure, and I think he knows,
    that we are very eager to talk with anybody, and this
    association is especially important because of the number of--
    because of the companies involved and their involvement in this
    whole industry. We have absolutely no intention of not
    communicating in the most thorough way we can. We have tried--
    if we have been a little bit less than fully thorough with--I
    don't know if you put those words together--but with them, it
    is only because of the kind of time pressure we have been under
    to get there, but we have listened carefully to their concerns
    all along the way.
        And as he noted, as I have noted, this is the beginning.
    What this looks like 12 months from now, we are going to look
    back and ask ourselves, what was all that stuff about in
    October 2000 that we were scrambling about? So we are going to
    be partners on this, as you are and all of us, as we go ahead.
        Mr. Horn. Well, when you started with that question I was
    going to praise you for all the good contracts you get at the
    GSA and we take advantage of them in Congress, just as they do
    in the executive branch, when it comes to airplane tickets,
    communications with computers and telephones and all the rest
    of it. So you do a great job with your team.
        Mr. Barram. Thank you. Let me just make one more quick
    comment. We have talked a lot about GSA today and I want to
    make sure everybody does understand there is a board of
    directors at FirstGov that is made up right now of 11 people
    from a number of different agencies. We have been doing a lot
    of the work at GSA and we are housing it at GSA. We are the
    right place to do that, but this has been an interagency
    involvement, driven by the PMC. So for shorthand, you can use
    GSA. Think of it as the FirstGov board that is setting policy
    and at times into the deep details.
        Mr. Horn. Any other thoughts here, Mr. Fleisher?
        Mr. Fleisher. No.
        Mr. Horn. Well, thank you very much for coming. Sorry it
    was sort of disjointed to get your testimony.
        Mr. Fleisher. No problem. Happy to be here.
        Mr. Horn. I looked at your document and that's wonderful.
        Mr. Fleisher. If we could just be sure that would get into
    the record that would be terrific.
        Mr. Horn. All of these automatically go into the record the
    minute we introduce you.
        Mr. Fleisher. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Fleisher follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.082

