ȱ
ȱŽŽ›Š•ȱ‘’ŽȱŽŒ‘—˜•˜¢ȱ’ŒŽ›ȱ’—ȱ‘Žȱ
‹Š–Šȱ–’—’œ›Š’˜—DZȱ™’˜—œȱŠ—ȱ œœžŽœȱ
˜›ȱ˜—œ’Ž›Š’˜—ȱ
˜‘—ȱǯȱŠ›Ž—ȱ ›ǯȱ
™ŽŒ’Š•’œȱ’—ȱŒ’Ž—ŒŽȱŠ—ȱŽŒ‘—˜•˜¢ȱ˜•’Œ¢ȱ
Š—žŠ›¢ȱŘŗǰȱŘŖŖşȱ
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŝȬśŝŖŖȱ
   ǯŒ›œǯ˜Ÿȱ
ŚŖŗśŖȱ
ȱŽ™˜›ȱ˜›ȱ˜—›Žœœ
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress

ȱŽŽ›Š•ȱ‘’ŽȱŽŒ‘—˜•˜¢ȱ’ŒŽ›ȱ’—ȱ‘Žȱ‹Š–Šȱ–’—’œ›Š’˜—DZȱ™’˜—œȱŠ—ȱ œœžŽœȱ
ȱ
ž––Š›¢ȱ
President Barack Obama has expressed his intention to establish a federal chief technology
officer (CTO). In campaign and presidential transition documents, the President identified several
specific areas of responsibility for a CTO, including transparency of government operations,
computer and network security (sometimes referred to as cybersecurity), identification and
adoption of best technologies and practices by federal agencies, and interoperability of emergency
communications technologies for first responders.
In addition, some commentators have speculated on broader roles that a CTO might be asked to
undertake. In particular, many have raised the question of whether a CTO might go beyond what
might be considered traditional CTO responsibilities and also serve as the lead federal advocate
for technology and innovation-related programs, policies, and investments.
Neither the campaign nor transition documents provide details such as where a CTO would be
located organizationally; whether a CTO would be a single position or supported by a staff,
office, or agency; and how the duties and authorities of a CTO would be aligned and integrated
with existing offices and agencies charged with similar responsibilities, such as the White House
Office of Science and Technology Policy, Federal Communications Commission, and the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration.
A CTO is likely to face a variety of challenges in executing the mission envisioned by the
President. Among the early challenges will be negotiating domains of responsibilities, formal and
informal, within the White House (if that is where President Obama or Congress decides to
establish a CTO) and with executive branch agencies that have overlapping missions. Some
commentators have expressed concerns about the impact a CTO might have on existing offices
and agencies with respect to the allocation and coordination of authorities and responsibilities.
Others commentators have asserted that a high-level CTO could serve as an advocate for
technological innovation and foster increased knowledge sharing among federal agencies to more
effectively implement information technology solutions to meet disparate mission requirements.
The President has not indicated whether he intends to establish a CTO position by executive order
or other administrative process, or whether he will seek legislation. Congress may elect to provide
a statutory foundation for a CTO, define the roles and authorities of a CTO, authorize and
appropriate funds, provide for oversight, and address other aspects of the position.

˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ

ȱŽŽ›Š•ȱ‘’ŽȱŽŒ‘—˜•˜¢ȱ’ŒŽ›ȱ’—ȱ‘Žȱ‹Š–Šȱ–’—’œ›Š’˜—DZȱ™’˜—œȱŠ—ȱ œœžŽœȱ
ȱ
˜—Ž—œȱ
Background ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Potential Scope of Duties and Authorities....................................................................................... 2
Organizational Precedents ............................................................................................................... 4
Agency CIOs, CTOs, and the Chief Information Officers Council (CIO Council) .................. 5
CIO, CTO, and e-Government Positions at OMB..................................................................... 6
National Performance Review/National Partnership for Reinventing Government ................. 6
Department of Commerce Technology Administration ............................................................ 7
White House Office of Science and Technology Policy ........................................................... 8
Potential Challenges ........................................................................................................................ 9
Issues for Consideration by Congress ............................................................................................11

