FEDERAL INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND PLANS IMPLICATIONS AND ISSUES (Part 3) TUESDAY, JANUARY 29, 1974 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, FOREIGN OPERATIONS AND GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 2203, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. William S. Moorhead (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives William S. Moorhead, Bill Alexander, James V. Stanton, and Gilbert Gude. Also present: William G. Phillips, staff director; Norman G. Cornish, deputy staff director; and Stephen M. Daniels, minority professional staff, Committee on Government Operations. Mr. MOORHEAD. The Subcommittee on Foreign Operations and Government Information will please come to order. The subcommittee today begins a third and final series of hearings on Federal use of advanced information and communications technology. Today, and on January 31 and February 5 we expect to conclude this investigation which was initiated 1 year ago. During the course of hearings held in April, June, and July of 1973, the subcommittee's inquiries turned up a large number of problems and questions regarding advanced information and communications technology-some might say too many. We learned, I think, that the general questions of how well, and how much, the Federal Government is making good use of these technologies will not easily be resolved. It became apparent that, as a practical matter, the subcommittee could not attempt to investigate and analyze all aspects of this complex matter at this time. Instead, we determined that it would be most useful to select a number of issues and invite a final group of witnesses to address those issues that are considered to be the most important and most in need of resolution. The issues selected as the focus of these hearings cover five key areas: (1) the degree of sophistication of information technology used by Federal agencies; (2) the effectiveness of Federal research and development efforts in this area; (3) safeguards for private information in Federal systems; (4) public access to information in Federal systems; and, (5) Federal structures for planning, designing, and regulating the use of this technology by the Government itself. A background memo on this subject is inserted, without objection, at this point in the record. [The memo follows:] ISSUES CONCERNING FEDERAL USE OF INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY (Prepared by Charles E. Bosley, Consultant, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress) The subcommittee's investigation of the Federal use of information and communications technology has turned up a large number of problems and questions. Many were cited either briefly or at length in hearings held in April, June, and July 1973. Others were identified in responses to questionnaires sent to all Federal departments and agencies to survey government use of this technology. (See part 2 of hearings, pp. 774-810). It is difficult, if not impossible, to proceed by attempting to investigate and analyze all aspects of this complex matter simultaneously. As a practical course, it seems useful to select a number of issues for special attention. The following listing singles out issues which might be made the focus of more detailed analysis and consideration. It is not all-inclusive. Other issues pertaining to such problems as surveillance, propaganda, information overload, information integrity, and the like are also of significant importance in this study. Issues are presented in terms of alternative views, each of which was either stated during the course of subcommittee hearings or suggested in another referenced document. In each case, of course, there are other views to be considered. References listed here are limited to the hearing record and a preliminary report on the subcommittee's survey of Federal uses of technology. They are not intended to be even a partial bibliography of sources. Issues are not stated separately for information technology and then repeated for communications, although these different aspects of each question must be addressed. ISSUE Extent of use of information and communications technology by the Federal Government: Most agencies are using as much technology as they can, given their size and function. Use of technology by many agencies-particularly those running social programs should be increased substantially. Some agencies are using more technology than can be justified in terms of cost efficiency *** in terms of improved services. REFERENCES 1. Subcommittee hearings, pt. 2-Commerce Department answers to supplemental questions. 