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.083

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.084

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.085

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.086

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.087

        Mr. Horn. Dr. McDermott, any other thoughts? And then Mr.
    McClure is the wind up.
        Dr. McDermott. I think the only thing we would add is that
    we heard today, and we have heard previously, that anybody can
    spider government agency Web sites to the depth that Fed Search
    has been allowed to, and that has, from what we hear--we
    haven't tried doing that, that has not been the experience of
    outside government entities that want to do that.
        We have also been told that nobody else wants to do that to
    the depth that Fed Search has, and I don't know if that's true,
    but we would want to have a question addressed whether that is
    the case that anybody could go into that depth as frequently as
    it seems that Fed Search is being permitted to do it, and if
    GSA or whoever facilitated this for Fed Search would also be
    willing to facilitate it for other entities, private sector or
    nonprofit.
        Mr. Brewer. I would be happy to address that. We have got
    every single document by spidering. There is no document data
    base we didn't get any other way than by going to visit the Web
    site ourselves. So anybody can do this. You don't even need to
    be a corporation. A grad student can do it.
        We did warn agencies that we would be visiting the sites,
    but that's actually not required on the Internet. People can
    visit as much as they want.
        Dr. McDermott. But we have heard that agencies block
    outside government folks from coming in and spidering because
    of system demands, for all sorts of reasons, that we have been
    told that by Web people.
        Mr. Brewer. I believe that we follow the same blocking
    restrictions. However, if there is stuff that we have crawled
    that for some reason you can't get to, it is not that hard to
    get the raw files. But I do want people to understand that we
    are going to do it one way and if you want to use our servers,
    you can do it at cost if you are a business. If you want to do
    it a different way, go do it a different way. There is nothing
    stopping you.
        Dr. McDermott. It was just a question.
        Mr. Brewer. I would be happy to help remove any such
    boundaries. Again, this is a catalyst.
        Dr. McDermott. This is not aimed at you.
        Mr. Brewer. Yes. I think it is definitely worth a
    discussion, but you have a lot of options here. You can
    partner. You can do it yourself. You can get it from us at
    cost, but we are in fact, you know, still just a charity and we
    can't subsidize other businesses, and in some sense they are
    not entitled to the data base. We are giving it to them because
    that furthers the goals here.
        Mr. Barram. Let me just add one thing to that. You know,
    there are a number of search indexes that have collected
    government pages. They just don't have all 27 million. You
    know, the example I have used is that there may well be a page
    that a scientist somewhere put up that describes how he created
    garlic flavored ice cream. If you are a commercial Web search
    engine, you may think I don't think I want to spend any time
    chasing that down because my customers don't really care. So
    economically, you are going to have many fewer pages.
        Mr. Horn. Usually, we can't hear the witness. Not only is
    it cookies, it is balloons popping.
        Mr. Barram. So anyway, there are a number of search engines
    out there that have searched a number of government pages. We
    just have them all through this mechanism.
        Dr. McDermott. I just wanted to say----
        Mr. Horn. Let me ask Dr. Brewer this. In 2 years when the
    Fed Search Foundation dissolves, would a new contractor have to
    develop this data base from scratch?
        Mr. Brewer. I am happy to discuss it with them but in
    practice, yes, because they will have their own software
    systems and the data gets stale anyway. It is not like you can
    take a snapshot of it and say this is it, here it is. It
    changes every single day. But I think, you know, there are ways
    you could help that transition, but it really depends on who it
    is and what system they are using. But again we did it in 90
    days. They could do it in 90 days, too. It is not
    insurmountable.
        Mr. Horn. Mr. Fleisher, in your written testimony you
    mention that a number of the public and private policy
    initiatives are currently addressing the digital divide. Could
    you provide a couple of specific examples of that?
        Mr. Fleisher. I think in particular there has been a focus
    on trying to get publicly available Internet access through
    libraries and kiosks, and I think that has been a key public
    policy focus. We believe that is a good first step, but just as
    you can understand how--and a number of studies have shown how
    when children have Internet access at home they do better in
    the school than when they have Internet access only at school.
    The same is true for the adult population.
        Mr. Horn. When I saw that, I thought wouldn't it be
    wonderful if the child comes home from school, can press the
    buttons and get access that there would be a literacy program,
    perhaps, for their parents? It seems to me that would be a
    worthwhile educational endeavor because a lot of them are
    completely illiterates, not just in what they are doing with
    the computer--they can do that with a few things--but their own
    lack of literacy and that would really help a lot.
        Mr. Fleisher. We believe that anything that we can do to
    find the 50 million U.S. adults that we believe in the next
    several years will still be without access and help those
    people have access to the myriad of programs, whether it is
    FirstGov or others that will become available, is, you know,
    one of the most important tasks at this point. Those people
    will truly be left behind because, as you point out, it is the
    new illiteracy.
        Mr. Horn. Yes.
        Mr. McClure, do you want to wind it up?
        Mr. McClure. Yes, I have just two comments to make, Mr.
    Chairman. One is in response to a question you posed a moment
    ago about the importance of security. Again, in my written
    statement and in my oral statement, I was making reference to
    security provided on the FirstGov site. I do agree with Mr.
    Barram that obviously the protection of the agency sites is the
    real site of activity where you want stringent computer
    security measures in place. As FirstGov evolves, and it could
    indeed become the central portal for the U.S. Government for
    the citizen to access government, it is critically important
    that security, even of the FirstGov site itself, be maintained
    so that it is reliable, it is stable and it is not subjected to
    any kind of obstruction or tampering.
        Also, the data base that is maintained either by Fed Search
    or by some other private entity contains a voluminous amount of
    government information, and as other contacts are made with
    that data base which are potentially going to take place in the
    future, the security of that data base will be important. It is
    not a trivial matter or task, regardless of the fact that it is
    publicly available information already.
        I also wanted to mention to Mr. Turner in his question a
    moment ago about the use of advertising, there are two studies
    that we can submit to you for the record. One is from NASIRE,
    who you have testify rather regularly in front of this
    committee, representing the State CIOs. They have conducted a
    study which I think is very useful for the committee to look at
    on the use of portals in State government. Most State portals
    are being maintained and built by the State governments
    themselves. There are others that are maintained totally by
    vendors. Of those that are being maintained by vendors,
    transaction fees are commonly being allowed to be used to pay
    for the cost of the operation and maintenance of those sites,
    and I think that information is just good to have in front of
    you.
        The second is a study that has just been released by
    Professor West at Brown University, in which they focused on a
    survey of 1,800 public Web sites, State, local and Federal, and
    they found in roughly 2 percent of those Web sites advertising
    is allowed. This would be obviously the State and local sites.
        So advertising is taking place on government Web portals at
    the State and local level; again, a reference point and perhaps
    the two studies can shed some information.
        Mr. Horn. Well, without objection we will have those
    studies put in the record at this point.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.088