˜—ŠŒœȱ
Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 12

˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ

ȱŽŽ›Š•ȱ‘’ŽȱŽŒ‘—˜•˜¢ȱ’ŒŽ›ȱ’—ȱ‘Žȱ‹Š–Šȱ–’—’œ›Š’˜—DZȱ™’˜—œȱŠ—ȱ œœžŽœȱ
ȱ
ŠŒ”›˜ž—ȱ
In November 2007, Senator Barack Obama announced his intention, if elected president, to
appoint a chief technology officer (CTO). His announcement was accompanied by a campaign
position paper on technology and innovation that included the following description of the role
envisioned for a CTO:
Bring Government into the 21st Century: Barack Obama will use technology to reform
government and improve the exchange of information between the federal government and
citizens while ensuring the security of our networks. Obama believes in the American people
and in their intelligence, expertise, and ability and willingness to give and to give back to
make government work better.
Obama will appoint the nation’s first Chief Technology Officer (CTO) to ensure that our
government and all its agencies have the right infrastructure, policies and services for the 21st
century. The CTO will ensure the safety of our networks and will lead an interagency effort,
working with chief technology and chief information officers of each of the federal agencies,
to ensure that they use best-in-class technologies and share best practices.
The CTO will have a specific focus on transparency, by ensuring that each arm of the federal
government makes its records open and accessible as the E-Government Act requires. The
CTO will also focus on using new technologies to solicit and receive information back from
citizens to improve the functioning of democratic government.
The CTO will also ensure technological interoperability of key government functions. For
example, the Chief Technology Officer will oversee the development of a national,
interoperable wireless network for local, state and federal first responders as the 9/11
commission recommended. This will ensure that fire officials, police officers and
[emergency medical technicians] from different jurisdictions have the ability to communicate
with each other during a crisis and we do not have a repeat of the failure to deliver critical
public services that occurred in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.1
Following his election in November 2008, President-elect Obama reiterated his intention to
appoint a CTO on Change.gov, the website of the Office of the President-elect:
Bring Government into the 21st Century: Use technology to reform government and improve
the exchange of information between the federal government and citizens while ensuring the
security of our networks. Appoint the nation’s first Chief Technology Officer (CTO) to
ensure the safety of our networks and lead an interagency effort, working with chief
technology and chief information officers of each of the federal agencies, to ensure that they
use best-in-class technologies and share best practices.2
Many of the details related to the position remain uncertain. For example, as the Obama
Administration begins implementing policies, some commentators have speculated that a CTO
may be given a broader range of duties and authorities than explicitly specified in these
documents (see discussion on pages 3 and 4 of this report). In addition, neither the campaign

1 Obama ’08, Barack Obama: Connecting and Empowering All Americans Through Technology and Innovation,
November 2007. Available at
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/technology/Fact_Sheet_Innovation_and_Technology.pdf.
2 Website of the Office of the President-elect. Available at http://change.gov/agenda/technology_agenda/.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŗȱ

ȱŽŽ›Š•ȱ‘’ŽȱŽŒ‘—˜•˜¢ȱ’ŒŽ›ȱ’—ȱ‘Žȱ‹Š–Šȱ–’—’œ›Š’˜—DZȱ™’˜—œȱŠ—ȱ œœžŽœȱ
ȱ
position paper nor the transition website addresses organizational issues related to the position,
such as whether President Obama intends to seek legislation to create a statutory foundation for a
CTO position, and whether he intends for a CTO to be a solitary position, a new White House
office with supporting staff, or part of a federal agency or existing White House office. This
report addresses issues related to the potential scope of duties and authorities of a CTO, as well as
other issues Congress may choose to consider if it opts to exert oversight or to develop legislation
to create the position and/or office of a CTO.
˜Ž—’Š•ȱŒ˜™Žȱ˜ȱž’ŽœȱŠ—ȱž‘˜›’’Žœȱ
A fundamental question related to a CTO position is: What would be the scope of duties and
authorities given to this position? Two potential broad roles for a CTO appear to have emerged.
The first role, explicitly articulated on President Obama’s earlier campaign and transition
websites, might be described as a supra-chief information officer with the mission of using
information technology to improve the delivery of government services, increasing transparency
of government policymaking, and opening channels for increased citizen participation in
government, as well as ensuring that the nation’s information and communications (ICT)
infrastructure is robust and secure. In this capacity, a CTO would also ensure that “best practices”
are identified, shared, and implemented across agencies.
The second role for a CTO might be described as an advocate for technological innovation in
support of national interests such as economic growth, job creation, improvements to quality of
life, national defense, and homeland security. Some have speculated that President Obama might
charge a CTO with a wider scope of responsibilities, including development and advocacy of
national ICT policies (e.g., net neutrality, broadband access), 3 technology policies intended to
spur innovation and economic growth, intellectual property enforcement,4 and oversight of a
federally-backed venture capital fund to support deployment of “clean” technologies—
technologies with less environmental impact than ones currently in use—that President Obama
proposed during the campaign.5
This speculation may have been fueled, in part, by two statements. First, the section of the
campaign position paper that first articulated Senator Obama’s intent to appoint a CTO and which
explicitly stated the intended roles of a CTO also included a final paragraph that alluded to a
more significant role in economic policymaking for people with technology experience:
In the 21st century, our economic success will depend not only on economic analysis but also
on technological sophistication and direct experience in this powerful engine of our
economy. In an Obama administration, the government’s economic policy-making
organizations and councils will include individuals with backgrounds in our technology
industry.6