2. Library of Congress, Preliminary Report on Survey of Federal Use of Information and Communications Technology, Oct. 30, 1973; subcommittee hearings, pt. 2, app. 4. ISSUE Kinds of applications of information and communications technology by Federal agencies: The Federal Government, on the whole, is taking the lead in using advanced applications of technology. Only certain agencies-particularly those in Defense, Commerce, Transportation and NASA are making advanced use of technology. Most Federal uses of technology are still quite rudimentary-i.e., listing, sorting, and computing with computers; hard-copy document transmission with communications equipment. REFERENCES 1. Subcommittee hearings, pt. 1, Apr. 10, 1973-Testimony of Dr. Robert M. Fano. 2. Subcommittee hearings, pt. 1, Apr. 17, 1973-Testimony of Herbert S. Dordick, Dr. O. E. Dial, and others. 3. Subcommittee hearings, pt. 1, appendix-digest of "Communications for Social Needs: Technological Opportunities," Library of Congress. 4. Subcommittee hearings, pt. 2, June 26, 1973-Testimony of R. Tenney Johnson of National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 5. Subcommittee hearings, pt. 2-Commerce Department answers to supplemental questions. 6. Preliminary Report on Survey of Federal Use of Information and Communications Technology, Library of Congress, Oct. 30, 1973; subcommittee hearings, pt. 2, App. 4. ISSUE Research and development of information and communications technology by the Federal Government: In general Federal agencies perform well in supporting research and development of new technology and new applications. R. & D. financed by Federal agencies is extensive, but it is not well coordinated, nor well planned. The R. & D. financed by Federal agencies is largely for the use of others, and not utilized by the agencies themselves in performing their own functions. REFERENCES 1. Subcommittee hearings, pt. 1, Apr. 10, 1973-Testimony of Dr. Donald L. Bitzer, Dr. Marvin Adelson, and others. 2. Subcommittee hearings, pt. 2, June 19, 1973-Testimony of Robert A. Knisely of Department of Housing and Urban Development. 3. Subcommittee hearings, pt. 2, Appendix-Integrated Municipal Information Systems (IMIS), Government Executives Normative Information Expiditer (GENIE), and other materials. ISSUE Planning and design responsibilities for Federal information and communications systems: Both planning and design of systems should be done by each Federal agency according to its particular need, as it is now. Planning should be supervised by a central agency with authority to assure the best use of technology by all agencies, civil and military, large and small. Designing of systems should be coordinated by a central agency which can supervise interagency advice and assistance as well. REFERENCES 1. Subcommittee hearings, pt. 2, June 26, 1973-Testimony of Sidney Weinstein of General Services Administration and R. Tenney Johnson of NASA. 2. Subcommittee hearings, pt. 2. July 17, 1973-Testimony of John K. Tabor of Department of Commerce. 3. Subcommittee hearings, pt. 2, July 31, 1973-Testimony of Clay T. Whitehead of the Office of Telecommunications Policy. 4. Subcommittee hearings, pt. 2-GSA, NASA, Commerce Department, and OTP answers to supplemental questions. 5. Subcommittee hearings, pt. 2-appendix-policy documents; profile of OTP; and other materials. 6. Preliminary Report on Survey of Federal Use of Information and Communications Technology, Library of Congress, Oct. 30, 1973; subcommittee hearings, pt. 2, App. 4. ISSUE Policy and regulatory responsibilities for Federal information and communications systems: The existing Federal structure for policy management and regulation of information and communications systems is adequate. Authorities of existing management units should be strengthened with respect to all functions *** with respect to handling of private information *** with respect to public access. A new office should be established to centralize management with regard to policies and regulations. REFERENCES 1. Subcommittee hearings, pt. 2, June 26, 1973-Testimony of Sidney Weinstein of GSA and R. Tenney Johnson of NASA. 2. Subcommittee hearings, pt. 2, July 17, 1973-Testimony of John K. Tabor of Commerce Department. 3. Subcommittee hearings, pt. 2, July 31, 1973-Testimony of Clay T. Whitehead of OTP. 4. Subcommittee hearings, pt. 2—GSA, NASA, and Commerce answers to supplemental questions. 