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.089

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.090

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.091

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.092

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.093

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.094

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.095

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.096

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.097

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.098

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.099

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.100

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.101

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.102

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.103

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.104

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.105

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.106

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.107

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.108

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.109

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.110

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.111

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.112

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.113

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.114

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.115

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.116

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.117

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.118

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.119

        Mr. Horn. What have you learned in looking at those?
    Because there has been a big discussion within the educational
    systems K through 12, should there be advertising in the
    classroom, this kind of thing.
        Mr. McClure. We haven't really looked at it to any great
    extent. It is something that obviously I think is worthy of
    people to examine and see how advertising policies are being
    pursued and the ramifications of it. Quite honestly, I think it
    is a growing topic of importance as they look at the funding
    for those portals in the future.
        Mr. Horn. Does the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Turner, want
    to wind it up?
        Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to get
    some comments perhaps from Dr. Brewer, maybe Mr. Barram, to
    give us some sense of where this may lead us. I have the sense
    this was just a first step. Obviously we have access now to
    information from all agencies of government at one site through
    this search engine, and yet the ultimate goal is to make
    government more consumer friendly to allow the citizens to do
    business with their government over the site, and how do you
    view this as an element of moving us down that road more
    rapidly than we otherwise would be able to go?
        Mr. Brewer. You are right to ask both of us. I can speak to
    our part. I think the most important thing here is that we have
    now got agencies thinking about how they appear on the Web, how
    they want to be found and how they want to interact with the
    citizens. Frankly, that has never happened before, and I think
    that's just incredibly powerful.
        So there are lots of things I think that could be better
    about FirstGov and Fed Search and the sites themselves. It
    increases in relevance, a more longterm relationship with
    citizens rather than just their each individual visit. Of
    course, that has privacy implications so it has to be done with
    their knowledge. But I think that's the kind of trust you want
    to build with the citizens, where they do trust you with some
    of their private information because they want you to know who
    they are.
        So I think it is a very powerful road we can follow, but it
    starts with people caring, people in government and other
    places as well, caring about how citizens interact with the
    government. I think this is the most important effect of
    FirstGov so far, and in the long-term its main effect will be
    this just getting people to ask the questions. I think where
    the answers go, I don't know but, boy, I am glad we are asking
    the questions.
        Mr. Barram. Can I add to that? On Flag Day of 1996 at GSA
    we gave everybody access to the Internet. We decided to do it
    and did it in a month or 2 months. Many people said what is
    that all about? And if you look now 4 years later, the people
    of GSA who have been using this technology, because it was the
    tool in the last part of the 20th century and now in the first
    part of this one, it was essential to the kind of productivity
    we wanted. People are doing the same things better but much
    more--and quicker, but much more they are doing totally
    different things; interacting, communicating, playing, being
    productive in totally different and better ways.
        So agencies are going to get better, as Eric said. I think
    we will see a real push toward more citizen-centric
    interaction, interface with their government and this will be a
    major tool.
        I was in Oregon this weekend for a wedding for my nephew,
    and one of my other sisters-in-law home schools her three
    children and she is very excited about FirstGov as a way to get
    to lots of information quickly. Her kids are very good at using
    this technology and it is a wonderful tool for them.
        I am not sure I thought about that 90 days ago. So we are
    going to see lots of things like this happen where people are
    able to use the technology better and get to the government
    information better, and I think we will be very happy about
    that.
        The most important thing is for us to do it, make it better
    and learn what people need and make it available.
        Mr. Horn. Well, Dr. Brewer, we thank you for your
    generosity and for getting some action in this area, and I am
    sure it will be followed throughout the country.
        I want to now thank the staff that put this hearing
    together from both the majority and the minority. J. Russell
    George, staff director, chief counsel; and to my left, your
    right, for this particular hearing Randy Kaplan, counsel; Ben
    Ritt, detailee from the General Accounting Office on our staff;
    Bonnie Heald, director of communications; Bryan Sisk, the clerk
    who moves those mics around and gets our ears back in sync;
    Elizabeth Seong, staff assistant; George Fraser, Trevor Pedigo,
    and Rachael Reddick, interns. You can see in the summer and
    fall we get a lot of great interns, almost at nothing, but
    experience is a lot. With the minority staff, Trey Henderson is
    the counsel for Mr. Turner; Jean Gosa, minority clerk; and the
    court reporter this morning is Mindi Colchico. We thank you for
    all you have done over the years with us.
        So with that, we are now adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [Additional information submitted for the hearing record
    follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.120

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.121

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.122

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.123

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.124

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.125

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4926.126