3 Kim Hart, “Role of Federal Tech Czar to Be Defined by Obama,” Washington Post, November 14, 2008, p. A02.
4 Dan Farber, “Obama’s CTO: Watch out for the turf wars,” CNET News, November 9, 2008.
5 Stephanie Condon, “Obama’s Search for a CTO,” CNET News, November 6, 2008.
6 Obama ’08, Barack Obama: Connecting and Empowering All Americans Through Technology and Innovation,
November 2007. Available at

[http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/technology/Fact_Sheet_Innovation_and_Technology.pdf].
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
Řȱ

ȱŽŽ›Š•ȱ‘’ŽȱŽŒ‘—˜•˜¢ȱ’ŒŽ›ȱ’—ȱ‘Žȱ‹Š–Šȱ–’—’œ›Š’˜—DZȱ™’˜—œȱŠ—ȱ œœžŽœȱ
ȱ
Although this paragraph does not specifically mention a CTO, its proximity to paragraphs
defining the scope of duties of a CTO might lead some to believe that a CTO could play a role in
the broader scope of technology policy issues affecting the nation’s economy.
Second, candidate Obama stated at a campaign event in Silicon Valley that one of the reasons
behind his plan to appoint a CTO is to “make certain we incorporate technology into every
decision we make,” according to a press report.7 This statement, too, might be interpreted by
some to mean that a CTO would play a broad and important role in Administration policy
deliberations and decisions.
Several analysts have proposed broader roles that a CTO might play. Stanford University
professor Lawrence Lessig has asserted that a CTO could play an important role in bringing an
understanding of how technology might be used to address national challenges:
The CTO could be a critically important position, from deciding how to make government
more efficient and transparent through technology, to helping advance public policy
questions like those surrounding global warming.8
A CTO could play an important role in national economic policy according to Andrew D.
Lipman, a telecommunications attorney with Bingham McCutchen, LLP. Lipman has asserted
that
[President] Obama sees greater broadband penetration as an enormous economic engine,
much like the railroads were a century ago. That is why the CTO will play such a critical role
in any recovery plan.9
Ed Felten, a Princeton University professor of computer science and public affairs and director of
Princeton’s Center for Information Technology Policy, likewise sees a broad role for a CTO in
innovation policy:
The CTO could act as the cybersecurity czar, ensuring that reliability of the government
infrastructure is protected. And much like the role of the presidential science advisor, the
CTO could offer advice to the President on all areas of technology. The role could be a
catalyst to push us closer to being a more entrepreneurial, high-tech country.10
The Center for American Progress (CAP) and New Democracy Project (NDP), public policy
institutes, have proposed that a CTO serve as a champion for information and communications
technologies broadly. CAP/NDP propose a CTO be given three roles: advising the president on
the use of ICT to create a more open and efficient government; working with OSTP to advise the
president on all issues that have a critical ICT component, including economic, national security,
health care, and education policies; and helping to ensure ICT platforms deployed across the
United States are robust, broadly available, and affordable to all sectors. CAP/NDP anticipate this
latter role would “straddle the public and private sectors” to maximize private innovation for the
public good.11

7 “Barack Obama expected to be the first US ‘Tech President,’” Agence France-Presse, November 5, 2008.
8 Tom Lowry, “The Short List for U.S. Chief Technology Office,” BusinessWeek, October 19, 2008.
9 Ibid.