5. Subcommittee hearings, pt. 2-appendix-policy documents; profile of OTP; and other materials. ISSUE Separate management of information and communications systems in the Federal Government: Due to the differences in the technologies, information and communications matters can be adequately managed, respectively, by the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Telecommunications Policy. The kind of integrated management that is now developing at lower levels in Commerce Department and GSA will take care of any problems that may arise. In advanced systems information and communications technologies are integrated, and separate management structures only complicate and delay full and best uses. REFERENCES 1. Subcommittee hearings, pt. 1, appendix-Summary of Harvard University program on information technologies and public policy. 2. Subcommittee hearings, pt. 2, June 26, 1973-Testimony of Sidney Weinstein of GSA. 3. Subcommittee hearings, pt. 2, July 17, 1973-Testimony of John K. Tabor of Commerce Department. ISSUE Safeguards for private information in Federal information and communications systems: In general Federal agencies are sensitive to the problem and provide adequate safeguards to protect private information. Safeguards are varied from agency to agency, do not meet any set of general standards, and may be inadequate in any number of cases. The complexities of controlling amounts of private information collected and developing dependable safeguards have not yet received enough attention. REFERENCES 1. Subcommittee hearings, pt. 1, Apr. 10, 1973-Testimony of Dr. Robert M. Fano. 2. Subcommittee hearings, pt. 2, June 19, 1973-Testimony of Robert A. Knisely of HUD. 3. Subcommittee hearings, pt. 2. June 26, 1973-Testimony of Richard D. Shepherd of Social Security Administration and Sidney Weinstein of GSA. 4. Subcommittee hearings, pt. 2, July 17, 1973-Testimony of John K. Tabor of Commerce Department. 5. Subcommittee hearings, pt. 2, July 31, 1973-Testimony of Clay T. Whitehead of OTP. 6. Subcommittee hearings, pt. 2-appendix-reports on IMIS projects in Charlotte and Wichita Falls. 7. Preliminary report on Survey of Federal Use of Information and Communications Technology, Library of Congress, Oct. 30, 1973; subcommittee hearings, pt. 2, app. 4. ISSUE Policy and regulatory responsibilities for private information in Federal systems: Present policies and regulations established agency by agency are adequate, if guidelines are provided. New legislation is needed to mandate standards for agency safeguards. A central agency should have authority to supervise and enforce standards for protection of private information. REFERENCES 1. Subcommittee hearings, pt. 2, July 17, 1973-Testimony of John K. Tabor of Commerce and Ruth Davis of National Bureau of Standards. 2. Subcommittee hearings, pt. 2, July 31, 1973-Testimony of Clay T. Whitehead of OTP. 3. Subcommittee hearings, pt. 2-appendix-Report on NBS studies of privacy standards; Library of Congress report on current legislation pertaining to Federal information on private citizens. ISSUE Extent of public access to information in Federal systems: Use of technology does not require any changes in regulations and procedures with respect to access. Perhaps greater access is possible with technology, but increased access would mean increased costs in staff time and equipment. Technology makes it possible to integrate Federal information systems with others to provide open access to local government, business, private groups, and citizens. REFERENCES 1. Subcommittee hearings, pt. 1, Apr. 10, 1973-Testimony of Dr. Robert M. Fano. 2. Subcommittee hearings, pt. 1, Apr. 17, 1973-Testimony of Herbert S. Dordick and others. 3. Subcommittee hearings, pt. 2, June 19, 1973-Testimony of Joan C. Riordan of General Services Administration. 4. Subcommittee hearings, pt. 2, June 26, 1973-Testimony of Sidney Weinstein of GSA. ISSUE Policy management and regulation of access to information in Federal systems: Existing laws and agency-by-agency regulations are sufficient to assure access as possible and appropriate. Legislation governing access needs to be strengthened to assure that access opportunities provided by technology are fully realized. A central agency should have authority to supervise and regulate Federal information systems to assure the fullest possible access. A central agency with authority over access would have too much control over Government information. REFERENCES 1. Subcommittee hearings, pt. 2, July 17, 1973-Testimony of John K. Tabor of head of OTP. Mr. MOORHEAD. Dr. Branscomb, will you come forward? This being an investigating committee, will you rise so I can administer the oath? Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give this subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Dr. BRANSCOMB. I do. Mr. MOORHEAD. If you would want to abbreviate your statement in any way, please feel free to do so. |