White House Technology Focus Could Prompt Restructuring

Obama hasn’t named a CTO, and there’s no commitment to doing so right away, an Obama transition team spokesman said Thursday. “We are announcing these things as they get decided.” Late Wednesday the campaign identified transition effort leaders. But it had no comment on whether Obama’s technology adviser, Julius Genachowski, would be appointed CTO. His name tops lists compiled by those in the telecom and technology industry speculating on the issue. They call Genachowski a logical choice, given of his closeness to Obama and his FCC and business experience. There’s also talk of an Internet czar to oversee policy and government practices.

Whatever happens, the Office of Science and Technology Policy is due for an overhaul, said Gregory Simon, who was chief domestic adviser on science and technology issues to former Vice President Al Gore in the mid-1990s. “I don’t have the solution in my shirt pocket,” Simon said. But the science office’s, whose influence declined in the Bush administration, no longer reflects technology priorities, he said. The CTO position could go in a revamped science and technology office, he said. But it would be better to put it in the Office of Management and Budget, said Simon, a consultant for Faster Cures, a medical research group.

Control over budgets would elevate the CTO’s role from simply advising on policy to having the power to spend, giving it “an enormous influence on technology,” Simon said. “It needs to be integrated into the budgetary process.” The director of the science and technology office lacks direct authority over the OMB and other federal agencies. “Rather, the OSTP Director uses his or her role as a ‘bully pulpit’ to encourage federal agencies, universities, nongovernmental organizations and others … to take or stop taking actions that the Administration supports or opposes,” the CRS said.

The office’s stature declined under Bush, whose administration “devalued science,” Simon said. Current director John Marburger lacks the title of “assistant to the president,” which would have empowered Congress to compel his testimony. Marburger has dismissed the question of his title as “trivial,” maintaining that he had the same access to top- level meetings as predecessors with the title, CRS said.

“Congress may wish to evaluate whether or not OSTP is still needed” in the White House, the CRS report said. If it does, oversight should increase. What’s critical is who gets the director’s job, CRS said. The director’s influence in the White House “may depend more on the relationship to … the President than legislative action.”

Allowing the director’s position to be divided into several areas of responsibility should be considered in a reorganization, CRS said. Some think the director should play a larger role in federal agency coordination, priority- setting and budget allocation. Appointing officials who report directly to the president would give the director more influence in the White House, CRS said. In the past, presidents have managed the office by issuing executive orders on policy, structure and personnel. Congress evaluates the office through the authorization and appropriations process. Another approach would be to make the science and technology office independent of the White House, which would “provide a more optimal distance between the President and the OSTP director,” the report said.

Earlier this fall the office had 65 staff members, detailees and fellows, CRS said. Twelve were political appointees. The Clinton and Bush administrations relied on detailed officials and fellows to staff the office, the report said. Staffing was higher in the Clinton administration. Congress funded the office at $5.2 million in fiscal 2008, less than the $5.5 million that the president sought.