10 Ibid.
11 Change for America: A Progressive Blueprint for the 44th President, Center for American Progress and New
(continued...)
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
řȱ

ȱŽŽ›Š•ȱ‘’ŽȱŽŒ‘—˜•˜¢ȱ’ŒŽ›ȱ’—ȱ‘Žȱ‹Š–Šȱ–’—’œ›Š’˜—DZȱ™’˜—œȱŠ—ȱ œœžŽœȱ
ȱ
In contrast, the Association of American Universities (AAU), an association of research
universities, recommended to President Obama that a CTO be given a more narrow role:
If a new Chief Technology Officer position is created, this individual’s responsibilities
primarily should be to oversee the use of technology within the White House and to
coordinate the use of technology within the Executive Branch.12
In addition, the AAU urged that OSTP remain the sole presidential advisor for science and
technology:
[The president should] retain a single presidential advisor for science and technology with a
strong associate director for technology and innovation.... The responsibility for coordinating
and helping to shape science and technology policy across government agencies should
remain that of the OSTP Director, as has historically been the case.13
Three factors are likely to play key roles in defining the duties and authorities of a CTO: first, the
role that President Obama wants a CTO to play (including authorities derived from formal
processes, such as an executive order, and non-formal means, such as presidential expressions of
support for, and confidence in, a CTO); second, congressional oversight of any actions by the
Obama Administration; and, third, statutory duties and authorities, if any, that Congress may elect
to confer upon the position and/or office.
Further, while the duties envisioned for a CTO may affect President Obama’s choice for the
appointment, the attributes of the person appointed to serve as CTO may, in part, define the role
of CTO. Several general and trade press stories on the CTO proposal have included speculation
about who might be selected for the position. Candidates mentioned for a CTO position include
those with backgrounds in politics, business management, technology, computer science, and
public policy. The candidates—some well-known, others not—have been, or currently are,
elected officials, chief executives of major technology companies, university professors,
information technology visionaries, and lawyers.
›Š—’£Š’˜—Š•ȱ›ŽŒŽŽ—œȱ
In defining the duties and authorities of a CTO, Congress and/or the Obama Administration may
opt to draw from the duties and authorities of agency-level chief information officers (CIOs) and
CTOs; the Bush Administration’s use of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to handle
CIO, CTO, and e-government responsibilities; the Clinton Administration’s “reinventing
government” initiative; the Commerce Department’s recently-eliminated Technology
Administration and its agency predecessors; and the White House Office of Science and
Technology Policy (OSTP). An overview of each is provided below.

(...continued)
Democracy Project, November 12, 2008.
12 Policy Recommendations for President-elect Obama, Association of American Universities, December 2008,
available at [http://www.aau.edu/policy/policy_recommendations_new_admin.aspx?id=7710].
13 Ibid.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
Śȱ

ȱŽŽ›Š•ȱ‘’ŽȱŽŒ‘—˜•˜¢ȱ’ŒŽ›ȱ’—ȱ‘Žȱ‹Š–Šȱ–’—’œ›Š’˜—DZȱ™’˜—œȱŠ—ȱ œœžŽœȱ
ȱ
Ž—Œ¢ȱ œǰȱœǰȱŠ—ȱ‘Žȱ‘’Žȱ —˜›–Š’˜—ȱ’ŒŽ›œȱ˜ž—Œ’•ȱ
ǻ ȱ˜ž—Œ’•Ǽȱ
As information technology began to play an increasingly important (and more costly) role in
federal agency operations and services, agencies began to appoint CIOs to manage information
technology systems and acquisitions. According to the CIO Council (discussed below) the
mandate of federal CIOs is
to ensure the rapid and effective implementation of information management and
information technology (IM/IT) solutions within each agency and to create a more results-
oriented, efficient, and citizen-centered Federal government. 14
In 1996, Congress enacted the Clinger-Cohen Act15 which, among other things, requires the
establishment of a CIO in each federal agency. The duties assigned CIOs under the act include
providing information management advice and policy to the agency head; developing,
maintaining, and facilitating information systems; and evaluating, assessing, and reporting to the
agency head on the progress made developing agency information technology systems.16
Following passage of the Clinger-Cohen Act, President Bill Clinton issued Executive Order
1301117 which directs agencies to establish the position of chief information officer to provide
clear accountability for information resources management activities; identifies the broad
responsibilities of federal agency CIOs; and establishes a federal Chief Information Officer
Council (CIO Council) chaired by the OMB deputy director for management. The CIO Council
was later codified by the E-Government Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-347), which designated it
the principal interagency forum for improving agency practices related to the design,
acquisition, development, modernization, use, operation, sharing, and performance of
Federal Government information resources.18
No parallel council exists in the federal government for CTOs, nor has Congress statutorily
defined the duties, responsibilities, and qualifications of CTOs in a manner comparable to that for
CIOs under the Clinger-Cohen Act. The position of chief technology officer first emerged in the
private sector in the 1980s. Since then, some federal agencies have established CTO positions. In
general, a CTO is responsible for monitoring, assessing, and selecting new technologies for
applications to improve an organization’s performance. Such applications of technology can be
focused on developing new products and services or on improving internal processes. Given the
ubiquitous role technology plays in most organizations today, CTOs often work with a wide
variety of stakeholders, including chief executives, scientists, engineers, research managers, and
marketing professionals.19 In federal agencies, CTOs are responsible for developing and/or

