OMB urged to educate lawmakers on e-gov funding
The Office of Management and Budget needs to press Congress harder if it wants them to fund interagency e-government projects adequately, two former federal technology officials said Monday.
In a vote on the 2004 Transportation and Treasury budget bill (S. 1589), the Senate last week allotted $5 million to the interagency e-government fund, $40 million below the amount requested by OMB. The House version of the bill grants the interagency fund $1 million.
Given these figures, House-Senate negotiators are likely to arrive at a final amount well below that requested by the administration and authorized in an e-government bill signed by President Bush on Dec. 17, 2002. The 2002 E-Government Act granted $345 million to fund interagency technology initiatives over four years, allowing $45 million for fiscal 2003, $50 million for fiscal 2004, $100 million for fiscal 2005 and $150 million for fiscal 2006.
Last year, Congress undercut OMB's request by $40 million. To ensure lawmakers do not shortchange the fund in future budget cycles, the administration will need to undertake an extensive "education" effort on Capitol Hill, said George Molaski, former chief information officer of the Transportation Department. Molaski is now president and chief executive officer of E-Associates LLC, a technology consulting company in Falls Church, Va.
OMB has not spent enough time teaching lawmakers about the interagency fund, Molaski said. Congressional appropriators, accustomed to funding agency-specific projects, are "naturally hesitant" to support interagency funds, he explained. They "don't know where the money's going," and do not understand how the interagency pool relates to money already granted on an agency-by-agency basis.
Karen Evans, OMB's new technology chief, will need to visit key offices on Capitol Hill and make a strong business case for the interagency fund, Molaski said. Evans could also seek help from industry lobbyists, he said, though some may prove reluctant to support interagency projects. These projects often involve consolidation, which increases efficiency but can result in fewer opportunities for IT contractors to bid on work, he explained.
"It's got to be communicated that [the interagency fund] is a high priority," said Paul Brubaker, a partner at ICG Government, a Reston, Va.-based consulting and market research firm, and former deputy CIO at the Defense Department. "[OMB] can choose to play hardball if it wants to."
OMB essentially needs a new "marketing plan" for selling interagency e-government projects to lawmakers, Brubaker said. Congress' lack of support for the fund demonstrates that "somewhere the case wasn't made that this was an investment that would yield any sort of return," he said. OMB needs to convince lawmakers that they would not be giving out a "blank check," he added.
OMB did not respond to a request for comment on e-government funding. But in a policy statement about the Senate version of the Transportation-Treasury budget bill, OMB urged lawmakers to "support the president's $45 million request for this important component of the president's management agenda." Results from the "modest" amounts invested to date demonstrate that interagency fund "can bring significant improvements across agencies while reducing the need for each agency to reinvent the wheel," the statement said.
By underfunding e-government projects, Congress risks impeding progress on some initiatives, according to David Marin, a spokesman for Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va. For instance, the General Services Administration's e-authentication project, the subject of recent criticism from the General Accounting Office, has suffered from a lack of adequate funding, he said. "More money will mean fewer problems [with initiatives]."
"By continuously shortchanging these initiatives, the government is being pennywise and pound foolish," Marin added. "This is an investment that will save money and increase efficiency in the long haul."
Marin attributed the failure of lawmakers to support the interagency fund to an "education problem," echoing Molaski and Brubaker's observations.
Davis, chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, has urged colleagues to grant the administration's requests for e-government funding. But "in the past, the Appropriations Committee has said it opposed full funding because [the funding] is duplicative," Marin said.
"The e-gov fund is far from duplicative," Marin said. "In fact, it can help overcome duplication and redundancy. And members and staff need to know that."