14 Chief Information Officers Council website, http://www.cio.gov.
15 Incorporated as sections D and E of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (P.L. 104-106)
16 For additional information, see CRS Report RL34492, Reauthorization of the E-Government Act: A Brief Overview,
by Jeffrey W. Seifert. This report also provides perspectives on the anticipated benefits and drawbacks of establishing a
chief federal CIO position.
17 Executive Order 13011, “Federal Information Technology,” 61 Federal Register 37657, July 19, 1996.
18 P.L. 107-347.
19 Roger D. Smith, “The Chief Technology Officer: Strategic Responsibilities and Relationships,” Research
Technology Management
, July/August 2003.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
śȱ

ȱŽŽ›Š•ȱ‘’ŽȱŽŒ‘—˜•˜¢ȱ’ŒŽ›ȱ’—ȱ‘Žȱ‹Š–Šȱ–’—’œ›Š’˜—DZȱ™’˜—œȱŠ—ȱ œœžŽœȱ
ȱ
implementing technologies that enable the agency to better perform its missions. The role of a
CTO in a federal agency can be similar to, and the title sometimes used interchangeably with, the
CIO.20 In many cases, agency CTOs report to the CIO and have a focus on information
technology. However, some CTOs have responsibility for a wider scope of technologies and
technical issues. For example, the CTO for the Department of Homeland Security’s
Transportation Security Administration is responsible for “implementation and development of
security technologies across several modes of transportation.”21
 ǰȱǰȱŠ—ȱŽȬ ˜ŸŽ›—–Ž—ȱ˜œ’’˜—œȱŠȱȱ
Under President George W. Bush, the deputy director of management for OMB has served as the
federal CIO, providing oversight of agency-level CIOs and coordinating e-government initiatives.
In 2001, OMB established the position of associate director for information technology and e-
government at OMB to serve as “the leading federal e-government executive,” and was given
responsibility for the e-government fund, directing the activities of the CIO Council, and advising
on the appointments of agency CIOs.22 The associate director for information technology reported
to the OMB deputy director for management.
In 2002, Norman Lorentz became the first chief technology officer at OMB, reporting to the
associate director for information technology and e-government. The CTO was tasked to lead and
coordinate multiple efforts to identify and develop the technological architecture needed to
support federal e-government and other information technology initiatives.23
Š’˜—Š•ȱŽ›˜›–Š—ŒŽȱŽŸ’Ž ȦŠ’˜—Š•ȱŠ›—Ž›œ‘’™ȱ˜›ȱŽ’—ŸŽ—’—ȱ
˜ŸŽ›—–Ž—ȱ
The Clinton Administration’s National Performance Review (NPR)/National Partnership for
Reinventing Government (also know as the reinventing government initiative or ReGo ) had
certain functions similar to ones outlined for a CTO in President Obama’s campaign document. In
March 1993, President Bill Clinton announced the establishment of the NPR under Vice President
Al Gore “to make the entire Federal Government both less expensive and more efficient ... [and
to search for] ways to improve services to our citizens and to make our Government work better
... [in part through] better uses of technology.”24 Information technology was one of the tools used
to achieve these ends. In 1998, the NPR was renamed the “National Partnership for Reinventing

20 The close linkage between the duties of a CTO and CIO is illustrated by dual assignments held in some agencies. For
example, the Department of Education, NASA, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have CTOs who concurrently
hold the title of Deputy CIO. To further illustrate the linkage, at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, the CTO is
located in the Office of the Chief Information Officer.
21 Transportation Security Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation,
http://www.tsa.gov/press/releases/2006/press_release_12112006.shtm.
22 Office of Management and Budget, “Mark Forman Named Associate Director for Information Technology and E-
Government,” 14 June 2001, http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/pubpress/2001-13.html.
23 For additional information, see CRS Report RL30914, Federal Chief Information Officer (CIO): Opportunities and
Challenges
, by Jeffrey W. Seifert.
24 Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, Government Printing Office, vol. 29, Mar. 8, 1993, p. 350.
Available at
http://frwebgate4.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISdocID=854991445865+0+1+0&WAISaction=retrieve.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
Ŝȱ

ȱŽŽ›Š•ȱ‘’ŽȱŽŒ‘—˜•˜¢ȱ’ŒŽ›ȱ’—ȱ‘Žȱ‹Š–Šȱ–’—’œ›Š’˜—DZȱ™’˜—œȱŠ—ȱ œœžŽœȱ
ȱ
Government” reflecting the administration’s intent to shift from “review” to “reinvention,” with
an emphasis on the use of information technology to transform government operations.25 In
January 2001, the E-Gov website reported
The National Partnership for Reinventing [Government] urged agencies to use information
technology and the Internet to transform how citizens interact with government. Reinvention
evolved into e-gov and the goal was to provide better access to government services. Today
e-gov is putting people “online, not in line.” By the end of 2000, nearly 40 million
Americans were doing business with the government electronically. On a regular basis,
people are accessing information to solve problems themselves through the Internet, via
telephones, and through neighborhood kiosks.26
Organizationally, the director of the National Partnership for Reinventing Government served as
senior policy advisor to Vice President Gore.27
Among ReGo’s technology focused efforts were Access America, which sought the “integration
of services across different federal agencies so citizens [could] ‘custom-tailor’ government to
their specific needs,” and G-Gov, the use of geographic information and information technology
to improve government services.28
Ž™Š›–Ž—ȱ˜ȱ˜––Ž›ŒŽȱŽŒ‘—˜•˜¢ȱ–’—’œ›Š’˜—ȱ
The role of chief government advocate for U.S. civilian technological innovation was previously
performed largely by the Commerce Department’s Technology Administration (TA) and its
predecessors, the Office of Productivity, Technology and Innovation (OPTI)29 and the Office of
Industrial Technology (OIT).30 The Technology Administration was headed by an Under
Secretary for Technology and included an analytical arm, the Office of Technology Policy
(OTP).31 In 2007, the Technology Administration, including the positions of Under Secretary for
Technology and Assistant Secretary for Technology Policy, were eliminated under the provisions
of the America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69). The act eliminated the duties of the Technology
Administration and did not reassign any of them to other agencies. Some or all of these duties
might be assigned to a CTO in the context of serving as chief advocate for technological
innovation, including:
• to conduct technology policy analyses to improve United States industrial
productivity, technology, and innovation;

25 Remarks of Morley Winograd, director, National Partnership for Reinventing Government, at the Virtual
Government ’99 Conference, February 23, 1999, available at
[http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/npr/library/speeches/022399.html]
26 The National Partnership for Reinventing Government website, January 2001, as archived at
[http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/npr/initiati/index.html].
27 For additional information on the NPR/ National Partnership for Reinventing Government, see CRS Report
RL30596, The National Performance Review and Other Government Reform Initiatives: An Overview, 1993-2001, by
Harold C. Relyea, Maricele J. Cornejo Riemann, and Henry B. Hogue.
28 Ibid.
29 OPTI was established by the Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-502).
30 OIT was established by the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-480).
31 TA and OTP were established by the National Institute of Standards and Technology Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1989 (P.L. 100-519).
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŝȱ

ȱŽŽ›Š•ȱ‘’ŽȱŽŒ‘—˜•˜¢ȱ’ŒŽ›ȱ’—ȱ‘Žȱ‹Š–Šȱ–’—’œ›Š’˜—DZȱ™’˜—œȱŠ—ȱ œœžŽœȱ
ȱ
• to determine the relationships of technological developments and international
technology transfers to the output, employment, productivity, and world trade
performance;
• to determine the influence of economic, labor and other conditions, industrial
structure and management, and government policies on technological
developments in particular industrial sectors worldwide;
• to identify technological needs, problems, and opportunities within and across
industrial sectors that, if addressed, could make a significant contribution to the
economy of the United States;
• to assess whether the capital, technical and other resources being allocated to
domestic industrial sectors which are likely to generate new technologies are
adequate;
• to propose and support studies and policy experiments to determine the
effectiveness of measures with the potential of advancing United States
technological innovation;
• to encourage and assist the creation of centers and other joint initiatives by State
or local governments, regional organizations, private businesses, institutions of
higher education, nonprofit organizations, or Federal laboratories to encourage
technology transfer, to stimulate innovation, and to promote an appropriate
climate for investment in technology-related industries;
• to propose and encourage cooperative research to promote the common use of
resources, to improve training programs and curricula, to stimulate interest in
high technology careers, and to encourage the effective dissemination of
technology skills within the wider community;
• to serve as a focal point for discussions among United States companies on topics
of interest to industry and labor, including discussions regarding manufacturing
and discussions regarding emerging technologies; and
• to consider government measures with the potential of advancing United States
technological innovation and exploiting innovations of foreign origin.32
‘’Žȱ ˜žœŽȱ’ŒŽȱ˜ȱŒ’Ž—ŒŽȱŠ—ȱŽŒ‘—˜•˜¢ȱ˜•’Œ¢ȱ
The Office of Science and Technology Policy is the White House office with primary
responsibility for science and technology issues.33 OSTP traces its organizational roots to the
Office of Scientific Research and Development that was established within the Executive Office

32 These and other duties were assigned to the Technology Administration and its predecessor organizations by the
Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-480), the Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986
(P.L. 99-502), and the National Institute of Standards and Technology Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1989 (P.L.
100-519).
33 Other White House offices—such as the Council on Environmental Quality, the National Economic Council (NEC),
Office of Management and Budget (OMB)—also play important roles in the development, coordination, and
implementation of science and technology policies. For additional information about OSTP, see CRS Report RL34736,
The President’s Office of Science and Technology Policy: Issues for Congress, by Deborah D. Stine.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
Şȱ

ȱŽŽ›Š•ȱ‘’ŽȱŽŒ‘—˜•˜¢ȱ’ŒŽ›ȱ’—ȱ‘Žȱ‹Š–Šȱ–’—’œ›Š’˜—DZȱ™’˜—œȱŠ—ȱ œœžŽœȱ
ȱ
of the President in 1941 by President Franklin Roosevelt under Executive Order 8807.34 In 1976,
Congress directed the establishment of OSTP in the National Science and Technology Policy,
Organization, and Priorities Act (P.L. 94-282), charging the office with serving “as a source of
scientific and technological analysis and judgment for the President with respect to major
policies, plans, and programs of the Federal Government.” The act authorizes OSTP to:
• advise the President and others within the Executive Office of the President on
the impacts of science and technology on domestic and international affairs;
• lead an interagency effort to develop and implement sound science and
technology policies and budgets;
• work with the private sector to ensure Federal investments in science and
technology contribute to economic prosperity, environmental quality, and
national security;
• build strong partnerships among Federal, State, and local governments, other
countries, and the scientific community; and
• evaluate the scale, quality, and effectiveness of the Federal effort in science and
technology.
OSTP is led by a director who, in some presidential administrations, has also carried the title of
assistant to the president for science and technology. The director of OSTP is often informally
referred to as the President’s science advisor. Some have anticipated that a CTO might similarly
be ascribed the informal title of “President’s technology advisor,” a role the director of OSTP has
implicitly played. During the Bush Administration, two associate directors reported to the director
of OSTP, including an associate director for technology.35 If a CTO position or office is to be
established in the White House, President Obama and Congress may wish to consider how to
integrate and coordinate its duties and responsibilities with those of OSTP.
˜Ž—’Š•ȱ‘Š••Ž—Žœȱ
Among the early challenges a CTO may face are defining and communicating the roles of the
position; identifying and recruiting talent, from both inside and outside of government; and
negotiating domains of responsibilities, formal and informal, within the White House (if that is
where the Obama Administration or Congress decides to establish a CTO) and with executive
branch agencies that have overlapping missions. Beyond these initial challenges, a CTO would
need to establish goals and milestones, set priorities, secure resources, and develop and execute a
strategy. If the position or office of a CTO is not established by Congress and provided with
statutory authorities and a dedicated budget, it may be difficult for a CTO to affect change in
individual federal agencies or systemically throughout the federal government. In such a case, the
efficacy of a CTO may depend largely on the mandate provided by President Obama to a CTO
(and agencies’ perception of the mandate), the imprimatur of the White House, and the personal
attributes of a CTO (e.g., relationship with the President, past accomplishments, knowledge,
professional reputation, persuasiveness).

34 Available at [http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=16137].
35 In addition to the associate director for technology, there was an associate director for science.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
şȱ

ȱŽŽ›Š•ȱ‘’ŽȱŽŒ‘—˜•˜¢ȱ’ŒŽ›ȱ’—ȱ‘Žȱ‹Š–Šȱ–’—’œ›Š’˜—DZȱ™’˜—œȱŠ—ȱ œœžŽœȱ
ȱ
Perhaps one of the most difficult and enduring challenges a CTO may face would be “turf wars”
associated with overlapping responsibilities with other executive agencies and their principals on
issues such as technology and innovation policy, computer and network security, and intellectual
property enforcement. For example, there are several organizations within the Executive Office of
the President (EOP) that have potentially overlapping authorities, including:
• The Office of Science and Technology Policy, on matters related to research,
development, and technological innovation, as well as for telecommunications,
and emergency communications systems;
• The Office of Management and Budget (as discussed on page 6 of this report);
• The National Economic Council (NEC), on issues related to technological
innovation. For example, the NEC might evaluate federal policies intended to
promote technological innovation as an option for achieving the President’s
economic policy objectives;
• The President’s Council on Innovation and Competitiveness,36 which is charged
under the America COMPETES Act with providing advice to the President with
respect to global trends in competitiveness and innovation and allocation of
Federal resources in education, job training, and technology research and
development in the context of global trends in competitiveness and innovation, as
well as making recommendations to the heads of executive agencies to improve
innovation; and
• The Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, on technology-centered
intellectual property rights (e.g., digital copyright). 37
Potential conflict between a CTO and these offices might be magnified if a CTO position/office is
established as a new office within the EOP or within an existing EOP office.
The CTO’s responsibilities may also overlap with other executive branch agencies, such as the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and/or the Department of Commerce’s National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) on issues such as information and
communication technology, and with agency CIOs and CTOs.
Finally, the manner in which a CTO may be established may affect the position/office’s ability to
transcend presidential administrations. If a CTO were to be established solely under the
President’s executive authority (through an executive order, for example), then its continued
existence would be at the sole discretion of the current or future Presidents. In contrast, if a CTO
were to be established by statute (as OSTP was, for example), then the position/office would
continue to exist through changes of presidential administrations unless eliminated by statute.

36 The America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69) directs the President to establish a President’s Council on Innovation
and Competitiveness.
37 The Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-403) directs the
President to appoint an Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator to serve within the Executive Office of the
President.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŗŖȱ

ȱŽŽ›Š•ȱ‘’ŽȱŽŒ‘—˜•˜¢ȱ’ŒŽ›ȱ’—ȱ‘Žȱ‹Š–Šȱ–’—’œ›Š’˜—DZȱ™’˜—œȱŠ—ȱ œœžŽœȱ
ȱ
œœžŽœȱ˜›ȱ˜—œ’Ž›Š’˜—ȱ‹¢ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ
Congress faces the stated plans of the incoming Obama Administration to appoint a CTO. It has
the opportunity to consider and oversee any such plans.
Although the campaign position paper and transition website provide explicit information on at
least some of the duties of a CTO, they do not provide information on a CTO’s organizational
placement, structure, or relationship to existing offices. In addition, neither the paper nor website
states whether the president intends to establish this position/office by executive order or whether
he would seek legislation to create a statutory foundation for its duties and authorities.
If Congress chooses to establish a CTO position through statute, there are a several issues it may
wish to consider. For example:
• What mission, duties, and authorities should be given a CTO? Should a CTO
serve as both the chief CIO for the federal government as well as the lead
champion for U.S. technological innovation?
• What level of funding should be authorized and/or appropriated for a CTO?
• Should a CTO be placed in the Executive Office of the President or elsewhere in
the executive branch? If in the EOP, should a CTO be a direct report to the
president, or a part of another EOP agency? Who should a CTO report to? Should
the appointment of a CTO be subject to Senate confirmation?
• Should a CTO be a stand-alone position or an office or agency with its own staff?
If a CTO is established together with a supporting office or agency, how many
full-time equivalent positions should be authorized? What should be the
composition of the staff with respect to occupation (e.g., scientists, engineers, IT
professionals, lawyers, managers, administrators); political appointees and career
civil servants; and permanent employees and employees on detail from other
agencies?
• How should the work of a CTO differ, overlap, and/or complement the duties and
authorities of offices in the Executive Office of the President, and other executive
branch agencies?
• What should be the relationship between the president’s CTO and the existing
CTOs and CIOs of individual departments and agencies?



˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŗŗȱ

ȱŽŽ›Š•ȱ‘’ŽȱŽŒ‘—˜•˜¢ȱ’ŒŽ›ȱ’—ȱ‘Žȱ‹Š–Šȱ–’—’œ›Š’˜—DZȱ™’˜—œȱŠ—ȱ œœžŽœȱ
ȱ
ž‘˜›ȱ˜—ŠŒȱ —˜›–Š’˜—ȱ

John F. Sargent Jr.

Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
jsargent@crs.loc.gov, 7-9147




˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŗŘȱ