U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1

99–010

" SENATE ! 107TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

REPORT

2002

107–174

Calendar No. 439

E-GOVERNMENT ACT OF 2001

R E P O R T

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

TO ACCOMPANY

S. 803

TO ENHANCE THE MANAGEMENT AND PROMOTION OF ELECTRONIC GOVERNMENT SERVICES AND PROCESSES BY ESTABLISHING A FEDERAL CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER WITHIN 

THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, AND BY ESTABLISHING A BROAD FRAMEWORK OF MEASURES THAT REQUIRE 

USING INTERNET-BASED INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY TO ENHANCE CITIZEN ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT INFORMATION AND 

SERVICES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

JUNE 24, 2002.—Ordered to be printed 


E:\Seals\Congress.#13
(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey 

MAX CLELAND, Georgia, 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

JEAN CARNAHAN, Missouri 

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota 

FRED THOMPSON, Tennessee 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky 

PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois 

JOYCE A. RECHTSCHAFFEN, Staff Director and Counsel 

KEVIN J. LANDY, Counsel 

RICHARD A. HERTLING, Minority Staff Director 

ELLEN B. BROWN, Minority Senior Counsel 

MORGAN P. MUCHNICK, Minority Professional Staff Member 

DARLA D. CASSELL, Chief Clerk

Calendar No. 439

107TH CONGRESS REPORT " SENATE ! 2d Session 107–174

E-GOVERNMENT ACT OF 2001

JUNE 24, 2002.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. LIEBERMAN, from the Committee on Governmental Affairs, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 803] 

The Committee on Governmental Affairs, to whom was referred 

the bill (S. 803) to enhance the management and promotion of electronic Government services and processes by establishing a Federal 

Chief Information Officer within the Office of Management and 

Budget, and by establishing a broad framework of measures that 

require using Internet-based information technology to enhance citizen access to Government information and services, and for other 

purposes, reports favorably thereon with an amendment and an 

amendment to the title and recommends that the bill as amended 

do pass.

CONTENTS 

Page 

I. Purpose and Summary .................................................................................. 1

II. Background and Need for Legislation .......................................................... 4

III. Legislative History ......................................................................................... 9

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis .......................................................................... 14

V. Regulatory Impact ......................................................................................... 36

VI. CBO Cost Estimate ........................................................................................ 36

VII. Changes to Existing Law .............................................................................. 38

I. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

S. 803 is a bipartisan bill to enhance the management and promotion of electronic government services and processes. The bill establishes an Office of Electronic Government within the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB); it also establishes a broad framework of measures that require using Internet applications and 

other information technologies to enhance access to Government information and services and to boost the effectiveness and efficiency 

2

1 Remarks of Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, Congressional Record, May 1, 2001, at 

S. 4102. 2 Id.

3 Hearing before the Senate Comm. On Governmental Affairs, July 11, 2001, p. 6. 

4 Id. at p. 7. 

of government. S. 803 also creates innovative funding mechanisms 

for interagency programs, and promotes important e-government 

initiatives. 

As stated by Senator Lieberman the day he introduced the bill:

Our legislation will provide the leadership, coordination, 

expertise, and resources necessary to utilize the Internet 

and create a more efficient, citizen-oriented government. 

Harnessing the Internet and other information technologies to deliver government programs, services, and information more effectively is critical to ensure that the 

Federal government remains a vital, positive presence in 

society.1

While noting that electronic government initiatives had already 

made headway in some areas, Senator Lieberman added,

the reality is that all but a handful of the applications now 

being put online by Federal agencies are developed in relative isolation. E-Government currently is a loose-knit mix 

of ideas, projects, and affiliations often not well coordinated, sometimes overlapping in its goals and redundant 

in its expenditures. Though there are some remarkable innovations championed by visionary government employees, 

many other efforts are hampered by traditional models of 

government management, and ‘‘stove-pipe’’ conceptions of 

agency jurisdiction. We are in essence taking the often 

confusing, overlapping and inefficient maze of government 

programs as they now exist and simply transferring them 

onto the Internet. 

This is not the best way forward. We can and must take 

full advantage of information technologies to overcome the 

often arbitrary boundaries that exist between agencies, 

and to provide the public with seamless, secure online 

services. A functional approach focuses on delivering services to the citizen, organized according to the citizens’ needs, and without regard to where the jurisdiction of one 

agency stops and another begins. The greatest challenge in 

many cases is realizing how the new technologies have created new opportunities, and reconfiguring government 

processes accordingly. Seizing these opportunities will require leadership, coordination, and meaningful communication with agency decision-makers.2

Senator Conrad Burns, the lead cosponsor, explained at the Committee’s hearing considering the bill that he had ‘‘long believed in 

the power of information technology in general and the Internet in 

particular making government more efficient to open up the public 

policy process to everyday citizens.’’ 3 He described the bill’s guiding 

philosophy as ‘‘a simple and practical one’’: ‘‘the Federal Government should take advantage of the tremendous opportunities offered by information technology to better serve its constituents.’’ 4

And he added, ‘‘[a] collaborative approach on information techVerDate May 23 2002 04:14 Jul 02, 2002 Jkt 099010 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR174.XXX pfrm12 PsN: SR174
3

5 Id. at pp. 7–8. 

nology issues is far more effective than the silo-by-silo way of doing 

business favored by the traditional budgetary process.’’ 5

The bill’s Office of Electronic Government will be headed by a 

Senate-confirmed Administrator. The Administrator will direct

e-government initiatives and assist agencies as they implement

e-government. The Administrator will also oversee an interagency

e-government fund that will invest in cross-cutting projects with 

government-wide application. The bill authorizes $45 million for 

the Fund in FY 2003, increasing in steps to $150 million in FY 

2006. The Administrator will sponsor ongoing dialogue with a 

range of governmental entities, with representatives from the private and non-profit sectors, and with the public; and will help direct a governmentwide effort to develop proper security and privacy 

measures, promulgate necessary information technology (IT) standards, and share best practices. 

The bill also promotes the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide more information and better services to 

Americans. The bill authorizes funding for maintenance of a federal 

Internet portal, so that on-line government information and services are organized according to citizen needs, not agency jurisdiction. Regulatory agencies will conduct administrative rule-makings 

on the Internet, and federal courts will post court information and 

judicial opinions on their websites. 

Agencies will be required to develop performance measures that 

demonstrate how e-government initiatives will enable progress toward agency objectives, and to report on their compliance with the 

bill’s provisions. Agency heads will have to take into consideration 

the effect of their e-government programs on Americans who lack 

access to the Internet, and ensure that alternatives are available. 

Information is a vital national resource, and new information 

technologies allow information to be organized and accessed in 

more productive ways. The bill requires new policies to make government information easier to search electronically, and to improve 

the retention of electronic records. A directory of government 

websites, organized by subject matter, will be created and linked 

to the federal Internet portal. Agencies, scientists, policy makers 

and the public will have access over the Internet to non-sensitive 

information about where federal funds for scientific research are 

spent. 

The Office of Personnel Management will be tasked with responding to a severe shortage of skilled IT professionals in the federal workplace. A new IT training center will analyze the IT personnel needs of the federal government, and oversee training and 

the development of curricula to respond to those needs. 

S. 803 authorizes research into the use of information technologies for better crisis management. It mandates efforts to promote more efficient use of community technology centers. And it 

calls for the development of protocols for geographic information 

systems (GIS) so that industry and government can develop innovative multi-layered maps and analyses using the government’s 

massive amounts of geographic data. 

The bill contains significant new statutory privacy protections for 

personally identifiable information maintained by the government. 

4

6 ‘‘E-Government: To Connect, Protect and Serve Us,’’ conducted by Hart-Teeter for the Council for Excellence in Government, February 2002; ‘‘e-Government: The Next American Revolution,’’ Council for Excellence in Government, February 2001, pp. 17–29. 

Agencies will have to complete assessments of privacy considerations when purchasing new information systems. To provide for 

more secure e-government, the bill promotes initiatives to develop 

interoperable electronic signatures between agencies. 

In addition, S. 803 lifts the sunset on the Government Information Security Reform Act. That legislation provided a management 

framework for protecting the security of government computers, 

but is set to expire in November of 2002. 

II. BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

The Federal Government is increasingly turning to the Internet 

to conduct paperless transactions, provide interactive services to 

the public, and disseminate larger quantities of government information tailored to interested communities. The Internet and other 

information technologies have also demonstrated the potential to 

increase the effectiveness and efficiency of government. With improved management and a commitment to change, these technologies can ultimately play an instrumental role in transforming 

government, breaking down stovepipes and hierarchical relationships. Information and services, organized according to the needs 

of the public and available from a single point, can be made available twenty-four hours a day over the Internet. Although in some 

cases increased initial investments may be necessary, potential cost 

savings over the long-term are enormous. Just as important, over 

time the relationship between citizens and their government can 

change, as citizens become more adept at obtaining essential information about their government, and public input from citizens becomes easier for agencies to integrate. This is the essence of electronic government. 

In less than a decade the tremendous growth of the Internet has 

transformed the way industry and the public conduct their business and gain access to needed information. This, in turn, has 

spawned a growing public expectation that government will make 

use of new information technologies, and a growing support for 

electronic government. Several recent polls document that Americans believe e-government will improve government in a variety of 

ways; this view is held even by those with a low opinion of government. Sizable majorities of Americans polled by Hart-Teeter in 

2000 and 2001 for the Council for Excellence in Government responded that e-government would improve people’s ability to get information they need from government agencies, and government’s 

ability to provide convenient services, and would make government 

more accountable. Similarly large numbers supported the government investing tax dollars to achieve these and other goals.6

This public support for electronic government only grew after the 

terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The 2001 poll, taken in 

November, indicated not only that Americans valued the various 

benefits of e-government more highly than a year earlier, but also 

that they believed it would help in the war against terrorism:

a large majority (70%) of the public believes that e-government will improve the ability of agencies such as the FBI, 

5

7 ‘‘E-Government: To Connect, Protect and Serve Us,’’ p. 3. 8See ‘‘Government Reform: Legislation would strengthen Federal Management of Information 

and Technology,’’ GAO/T–AIMD–95–205, July 25, 1995; see also ‘‘Federal Chief Information Officer: Leadership needed to Confront Serious Challenges and Emerging Issues,’’ GAO/T–AIMD– 00–316, September 12, 2000; ‘‘Digital Government: The Next Step to Reengineering the Federal 

Government,’’ Robert Atkinson and Jacob Ulevich, Progressive Policy Institute, March 2000, p. 

11; ‘‘Building the Federal E-Government: The Case for Appointing a CIO of the United States,’’ Information Technology Association of America, October 2000. 9See ‘‘Transforming Access to Government through Information Technology,’’ President’s Information Technology Advisory Committee, September 2000, pp. 10–11; ‘‘e-Government: The 

Next American Revolution,’’ p. 8.

the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and local 

police departments to coordinate a response to a public 

emergency. Ninety percent say that they feel very or fairly 

favorable toward e-government systems that would help 

federal, state, and local law enforcement exchange information to help in apprehending and prosecuting criminals 

and terrorists. The public also is confident that e-government will greatly improve the government’s ability to coordinate a response to a public health threat or bioterrorism attack (77%).7

The public’s expectations of e-government may stem partly from 

their positive experiences with government websites, but it may 

also result from the remarkable speed with which computers and 

the Internet have improved their lives in the non-governmental 

sphere. Although the public supports e-government, the danger remains that people will become disenchanted if the government 

stumbles, or if institutional obstacles unique to government persist 

in slowing the development of effective e-government. These obstacles and dangers have been cited by many supporters of e-government in recent years, as problems that urgently need to be addressed. They include a lack of effective government-wide leadership, a lack of flexible funding, an agency-centric paradigm that 

characterizes the federal government generally and threatens to 

slow the development of effective e-government, a scarcity of appropriately skilled IT professionals in government, and public apprehension with respect to privacy and information security. The Committee intends that the ‘‘E-Government Act of 2002’’ will address 

those barriers at the same time it speeds the deployment of e-government. 

LEADERSHIP

The General Accounting Office (GAO) and others have been arguing for more effective government-wide management of information 

resources for some time, even predating the concept of e-government; they have recommended that a Federal Chief Information 

Officer be established.8 Other groups have recommended that electronic government be advanced through the creation of a statutory 

office within OMB dedicated to that issue.9 The two issues are distinct but related. Information resources management incorporates 

many issues, such as information collection and dissemination; 

management of information technology; statistics; information security; and privacy. The OMB is responsible for overseeing government-wide implementation of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the 

Clinger Cohen Act, the Government Paperwork Elimination Act, 

the Government Information Security Reform Act, and the Privacy 

Act, all of which are directly related to the government’s manageVerDate May 23 2002 04:14 Jul 02, 2002 Jkt 099010 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR174.XXX pfrm12 PsN: SR174
6

ment of its information resources. Congress delegated responsibility 

for these laws to, variously, the OMB Director, the OMB Deputy 

Director for Management, and the Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs. Nevertheless, no OMB official 

established by statute is primarily concerned with either information management or electronic-government; in contrast, most states 

and large corporations have Chief Information Officers serving 

such a function. 

S. 803 as amended establishes an Administrator of a new Office 

of Electronic Government within OMB. The Administrator will 

oversee implementation of this bill and other e-government initiatives. The bill gives the Administrator a number of specific responsibilities, and that official will also perform on the Director’s behalf 

many of the tasks the bill delegates to the Director. Because e-government overlaps with other information statutes, the bill provides 

that the Administrator will work with other offices within OMB to 

direct the implementation of e-government pursuant to those statutes. 

The Committee intends that the Administrator will become an 

influential advocate for effective e-government, throughout the federal government and in concert with other governments and with 

other sectors. The Administrator will wield power, through, among 

other things, participation in the capital planning and budget process, reviewing agency proposals for E-Government Fund money, 

and responsibility for carrying out other provisions in this bill. The 

Administrator can be most effective through engaging the various 

constituencies necessary for successful e-government, and with the 

active support of the President and Congress. The Administration 

provided a partial model for this new position by establishing, on 

June 14, 2001, the position of Associate Director for Information 

Technology and E-Government. 

AGENCY-CENTRIC PARADIGM

The public, regulated entities, and state and local governments 

often experience the federal government as a confusing array of 

agencies, sometimes with overlapping jurisdictions, sometimes offering related services or performing similar functions from different places. Even government information and services offered to 

the public on the Internet are generally accessible according to the 

organization of these agency stovepipes. Agencies with related missions have difficulty breaking through their silos to develop effective inter-agency programs. 

Information technology, and the Internet in particular, provide a 

unique opportunity to re-package government information and 

services, so they are offered to the public according to the needs of 

individual customers. They can also facilitate interagency cooperation without requiring a major reorganization of government agencies. Ultimately, e-government can transform the way government 

operates, essentially effecting a ‘‘virtual’’ re-engineering of government. This paradigm shift requires systems based on functionality 

and the needs of the citizen rather than agency jurisdiction. If the 

government integrates processes across agency boundaries, the 

public will experience government as a seamless web of offerings. 

Federal services and information on the Internet can even be consolidated with those of state and local governments. 

7

10See ‘‘Federal Employee Retirements: Expected Increase over the Next 5 Years Illustrates 

Need for Workforce Planning,’’ GAO–01–509, April 27, 2001; ‘‘The Transforming Power of Information Technology: Making the Federal Government an Employer of Choice for IT Employees,’’ National Academy of Public Administration, August 2001. 11 ‘‘E-Government: To Connect, Protect and Serve Us,’’ p. 16; ‘‘e-Government: The Next American Revolution,’’ pp. 26–27. 12See ‘‘Computer Security: Weaknesses Continue to Place Critical Federal Operations and Assets at Risk,’’ GAO–01–600T, April 5, 2001; ‘‘Information Security: Serious and Widespread 

Weaknesses Persist at Federal Agencies,’’ GAO/AIMD–00–295, September 6, 2000; Senate Report 106–259, pp. 3–6 (April 10, 2000). 

The ‘‘E-Government Act of 2002’’ will facilitate this transformation to a government organized more appropriately according 

to the needs of the public. The bill requires agencies to link their 

e-government initiatives to key customer segments, and to work 

collectively in doing so. The E-Government Fund provides necessary funding for inter-agency projects, overcoming the difficulty 

in securing appropriations for cooperative endeavors. The Federal 

Internet Portal provides ‘‘one-stop shopping’’ for citizens, businesses, and other governments: information and services will be integrated according to the needs of the users, all of it accessible 

from a single point on the Internet. The Administrator of the Office 

of Electronic Government will oversee and promote this vital transformation. 

IT WORKFORCE

Electronic government will fail if federal agencies lack sufficient 

personnel trained in information technology disciplines. The growing scarcity of appropriately skilled IT professionals in the federal 

government is well documented.10 This, however, is only one aspect 

of the problem. Federal managers who oversee IT contractors need 

to be sufficiently trained in IT disciplines to ensure that the government is paying fair prices for systems the agencies actually 

need. More generally, a large number of federal workers, presumably an overwhelming majority, use computers and the Internet to 

perform their job functions. As the government moves towards 

greater automation, federal workers will need to be trained in new 

technologies. The legislation tasks the Office of Personnel Management with assessing the IT training needs of federal workers and 

with overseeing a training regimen that will address those needs 

on an ongoing basis. 

INFORMATION SECURITY

Opinion polls reveal that some public anxiety about e-government stems from fears that information security and privacy protections will be insufficient.11 The GAO has documented in recent 

years that federal systems are not adequately protected, placing 

sensitive information and critical operations at risk.12 Since the 

passage of the Government Information and Security Reform Act 

(GISRA) (subtitle G of title X of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, PL 106–398), in the 

106th Congress, OMB has been demanding from agencies better 

plans for improving computer security; the first annual cycle of 

evaluation and reporting under the information security legislation 

has now been successfully completed. GISRA is scheduled to sunset 

in November 29, 2002, but S. 803 lifts the sunset and makes 

GISRA permanent. 

8

The bill will also improve computer security by mandating the 

development of a framework to allow efficient interoperability 

among agencies when using electronic signatures, and the bill authorizes funding for a bridge certification authority for this purpose. Improving the government’s use and acceptance of electronic 

signatures will ensure more secure electronic transactions with and 

between agencies. 

PRIVACY

The Privacy Act, passed in 1974, protects personal information 

maintained in an agency’s system of records. Since 1974, the rapid 

evolution of information technology has raised questions about 

whether personal information is adequately protected. Furthermore, public apprehension about privacy of personal information 

grew substantially after the development of the Internet. The ‘‘EGovernment Act’’ addresses privacy concerns in several ways. The 

bill requires agencies to complete Privacy Impact Assessments 

(PIA’s) before purchasing or creating IT systems that store personally identifiable information and before initiating collections of information that include personally identifiable information. PIAs, 

which are made public, are meant to explain how agencies have 

factored in privacy considerations. The bill also requires agencies 

to post privacy notices on their websites to inform the public about 

how their personal information is handled when they visit federal 

websites. Finally, the bill requires that agencies convert their privacy policies into machine-readable formats, to provide the public 

with a simple, automated way to better control the use of personal 

information on websites they visit. 

GOVERNMENT INFORMATION

Ever since the passage of the first Paperwork Reduction Act 

(PRA) in 1980, Congress has been refining and expanding federal 

mandates regarding federal dissemination of government information. The dissemination provisions of the 1995 amendment to the 

PRA, in particular, established a detailed and important framework to guide dissemination policy. By 1995, new information technologies already offered the promise of systems that could facilitate 

public and agency access to the vast quantities of poorly organized 

government information. The Government Information Locator 

Service (GILS) required by the 1995 PRA amendment (44 USC 

3511), however, has never achieved that vision. 

The Committee intends that the information provisions in S. 803 

will build upon the information dissemination goals of the PRA, in 

light of the new capabilities offered by the Internet and other information technologies for organizing and disseminating government 

information efficiently. The promise of these technologies has not 

yet been applied to the vast amounts of government information, 

which have been poorly organized by agencies and difficult for the 

public to access in a meaningful way. Furthermore, agencies lack 

clear guidelines for deciding what government information to place 

on the Internet, and how to ensure that this information is appropriately preserved. 

The bill establishes an interagency committee to formulate recommendations on how government information can be better organized, preserved, and made available to the public. The OMB DiVerDate May 23 2002 04:14 Jul 02, 2002 Jkt 099010 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR174.XXX pfrm12 PsN: SR174
9

rector is then required to issue policies binding on agencies, based 

on the recommendations. The bill requires policies on the adoption 

of standards to enable the organization and categorization of information in a way that is searchable electronically, including through 

the use of searchable identifiers. Categorizing government information holdings will allow the public to perform field searches for information holdings. The bill also requires policies that will ensure 

retention of electronic records, including electronic records on the 

Internet. Agencies, after public consultation, will be required to develop priorities and timetables for making government information 

available on the Internet. The bill also requires the creation of a 

directory of government websites, organized according to subject 

matter, to improve the public’s ability to locate the many thousands of useful sites not featured on the government’s Internet portal. 

These and other information provisions in S. 803 are intended to 

complement, and not displace, the PRA and the guidance that implements the PRA, OMB Circular A–130. The goals and mandates 

of the PRA will remain applicable, and the Committee anticipates 

that the definitions and policies in A–130 will be applied, where 

relevant, to the ‘‘E-Government Act’’, as they have been to other recently enacted information laws. For example, the Committee intends the standards enabling the categorization of information to 

build on and advance the purposes of 44 USC 3511, regarding the 

establishment of the Government Information Locator Service. And 

the affirmative requirement for a diversity of public and private 

sources for information based on government public information, 

established by 44 USC 3506(d), should apply as well to S. 803. 

III. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

S. 803 was introduced on May 1, 2001 by Senator Lieberman, 

with Senator Burns as chief co-sponsor. Other co-sponsors are Senators Bingaman, Fitzgerald, Daschle, McCain, Carper, Durbin, 

Johnson, Kerry, Leahy, Levin, Stabenow, Cleland, and Dayton. S. 

803 was referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs, and 

Senator Lieberman chaired a hearing on the legislation on July 11, 

2001. At the hearing, OMB Deputy Director Sean O’Keefe expressed the Administration’s support for electronic government but 

expressed reservations about several aspects of the legislation. 

Months of negotiations and consultations followed, and on March 

21, 2002, the Committee unanimously reported out a revised 

version of the legislation. 

INTERACTIVE E-GOVERNMENT WEBSITE

On May 18, 2000, Senators Lieberman and Thompson launched 

an on-line ‘‘experiment in interactive legislation’’, a website that 

sought public comments on 44 topics related to possible measures 

that Congress could take to advance the cause of e-government. 

Topics were organized into categories, such as ‘‘centralized leadership’’, ‘‘funding innovations’’, and ‘‘digital democracy: citizen access 

and participation,’’ and ranged from ‘‘centralized online portal’’ to ‘‘interoperability standards’’ to ‘‘ ‘G-Bay’: enhanced online distribution of federal government surplus property.’’ For each of the topics, a short discussion described the status of current efforts and 

10

13 Comments were reviewed primarily for appropriateness and relevance; Committee staff did 

not favor any particular viewpoint in deciding which submissions to post. The website was intended to educate the public about the potential of e-government, to solicit input and information on the many topics being considered for possible legislation, and to serve as both an experiment and an example of how the Internet could be used to make government processes more 

accessible to the public. 

the ‘‘New Idea’’, or ideas, being offered for consideration. Visitors 

to the website could then submit their comments on the subject, 

and read views that had been submitted by others. Nearly 1,000 

comments were submitted, approximately one half of which were 

posted on the website after being reviewed by Committee staff.13

Comments were submitted by private citizens, academicians, federal employees, and even federal agencies. OMB also responded to 

the website by soliciting views from federal agencies; OMB officials 

then consolidated agencies’ responses and presented them to the 

Committee as a single document. Opinions, additional information, 

and alternative proposals submitted over the website proved helpful as Senator Lieberman formulated his electronic government legislation. 

LEGISLATION INTRODUCED

When Senator Lieberman introduced S. 803 on May 1, 2001, he 

explained that it was a work in progress, and that he would continue to seek input to improve the bill and to reach a bipartisan 

consensus on how to move forward. Like the bill that would be reported out of Committee, the introduced version consisted of two titles; title I was principally devoted to the OMB’s role in promoting 

electronic government, and title II dealt more generally with the 

roles of other agencies, as well as OMB and the Judicial Branch. 

As introduced, S. 803 also called for the creation of a Federal Chief 

Information Officer (CIO) within OMB, to oversee both electronic 

government initiatives and information resources management 

more generally. The Federal CIO would have presided over a new 

Office of Information Policy, and would have been responsible for 

administering relevant provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 

Government Paperwork Elimination Act, Clinger-Cohen Act, and 

Privacy Act, in addition to electronic government programs and 

mandates. 

HEARING

On July 11, 2001, the committee held a hearing on S. 803. The 

committee heard testimony from the following witnesses: 

The Honorable Conrad Burns; 

The Honorable Sean O’Keefe, Deputy Director, Office of 

Management & Budget; 

Anne K. Altman, Managing Director, U.S. Federal-International Business Machines Corporation; 

Dr. Costis Toregas, President, Public Technology, Inc.; 

Aldona Valicenti, President, National Association of State 

Chief Information Officers; 

Greg Woods, Chief Operating Officer, Student Financial Assistance Programs, United States Department of Education; 

Sharon Hogan, University Librarian, University of Illinois at 

Chicago on behalf of the American Library Association, the 

11

14 Hearing before the Senate Comm. on Governmental Affairs, July 11, 2001, pp. 6–8. 15 Id., pp. 66–68. 

American Association of Research Libraries and the American 

Association of Law Libraries; 

Barry Ingram, Vice President & Chief Technology Officer, 

EDS Government Global Industry Group, on behalf of the Information Technology Association of America; 

Patricia Mcginnis, President & Chief Executive Officer, 

Council for Excellence in Government; and 

The Honorable Joseph R. Wright, Jr., former Director and 

Deputy Director, Office of Management & Budget, Vice Chairman, Terremark Worldwide, Inc. 

Senator Burns, the chief co-sponsor of S. 803 and the first hearing witness, described the bill’s guiding philosophy as ‘‘a simple 

and practical one’’: ‘‘the Federal Government should take advantage of the tremendous opportunities offered by information technology to better serve its constituents.’’ Senator Burns described 

how some of the bill’s main provisions will further that goal.14

Deputy Director Sean O’Keefe testified on behalf of the Administration. Mr. O’Keefe explained that e-government was one of five 

elements of the President’s management agenda. In his prepared 

statement, Mr. O’Keefe identified four key components of a successful electronic government strategy: (1) ‘‘citizen centric strategy’’, 

with initiatives tailored to meeting the needs of individuals, businesses and other governments, as well as pointed towards improving internal processes; (2) ‘‘simplifying processes’’, with an emphasis on re-engineering rather than simply automating; (3) ‘‘bridging 

islands of automation’’, to address chronic management problems 

caused by allowing inter-related functions to develop in isolation; 

and (4) ‘‘information architecture and knowledge management’’, described as two key interrelated features of proper information management.15

In addition to broadly agreeing on the importance of e-government, Mr. O’Keefe also described the Administration’s position on 

particular aspects of S. 803. The Administration favored the proposed creation of an E-Government Fund, to support inter-agency 

e-government projects. Mr. O’Keefe also conveyed the Administration’s support for bill provisions related to the federal Internet portal, interoperability of electronic signatures, standards for geographic information systems, and comparable access to IT for persons with disabilities. The Administration had several concerns 

about the bill, according to the Deputy Director. First, the bill did 

not contain performance goals, and Mr. O’Keefe asserted that egovernment’s value could only be judged by the extent to which it 

helped agencies achieve their strategic objectives. Second, the Administration opposed the creation of a Federal Chief Information 

Officer whose duties would relate primarily to information policy. 

Mr. O’Keefe stated that ‘‘[t]he President believes that the OMB 

Deputy Director for Management should be the governmentwide 

CIO because all management challenges are intertwined.’’ Finally, 

the Administration opposed the bill’s creation of several distinct forums to facilitate dialogue and make policy recommendations, and 

12

16 Id., pp. 69–71. 17 Id., p. 11. 18 Id., pp. 13–14. 19 Id., pp. 11–13. 20 Id., p. 30. 21 Id., pp. 31–33. 22 Id., pp. 33–35. 

the establishment of separate reporting requirements on the extent 

of the government’s compliance with the bill’s provisions.16

During the period for questioning the witness, Senator 

Lieberman expressed his interest in working with the Administration to develop consensus e-government legislation, and his willingness to address the Administration’s concerns. For example, the 

Senator agreed that the bill could be improved with the addition 

of performance standards.17 Mr. O’Keefe and Senator Lieberman 

both emphasized the importance an E-Government Fund would 

have in supporting inter-agency projects, and Mr. O’Keefe characterized the differences in proposed authorized expenditures for the 

Fund as ‘‘not a point of great contention,’’ adding that ‘‘we will certainly negotiate with [the Appropriations Committee] for the maximum amount we can possibly attain.’’ 18

Senator Lieberman also questioned whether the OMB Deputy Director for Management (DDM) could adequately perform the tasks 

of a Federal Chief Information Officer, as proposed by the Administration, given the many other management responsibilities of the 

DDM. Mr. O’Keefe stated that the Administration agreed with Senator Lieberman’s ‘‘assessment that the focus on information technology needs to be elevated within the context of the larger management agenda.’’ Mr. O’Keefe asserted that the Administration’s 

recent creation of a new position, Associate Director for Information Technology and E-Government, would help address concerns 

about government-wide management of information technology. 

Mr. O’Keefe promised that if the Committee determined after some 

time had elapsed that there was still a deficiency in the management and administrative functions, the Administration would revisit the question.19

At the conclusion of Mr. O’Keefe’s testimony, Senator Lieberman 

repeated his desire to quickly bridge any differences with the Administration on S. 803, and Mr. O’Keefe agreed that he would 

make this a priority as well.20

The next panel consisted of testimony from four witnesses. Anne 

Altman described the significant savings IBM realized by incorporating Internet technology into its core business. A similar transformation in federal government processes, she argued, would save 

many billions of dollars, and S. 803 addressed the most important 

elements necessary for that transformation, including interoperability, funding, and leadership.21 Dr. Costis Toregas, the President 

of a non-profit institution focusing on the role of technology in cities and counties, testified to the e-government experiences of local 

governments, and to the lessons learned from those activities.22

Next, Aldona Valicenti testified in her capacity as President of the 

National Association of Chief Information Officers of the States 

(NASCIO). Ms. Valicenti noted that NASCIO had already come out 

in support of a dedicated Federal CIO position (the overwhelming 

majority of states had CIO’s), and also emphasized the importance 

of integrating across agencies and program stovepipes, codifying 

13

23 Id., pp. 86–90. 24 Id., pp. 38–40. 25 Id., pp. 48–50. 26 Id., pp. 50–52. 27 Id., pp. 52–54. 28 Id., pp. 135–143. 

the federal CIO Council, and improving coordination with state and 

local governments.23 Greg Woods described how the Student Financial Aid Program was rapidly moving to web-based processes: that 

year, 5 million students would apply for financial aid over the 

Internet, representing half of all applicants, and the agency’s 

website provided a number of consolidated services for borrowers 

once loans had been awarded. Mr. Woods also explained that successful e-government requires not just new websites, but re-engineered underlying processes.24

The final panel also consisted of four witnesses. Sharon Hogan, 

testifying on behalf of three library associations that supported S. 

803, stressed the importance of centralized coordination to make 

electronic government information more accessible and usable.25

Barry Ingram, testifying on behalf of the Information Technology 

Association of America, applauded the bill’s well-funded E-Government Fund and its emphasis on high-level IT leadership within the 

Federal Government, and also highlighted the importance of good 

privacy and security protections, of the re-engineering and re-invention of government processes, and of the need for incentives to 

use new e-government services.26 Patricia McGinnis cited the results of polls sponsored by the Council for Excellence in Government, which showed that Americans overwhelmingly supported 

electronic government initiatives. Ms. McGinnis also spoke of the 

importance of breaking down governmental stovepipes, which the 

E-Government Fund would facilitate, and called for more public 

dialogue on e-government.27 Joseph Wright, while pointing out that 

e-government was already a national priority, capable of achieving 

great savings and increasingly demanded by citizens, asserted that 

federal agencies had not made the same progress as the private 

sector, state and local governments, and some other countries.28

COMMITTEE ACTION

In the months after the hearing, committee staff from the Majority and Minority participated in discussions with staff from OMB, 

in an effort to arrive at consensus legislation. During this period 

committee staff continue to seek input from other interested parties and members of the public. By March of 2002, Committee staff 

had arrived at language that Chairman Lieberman and Ranking 

Republican Thompson supported. The revised bill contained numerous changes requested by OMB on behalf of the Administration. At 

the Committee’s March 21, 2002, mark-up, Senator Lieberman offered on behalf of himself and Senator Thompson the revised language as an amendment in the nature of a substitute to S. 803. 

The changes made to the bill directly addressed the Administration’s concerns, as expressed by Mr. O’Keefe at the Committee’s 

hearing and by OMB officials in subsequent discussions. Because 

of the Administration’s opposition, the provisions establishing a 

14

29OMB officials indicated during negotiations that a more appropriate forum for discussing 

the Federal CIO issue would be the reauthorization of the Paperwork Reduction Act. 

Federal Chief Information Officer were removed.29 Rather than establish a Federal Chief Information Officer with responsibility for 

government-wide information policy, the amended bill creates an 

Office of Electronic Government, headed by a Senate-confirmed Administrator. New language requires agencies to develop performance measures that demonstrate how electronic government enables progress toward agency objectives and strategic goals. Several 

fora that would have been established to promote dialogue with different entities and groups were removed from the bill; instead, the 

Administrator is required to sponsor dialogue with these groups. 

Separate reporting requirements were consolidated into an annual 

E-Government report. 

On the same date, the Committee ordered S. 803 reported, as 

amended, by voice vote, with no members present dissenting. Senators present were Levin, Akaka, Cleland, Thompson, Stevens, 

Voinovich, Cochran, Bennett, and Lieberman. 

IV. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title 

This section would permit the bill to be cited as the ‘‘E-Government Act of 2002.’’

Section 2. Findings and purposes

This section details the findings and purposes of the bill. 

Findings: Congress finds that, although computers and the Internet are rapidly transforming society, the federal government has 

had uneven success in applying advances in information technology 

to improve government performance and citizens’ access to government services and information. Agencies’ jurisdictional boundaries, 

in particular, present obstacles to the development of Internetbased government services and information integrated according to 

function and the need of the citizenry. Taking full advantage of the 

potential benefits of Internet-based technology requires new leadership, better organization, improved interagency collaboration, and 

more focused oversight. 

Purposes: The bill’s purposes, as explained in section 2, include 

providing effective leadership of the federal government’s efforts to 

develop electronic government services and processes by establishing an Administrator of a new Office of Electronic Government 

within the Office of Management and Budget. More generally, the 

bill is intended to promote use by the federal government of the 

Internet and information technologies to increase citizens’ access to 

their government, and to government information and services. The 

bill is also intended to achieve greater interagency collaboration, to 

reduce costs and burdens for businesses and other government entities, and to make government more efficient. The Committee intends the bill to promote streamlining of technology requirements 

in a way that allows the federal government to respond to changes 

in technology in a timely manner. 

15

TITLE I: OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET E-GOVERNMENT

SERVICES

Section 101. Management and promotion of electronic government 

services 

Section 101 amends title 44 of the United States Code by creating a new Chapter 36. Chapter 36 primarily concerns the role of 

the Office of Management and Budget in implementing electronic 

government. 

Section 3601 defines terms for purposes of Chapter 36. The definitions used in title 44, Chapter 35 (the Paperwork Reduction Act) 

also apply. The definition of ‘‘electronic government’’ demonstrates 

that electronic government initiatives may have any of several 

goals, including improved information and services, a more effective and efficient government, and the transformation of government processes. Electronic government is also defined by the technologies and processes it employs. The Committee intends the term 

‘‘digital technologies’’ in the definition of ‘‘electronic government’’ to 

be synonymous with the term ‘‘information technologies’’, as defined under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 USC 3502). 

Section 3601 also defines ‘‘enterprise architecture.’’ Successful 

public and private-sector organizations have used enterprise architectures as a best practice for effective business and technology 

transformation. In simplest terms, an ‘‘enterprise’’ represents the 

entire scope of an entity (e.g., an entire agency or set of agencies 

performing a related function), and an ‘‘architecture’’ is the structural description of the processes that make up the entity; an ‘‘enterprise architecture’’ describes the business, information, technology, and infrastructure of such entities. The architecture describes the current environment, as well as the target environment, 

and the modernization plan that bridges the two. When well implemented, enterprise architectures bring clarity to the interrelationships among business operations and the underlying IT that support the operations, and can be used to guide IT investments in a 

way that reduces redundancies in systems and processes, modernizes operations, and improves program performance. 

Section 3602 establishes a new Office of Electronic Government 

within the Office of Management and Budget. The Office of Electronic Government is headed by an Administrator (referred to in 

the bill as the ‘‘Administrator’’), who will be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The Administrator will assist 

the OMB Director by implementing electronic government initiatives, including new programs and initiatives provided for in the 

Act. S. 803 delegates implementation of a number of the sections 

to the OMB Director, especially in title II. The Committee intends 

that in many of these cases, the Administrator will perform this 

work on the Director’s behalf. 

Subsection 3602(d) provides that the Administrator will work 

with other offices within OMB to set strategic direction for implementing electronic government pursuant to other information statutes. These statutes include the PRA, Division E of the ClingerCohen Act of 1996 (also known as the Information Technology 

Management Reform Act), the Privacy Act, the Government Paperwork Elimination Act, GISRA, and the Computer Security Act of 

1987. It is not the Committee’s intent to alter ultimate accountVerDate May 23 2002 04:14 Jul 02, 2002 Jkt 099010 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR174.XXX pfrm12 PsN: SR174
16

ability for the laws listed in this subsection. Rather, the Committee 

recognizes that successful implementation of electronic government 

will require successful implementation of a number of pre-existing 

information statues. 

Subsection 3602(e) provides that the Administrator shall work 

with other offices within OMB to oversee the implementation of 

electronic government under this bill and other relevant statutes, 

relating to capital planning and investment control for information 

technology, the development of enterprise architectures, information security, privacy, access to, dissemination of, and preservation 

of government information, and other areas of electronic government. 

Subsection 3602(f) provides that the Administrator shall assist 

the OMB Director by performing a number of specified electronic 

government functions. The Committee does not intend the functions listed in this subsection to be exclusive. • (f)(1) Advise the OMB Director on the resources required to develop and effectively operate federal government information systems. • (f)(2) Recommend to the Director changes in governmentwide 

strategies and priorities for electronic government. • (f)(3) Provide overall leadership and direction to the executive 

branch on electronic government by working with authorized officials to establish information resource management policies in relevant areas, and by reviewing agencies’ performance in the acquisition, use, and management of their information resources. • (f)(4) Promote innovative uses of information technology, especially initiatives involving multi-agency collaboration. • (f)(5) Oversee the distribution of funds from the ‘‘E-Government Fund’’, established in Section 3604. • (f)(6) Coordinate with the Administrator of the General Services Administration on GSA programs undertaken to promote electronic government. • (f)(7) Lead the activities of the Chief Information Officers 

Council, on behalf of the OMB Deputy Director for Management, 

who shall chair the council. 

• (f)(8) Help to establish policies which set the framework for information technology standards and guidelines for interconnectivity 

and interoperability, categorizing Federal Government electronic 

information to enable efficient use of technologies, such as through 

the use of extensible markup language, and computer system efficiency and security. The standards themselves would be developed 

by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and promulgated by the Secretary of Commerce. The recommendations of the 

Chief Information Officers Council, experts, interested parties from 

the public, and state and local governments would be taken into account to the extent appropriate. The use of commercial standards 

would be maximized as appropriate. The term ‘‘interested parties’’, 

which is used in several places where the bill allows for input by 

non-governmental actors, is not intended to limit input to those 

with a direct and immediate stake in the outcome. Extensible 

markup language (XML), referenced in the subsection, is a flexible, 

nonproprietary set of standards for annotating information so that 

it can be transmitted over a network such as the Internet and 

readily interpreted by disparate computer systems. In April of 

17

30 ‘‘Electronic Government: Challenges to Effective Adoption of the Extensible Markup Language,’’ GAO–02–327, April 2002, p. 9. 31 Id., pp. 7–8, 10. 

2002, the General Accounting Office released a report recommending that ‘‘the director of OMB, working in concert with the 

federal CIO Council and NIST, develop a strategy for governmentwide adoption of XML to guide agency implementation efforts and 

ensure that the technology is addressed in agency enterprise architectures.’’ 30 The GAO had found that such a governmentwide strategy was lacking; officials from OMB largely concurred in the report’s findings.31 Extensible markup language is listed as an example of a technology that can allow for the categorizing of federal 

government electronic information. The Committee intends that 

the standards and guidelines to be developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology for the categorization of federal 

government electronic information shall be consistent with any 

similar standards adopted pursuant to Section 207(d) of this Act. 

• (f)(9) Sponsor dialogue among federal, state, local and tribal 

leaders on electronic government to encourage collaboration and 

share best practices. A principal goal of the dialogue will be to improve collaboration in the use of information technology. Several 

possible topics of discussion are listed, including identifying mechanisms for providing incentives to federal government managers and 

employees to innovate, and identifying opportunities for collaboration in addressing societal disparities in access to the Internet and 

information technology. 

• (f)(10) Oversee the development of an integrated, standardized, 

Internet-based system (the federal Internet portal) for providing 

government information and services to the public from a single 

point, organized by function, as provided for in Section 204 of the 

bill. 

• (f)(11) Coordinate with the Office of Federal Procurement Policy in implementing electronic procurement initiatives. 

• (f)(12) Assist federal entities in implementing accessibility 

standards established pursuant to section 508 of the Rehabilitation 

Act of 1973 (29 USC 794d), and in ensuring compliance with those 

standards. Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act requires Federal 

agencies to ensure that their procurement of electronic and information technology takes into account the needs of people with disabilities. It requires that all U.S. government agencies ‘‘ensure that 

* * * federal employees with disabilities * * * have access to and 

use of information and data that is comparable to the access of 

those without disabilities.’’ It also requires that federal agencies developing Web sites ensure that citizens with disabilities have equal 

access to the information on those Web sites. 

• (f)(13) Oversee the development of enterprise architectures 

within and across agencies. 

• (f)(14) Administer the Office of Electronic Government. 

• (f)(15) Assist the Director in preparing the E-Government Report established under Section 3605. 

Subsection 3602(g) requires the Director of OMB to ensure that 

the OMB, including the Office of Electronic Government and other 

relevant offices, have adequate staff and resources to fulfill all 

functions under the bill. 

18

Section 3603 establishes in the Executive Branch a Chief Information Officers’ (CIO) Council. The section codifies the Council created by President Clinton’s Executive Order 13011 of July 16, 

1996, with some changes. The Council has proven to be a worthwhile forum for promoting sound information resources management policies. 

Subsection 3603(b) lists the members of the Council. The OMB 

Deputy Director for Management shall chair the Council, and is 

authorized to designate any officer or employee of the United 

States to be a member, in addition to those listed. 

Subsection 3603(c) provides that the Administrator of the Office 

of Electronic Government shall lead the activities of the Council on 

behalf of the Deputy Director for Management. The Council will 

also have a Vice Chairman, selected from among the Council’s 

members. The Council will receive administrative and other support from the General Services Administration. 

Subsection 3603(d) designates the Council as the principal interagency forum for improving agency practices with respect to Federal Government information resources.

Subsection 3603(e) lists a number of functions that the Council 

shall perform. This is not intended to be an exclusive list, as the 

Committee intends to provide the Council with discretion to take 

up new issues as appropriate. The Committee recognizes that as 

technology and management priorities change, the agenda of the 

CIO Council must allow for flexibility. The functions of the Council 

that this bill describes are intended to be sufficiently broad so as 

to provide OMB and CIOs with flexibility to address and manage 

change. Its responsibilities will include: • (e)(1) developing recommendations on information resources management (IRM) policies and requirements; • (e)(2) sharing experiences and best practices related to 

IRM; • (e)(3) assisting the Administrator in developing multiagency projects to improve Government performance through 

the use of information technology; 

• (e)(4) promoting the development of common performance 

measures for agency IRM; 

• (e)(5) working with the National Institute of Standards 

and Technology and the Administrator to develop recommendations on information technology standards; and 

• (e)(6) working with the Office of Personnel Management to 

address the hiring, training and professional development 

needs of the government with respect to IRM. 

The Committee intends that others can contribute to the Council’s consideration of these and other issues, including non-Executive Branch federal officials and, importantly, representatives of 

state, local and tribal governments. In the past, the Council has engaged in regular dialogue and consultation with non-federal representatives. The Committee intends that this dialogue continue 

and, where appropriate, be increased. 

Section 3604 establishes an E-Government Fund to fund innovative interagency electronic government projects. One of the most 

frequently cited impediments to e-government progress is the lack 

of funding mechanisms for interagency projects in information technology. Electronic government provides an opportunity to define 

19

government interactions less by agency boundaries, and more by 

topic, or the needs of the citizen. Collaboration on advanced information technology systems can also make complex government operations much more effective, particularly when these activities involve multiple agencies or levels of government. But these collaboratively developed advanced information technology systems also 

require coordination in how the project is funded, which can be difficult to achieve using traditional budgetary processes. The E-Government Fund will provide a central funding pool to support the 

development of these collaboratively developed electronic government initiatives. 

Subsections 3604(a) and (b) provide that the Fund is administered by the General Services Administration, and funding for 

projects is approved by the OMB Director. The Administrator of the 

Office of Electronic Government will assist the Director, partly by 

establishing procedures for accepting and reviewing proposals for 

funding, reviewing proposals, managing the Fund, and recommending proposals for funding. Projects receiving funding may include efforts that use the Internet or other electronic methods to 

make Federal information and services more available to members 

of the public, make it easier to conduct transactions, or enable Federal agencies to share information and conduct transactions with 

each other and with State and local governments. 

Subsection 3604(b)(2) lists procedures the Administrator must 

observe when reviewing proposals for funding. A project requiring 

substantial involvement or funding from an agency must be approved by a senior official with agencywide authority. Projects 

must adhere to fundamental capital planning and investment control processes. Agencies will be required to identify in their proposals resource commitments from the agencies involved, and include plans for potential continuation of projects after all funds 

made available from the Fund are expended. Agencies would not 

be required to include plans for continuation of projects if there 

were a legitimate reason for the proposed project to be of limited 

duration. The Director, assisted by the Administrator, will have 

final authority to determine which proposed projects should be 

funded. Agencies receiving funds will be required to assess the results of funded projects. 

Subsection 3604(c)(1) lists some of the criteria that the Administrator shall consider in deciding which proposals to fund. The Committee intends the term ‘‘consider’’ to mean that the listed criteria 

need not be determinative; the Administrator must consider the 

listed criteria, but may decide that some of the criteria are not relevant for a given project. Some of the criteria should be considered 

fundamental to any proposal, especially 3604(c)(1)(D), which requires that proposals ensure proper security and protect privacy. 

Subsection 3604(c)(2) lists criteria the Administrator may consider 

in deciding which proposals to fund. 

Subsection 3604(d) provides that funds from the E-Government 

Fund may be used for the federal Internet portal established in 

Section 204 of the bill. Any decision to use funds for the portal 

should be made following the procedures established in Section 

3604. 

Subsections 3604(e) and (f) provide that no funds may be transferred to any agency until fifteen days after the Administrator of 

20

the General Services Administration has notified the Appropriations Committees, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs 

and House Committee on Government Reform, and the appropriate 

authorizing committees, and described how the funds will be used. 

The OMB Director will also report annually to Congress on the operation of the Fund, as part of the E-Government Report required 

by Section 3605. The Director’s annual report will include a description of the results achieved to date. 

Subsection 3604(g) authorizes to be appropriated for the Fund 

$45,000,000 in fiscal year 2003, $50,000,000 in fiscal year 2004, 

$100,000,000 in fiscal year 2005, and $150,000,000 in fiscal year 

2006. The funds will remain available until expended. 

Section 3605 requires the OMB Director to submit annually an 

E-Government Report to the Senate Committee on Governmental 

Affairs and House Committee on Government Reform. The report 

will contain a summary of information required to be reported by 

agencies under subsection 202(f) of the bill, information about the 

operations of the E-Government Fund, and a description of the federal government’s compliance with the bill’s other goals and provisions.

Section 102. Conforming amendments 

Section 102 makes conforming amendments, modifying the duties 

of the Administrator of the General Services Administration to require consultation with the Administrator on electronic government 

programs, and adding to the functions of the OMB Deputy Director 

for Management the responsibility of chairing the CIO Council. 

TITLE II: FEDERAL MANAGEMENT AND PROMOTION OF E-GOVERNMENT

SERVICES

Section 201. Definitions 

Section 201 provides that definitions used in the Paperwork Reduction Act (at 44 USC 3502), and in title I of the E-Government 

Act of 2002 (which will be codified at 44 USC 3601) apply to title 

II, except where otherwise noted. 

Section 202. Federal agency responsibilities 

Section 202 establishes general requirements with which all 

agencies must comply in implementing electronic government and 

the mandates of the E-Government Act. Successful implementation 

of electronic government will require cooperation between agencies, 

and a collaborative working relationship between the Office of 

Management and Budget and agencies. Agency officials will also 

have to re-engineer their ‘‘back-office’’ IT processes to ensure that 

IT spending does not simply automate existing stovepipes. Finally, 

electronic government applications developed by agencies should be 

designed to further agency objectives and strategic goals. 

Subsection 202(a) specifies that the heads of federal agencies will 

be responsible for complying with the E-Government Act, and related policies, guidance, and standards. They must also ensure that 

the policies, guidance, and standards developed pursuant to the Act 

will be communicated promptly to relevant officials, and they will 

be responsible for supporting the development of the federal Internet portal, provided for in Section 204. 

21

Subsection 202(b) requires agencies to develop performance 

measures that demonstrate how electronic government enables 

progress towards agency objectives and strategic goals. Agencies 

are required to link the performance goals to key customer segments. 

Subsection 202(c) requires agency heads, when implementing 

programs which provide information and services over the Internet, 

to consider the impact on persons without access to the Internet. 

To the extent practicable, agency heads must ensure that the availability of Government services and information has not been diminished for individuals who lack access to the Internet, and pursue 

alternate modes of delivery that would make the information and 

services more accessible to those who lack access to the Internet. 

Subsection 202(d) requires that all actions taken by departments 

and agencies under this Act be in compliance with section 508 of 

the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The law applies to all Federal agencies when they develop, procure, maintain, or use electronic and information technology. The Committee intends that the term ‘‘information technology’’ in this Section be interpreted in the same manner as the term ‘‘electronic and information technology’’ under Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. 

Subsection 202(e) provides that agency Chief Information Officers will be responsible for participating in the functions of the CIO 

Council and monitoring within their agencies the implementation 

of information technology standards promulgated under the E-Government Act. 

Subsection 202(f) requires each agency to submit to OMB an annual report on the status of the agency’s implementation of electronic government initiatives and its compliance with the provisions of this Act. The Director will determine the time and manner 

of the submission. The Director is then required to report a summary of the agencies’ reports, as part of the E-Government Report 

referred to in Section 3605. The Committee intends that agencies 

should report on the sections of this Act that are relevant to agency 

activities and initiatives, unless noted. The Committee also intends 

that cross-agency initiatives be included in the report. In cases 

where agencies are involved in collaborative efforts, one agency 

may serve as the lead agency in reporting on the status of the initiative on behalf of its partner agencies. 

Section 203. Compatibility of methods for use and acceptance of 

electronic signatures 

Section 203 provides for measures to achieve appropriately secure electronic government through the establishment of a framework for interoperable implementation of electronic signatures. 

Subsection 203(b) furthers the goals of the Government Paperwork Elimination Act by requiring that agencies’ methods for using 

and accepting electronic signatures are compatible with the policies 

issued by the OMB Director. 

Subsection 203(c) requires the General Services Administration, 

working with the OMB Director, to establish a framework to allow 

efficient interoperability among Executive agencies when using 

electronic signatures. Subsection 203(d) authorizes to the General 

Services Administration $8,000,000 in fiscal year 2003 to develop 

and operate a Federal bridge certification authority for digital sigVerDate May 23 2002 04:14 Jul 02, 2002 Jkt 099010 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR174.XXX pfrm12 PsN: SR174
22

nature compatibility, or for other purposes consistent with the section. 

The term electronic signatures is defined in the Government Paperwork Elimination Act as ‘‘a method of signing a message that— (A) identifies and authenticates a particular person as the source 

of the electronic message; and (B) indicates such person’s approval 

of the information contained in the electronic message.’’ (Public 

Law 105–277, Section 1710) A digital signature is one type of electronic signature, often involving the use of trusted third parties. 

The federal bridge certification authority has recently begun limited operations. The federal bridge certification authority can be a 

unifying element to link otherwise unconnected agency certification 

authorities. 

Section 204. Federal Internet portal 

This section authorizes the development of an integrated Internet-based system, a Federal Internet portal, to provide the public 

with consolidated access to government information and services 

from a single point, organized according to function, topic and the 

needs of the public rather than agency jurisdiction. Increasingly, 

the Federal portal should be able to include access to information 

and services provided by state, local and tribal governments. The 

portal will continue to improve upon FirstGov.gov, which is administered by the General Services Administration. The Administrator 

of the Office of Electronic Government will assist the Director by 

overseeing the work of the General Services Administration and 

other agencies in maintaining, improving, and promoting the portal. The bill authorizes $15,000,000 to be appropriated in fiscal 

year 2003 for the maintenance, improvement, and promotion of the 

portal, and such sums as are necessary for the subsequent four 

years. 

The Committee intends that access to information on a portal 

web site be consistent with existing laws and policies on privacy. 

Portal web sites maintained by Federal agencies should only allow 

access to information on individuals if such access fully complies 

with privacy protections under existing law and policy. 

Section 205. Federal courts 

Section 205 requires federal courts to provide greater access to 

judicial information over the Internet. Greater access to judicial information enhances opportunities for the public to become educated 

about their legal system and to research case-law, and it improves 

access to the court system. The mandates contained in section 205 

are not absolute, however. Any court is authorized to defer compliance with the requirements of this section, and the Judicial Conference of the United States is authorized to promulgate rules to 

protect privacy and security concerns. 

Subsections 205(a) through (c) require the Supreme Court, each 

circuit court, each district court, and each bankruptcy court of a 

district to establish a website that would include public information 

such as location and contact information for courthouses, local 

rules and standing orders of the court, docket information for each 

case, and access to written opinions issued by the court, in a text 

searchable format. Documents filed electronically, and those converted to electronic form, shall also be made available, except that 

23

32See ‘‘Federal Rulemaking: Agencies’ Use of Information Technology to Facilitate Public Participation,’’ General Accounting Office, B–284527, June 30, 2000.

documents not otherwise available to the public shall not be made 

available online. Under subsection 205(c)(3), the Judicial Conference of the United States may promulgate rules to protect important privacy and security concerns. 

Under subsection 205(f), courts are required to establish websites 

within two years, and to establish access to electronically filed documents within four years. Subsection 205(g) authorizes any court 

or district to defer compliance with any requirement of section 205 

by submitting a notification to the Administrative Office of the 

United States Courts stating the reasons for the deferral and the 

alternative methods the court is using to provide greater public access to court information. Every year, the Administrative Office 

will submit to Congress a report that summarizes and evaluates all 

notifications it has received in the previous year. The Committee 

does not intend that the deferral provision will allow courts to 

avoid their obligations under this section indefinitely. Rather, the 

Committee recognizes that some courts may have a difficult time 

meeting the prescribed deadlines, and intends to provide flexibility 

for courts with different circumstances. 

Subsection 205(d) directs the Judicial Conference of the United 

States to explore the feasibility of technology to post online dockets 

with links allowing all filings, decisions, and rulings in a given case 

to be obtained from the docket sheet of that case. 

Subsection 205(e) amends existing law regarding the fees that 

the Judicial Conference prescribes for access to electronic information. In the Judiciary Appropriations Act of 1992, Congress provided that ‘‘[t]he Judicial Conference shall hereafter prescribe reasonable fees * * * for collection by the courts * * * for access to 

information available through automatic data processing equipment.’’ Subsection 205(e) amends this sentence to read, ‘‘[t]he judicial conference may, only to the extent necessary, prescribe reasonable fees * * * for collection by the courts * * * for access to information available through automatic data processing equipment.’’

The Committee intends to encourage the Judicial Conference to 

move from a fee structure in which electronic docketing systems 

are supported primarily by user fees to a fee structure in which 

this information is freely available to the greatest extent possible. 

For example, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts 

operates an electronic public access service, known as PACER, that 

allows users to obtain case and docket information from Federal 

Appellate, District and Bankruptcy courts, and from the U.S. 

Party/Case Index. Pursuant to existing law, users of PACER are 

charged fees that are higher than the marginal cost of disseminating the information. 

Section 206. Regulatory agencies 

Electronic Government holds particular promise in the area of 

enhancing public participation in administrative regulatory processes. Regulatory agencies vary widely in the degree to which they 

use information technology to disseminate information about regulations, inform the public of opportunities to participate, and facilitate the receipt of public comments.32 Section 206 will improve perVerDate May 23 2002 04:14 Jul 02, 2002 Jkt 099010 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR174.XXX pfrm12 PsN: SR174
24

formance in the development of agency regulations by increasing 

access, accountability, and transparency, and will enhance public 

participation in the regulatory process. 

Subsection 206(b) requires regulatory agencies, to the extent 

practicable, to make available on an accessible government website 

information about the agency. The required information, as listed 

in the Administrative Procedures Act (at 5 USC 552(a)(1)), includes 

descriptions of the agency’s organization; where the public may obtain information or make submissions; rules of procedure, description of available forms, and instructions as to the scope and content 

of papers, reports, and examinations; and substantive rules of general applicability, statements of general policy or interpretations of 

general applicability adopted by the agency. This information is 

currently required to be published in the Federal Register. 

Subsection 206(c) requires agencies to accept submissions by 

electronic means, to the extent practicable. This provision applies 

to submissions filed by interested persons in an administrative 

rulemaking. 

Subsection 206(d) requires regulatory agencies to establish electronic dockets for online rulemaking, to the extent practicable, on 

an accessible government website. Electronic dockets allow parties 

interested in a rulemaking to file comments electronically, and to 

view the comments of other parties. Agencies will be required, ‘‘to 

the extent practicable,’’ to include all submissions under section 

553(c) of title 5, U.S.C., and other materials that agencies include 

in their dockets (by rule or practice) in their electronic dockets, 

whether or not they were submitted electronically. The Committee 

notes that agencies receive many materials in the docket that may 

be difficult to make accessible through electronic means. There are 

also copyright issues associated with some materials submitted to 

agency dockets. To avoid the burden associated with transferring 

certain items to electronic format, such as books or physical objects, 

agencies may simply provide notice of the availability of the material, including in the electronic docket a description of the item and 

instructions for the public on accessing the material through the 

agency docket. Agencies may also consider using visual means, 

such as digital photos, to make materials available through the 

agency’s electronic docket. 

Subsection 206(e) provides that the OMB Director will determine 

appropriate deadlines for compliance by all regulatory agencies, 

and include the deadlines in the first E-Government report submitted to Congress. 

Section 207. Accessibility, usability and preservation of government 

information 

Government information is a vital national resource; for decades 

the federal government has been grappling with the difficulties inherent in organizing, preserving and disseminating government information, with mixed results. Section 207 is intended to ensure 

that the Internet and other information technologies improve the 

way government information is organized, preserved, and made 

available to the public, and to do so in a way that complement existing law, enhances current initiatives, and makes use of existing 

standards where appropriate. The section establishes an Interagency Committee on Government Information, chaired by the 

25

OMB Director or the Director’s designee, to make policy recommendations, after consultation with the public, on (1) categorizing of information, (2) access to and preservation of electronic information, (3) educational resource materials, and (4) dissemination 

of information about scientific research performed by the federal 

government. The OMB Director and the Archivist of the United 

States are required to issue policies based on the recommendations 

in several of these areas, which would be binding on agencies. Section 207 also authorizes funding for a database and website to provide access to information about federally funded research and development, and requires the development of a directory of federal 

government websites and the promulgation of standards for agency 

websites. 

Subsection 207(c) establishes the Interagency Committee on Government Information, which will include representatives from the 

National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and agencies’ Chief Information Officers. The Committee believes that the 

interagency committee must include individuals with expertise in 

managing the content of large government databases, as well as 

those with responsibility for developing the technical infrastructure 

for electronic government. Therefore, the Committee suggests that 

representatives of agencies whose primary responsibility is the organization and dissemination of information, such as the National 

Library of Medicine and the National Agriculture Library, as well 

the Government Printing Office and the Library of Congress, participate in the work of the interagency committee. 

The OMB Director has the discretion to include on the interagency committee representatives from the other branches of the 

federal government, and the Committee suggests that the interagency committee work with the Government Printing Office, the 

Library of Congress, and other appropriate non-Executive Branch 

entities, whether or not they are formal members of the committee. 

The Director has the discretion to terminate the interagency committee after it has submitted recommendations specified in the bill, 

but the Director also has the discretion to maintain the committee 

indefinitely to update its recommendations as warranted. The Committee intends that the interagency committee consult with interested groups in such a way as to seek views and not to warrant 

the invocation of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). 

Existing technologies and cataloging methods could allow agencies to keep better track of their own information holdings, and to 

provide public access to information about those holdings, in a way 

that is searchable electronically. Under subsection 207(d), the 

interagency committee will recommend the adoption of standards 

to accomplish this goal, and recommend which categories of information should be classified according to the standards. The OMB 

Director will issue policies based on the recommendations, requiring agency use of the standards, and will set deadlines for implementing the standards with respect to defined categories of information. Agencies are required to report to the OMB Director on 

their compliance with policies developed under subsection 207(d), 

and the OMB Director will report annually to Congress. Any further modification of the policies calls for consultation with Congress and the public.

26

The standards required by subsection 207(d) must enable government information to be organized and categorized in a way that is 

searchable electronically, including by searchable identifiers, and 

interoperable across agencies; the standards must be open to the 

maximum extent feasible. Searchable identifiers, or ‘‘keys’’ as they 

are referred to in the technical community, are data elements created or provided at the time of origination of a record, information 

collection, or other information product; the identifier links the 

item to other common subjects which share that identifier. These 

identifiers are essential for helping to link or integrate information 

from different agencies or departments, and are an important 

building block to sustaining meaningful public access. The use of 

the term ‘‘organization and categorization’’ in subsection 207(d) also 

can refer to the structuring and cataloging of information resources 

to make them easily retrievable, such as with ‘‘metadata’’. ‘‘Metadata’’ can refer either to the indexing of information or to the 

description of data that is being provided. 

The Committee intends that the searchable identifiers developed 

under this section will build on and advance the purposes of section 

3511 of title 44 of the United States Code. Section 3511 requires 

the development of a Government Information Locator Service 

(GILS), and was intended to lead ultimately to a system by which 

agencies and the public could locate and obtain government information holdings. The standards also are intended to apply more 

broadly than just GILS and are related to other portions of S. 803. 

For example, section 204 requires the maintenance of a web portal, 

which will help provide meaningful public access to government information. The standards in subsection 207(d) will strengthen the 

ability to search and quickly find information that is available 

through agency web sites. Similarly, section 212, regarding integrated reporting, is expected to improve access to information held 

in government databases; the standards derived from subsection 

207(d) could expedite that goal. The Committee also intends that 

the standards for the categorization of information to be adopted 

pursuant to this section will be consistent with the standards developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology in 

subsection 3602(f)(8)(B) in Section 101 of this Act. 

Subsection 207(e) will improve preservation of, and public access 

to, electronic information by achieving greater compliance with the 

Federal Records Act with respect to those records. The Federal 

Records Act requires NARA to work with agencies to preserve federal records, either temporarily or permanently. The public has access to many of those preserved records pursuant to other laws. 

Agencies have had particular difficulty complying with the Federal 

Records Act with respect to electronic records, including records 

posted on the Internet. The interagency committee will recommend 

the adoption of standards to achieve greater compliance with the 

Federal Records Act in this area. The subsection requires that the 

Archivist of the United States issue policies based on the recommendations, and that the OMB Director report to Congress on 

agencies’ compliance. 

Subsection 207(f) requires that the interagency committee make 

recommendations, and that the OMB Director issue policies, promoting coordinated access to educational resource materials on the 

Internet. The term ‘‘educational resource materials’’ is not defined 

27

in the bill, and the Committee intends an extended process of consultation with interested parties to determine how government 

agencies might promote access to materials of special interest to 

educators, as well as materials of general interest to the public. 

The Committee intends that the initiative focus primarily on government information. 

Subsection 207(g) requires that agencies determine what types of 

government information they intend to make available on the 

Internet and by other means, and develop timetables for doing so. 

The subsection provides for public comment throughout the process, and requires that agencies update their determinations as appropriate. The public comment process will be more meaningful if 

agencies inform the public of what government information will not 

be made available. The Committee intends this subsection to establish a more deliberative process for agencies as they make decisions 

about what information should be made publicly available over the 

Internet. 

Subsection 207(h) authorizes funds for a database and website 

that will contain information about research and development 

funded by the federal government. The database and website will 

be developed and maintained by the National Science Foundation, 

and will provide agencies, scientists, policy makers and the public 

with varying levels of access over the Internet to information about 

how federal funds for research and development are spent. Integrating information about research and development across agencies, and making that information electronically accessible and 

searchable, will enhance scientific coordination and collaboration 

and the transfer of technology, improve oversight by policymakers, 

and provide the public with access to meaningful information about 

research funded by the government. The subsection also requires 

the interagency committee to recommend policies to improve dissemination of the results of research performed by federal agencies. 

The bill authorizes appropriations to the National Science Foundation of $2,000,000 in each of the fiscal years 2003 through 2005 to 

develop and operate the database and website. 

The National Science Foundation currently operates a similar 

database and website, known as Radius, although Radius is not 

currently available to the public. The Committee intends that the 

database and website required by subsection 207(h) may be a continuation and improvement of the Radius program. The committee 

does not intend the public to have access to proprietary and other 

restricted information. Although the website will provide access to 

details on the research and development work funded by the federal government, the Committee does not intend that the website 

will provide links to results published in scientific journals. 

Subsection 207(i) requires the Director, working with agencies, to 

establish a public domain directory of federal government websites. 

The directory will be based on a taxonomy of subjects in which government information on the Internet is organized according to subject matter; the subject headings listed in the taxonomy will be 

linked directly to the corresponding websites. Agencies and the Director will develop the directory through a collaborative process involving government officials listed in subsection (i)(2)(A) and other 

interested parties inside and outside the federal government. The 

28

directory will be updated as necessary, but at least every six 

months.

The creation of a directory of government websites will, in many 

cases, allow the Internet user to find the desired information more 

easily than by using a search engine. A taxonomy is a structure 

that provides a method of classifying things into a series of hierarchical groups, in a way that makes them easier to identify and 

locate. The Committee does not intend the taxonomy referred to in 

this subsection to include cross-references to related information 

and other detailed information that might be included in a library 

catalog system. Rather, the taxonomy need only identify a list of 

standard terms, ordered by their hierarchical relationship to each 

other. Although most taxonomies are created by human editors, it 

is possible to create taxonomies automatically using content categorization or taxonomy software. Even when computer programs 

are used, they often need editing to reflect actual content. This may 

be especially true in the federal government context, where the 

challenge will be categorizing a wide variety of government programs and vast amounts of information. This job can be made easier by referring to relevant existing taxonomies. The Committee recognizes the nature of the challenge, and the taxonomy that has 

been developed after two years should not be considered a finished 

product; rather it should be continually updated and improved. 

Subsection 207(j) requires the OMB Director to issue guidance 

for agency websites. The guidance will include requirements that 

websites have links to (1) descriptions of an agency’s mission and 

statutory authority, (2) an agency’s electronic reading room, (3) information about the organizational structure of the agency, and (4) 

an agency’s strategic plan. The guidance will also include minimum 

agency goals to aid in navigating websites, including speed of retrieval of search results, the relevance of the results, and tools to 

aggregate and disaggregate data. 

Section 208. Privacy provisions 

Individuals will not, and should not, be expected to use services 

that they do not trust, and privacy and security are essential to 

provide greater trust in e-government services. The Committee recognizes that providing citizen-centered electronic government will 

require greater vigilance on the part of agencies to ensure that individual privacy is being protected. The Section 208 privacy protections address two major concerns: (1) the greater personalization of 

government services need not impinge on personal privacy, if the 

federal government takes steps to address privacy concerns when 

first designing systems; and (2) privacy notices, which are one of 

the fundamental elements of privacy protection, need to be clear, 

concise, intelligible and accurate. Further, agencies should take advantage of technological developments that allow such notices to be 

rendered in a standardized and transparent form that will allow a 

citizen to better control their information through the use of a Web 

browser. 

Subsection 208(b) requires federal government agencies to develop Privacy Impact Statements (PIAs). PIAs are increasingly 

being recognized as an important means of ensuring that privacy 

protection is being taken into account in the design of new systems. 

PIAs are public documents that explain how an agency takes into 

29

33See OMB Memorandum m–99–18, June 2, 1999; OMB Memorandum m–00–13, June 22, 

2000. 

account privacy considerations when purchasing and creating new 

information systems, and when initiating collections of information. 

PIAs are intended more elicit more detailed information than what 

is required by the Privacy Act of 1974, and the PIA requirement 

is applied to a greater number of information systems than is the 

Privacy Act. The CIO Council adopted PIAs as a ‘‘Best Practice’’ on 

February 25, 2000, citing the IRS’s PIA as a model. 

Subsection 208(b) specifies that an agency will conduct a PIA before developing or procuring information technology, or initiating a 

new collection of information, in which personally identifiable information will be processed electronically. The Committee intends the 

phrase ‘‘any identifier permitting the physical or online contacting 

of a specific individual’’ to include: a first and last name; a home 

or other physical address; an e-mail address; a telephone number; 

a social security number; a credit card number; a birth date, birth 

certificate number, or a place of birth. The OMB Director will issue 

guidance to agencies specifying the required contents of a PIA; the 

PIA will have to include a description of: the information to be collected; the purpose for the collection; any notice that will be provided regarding what information will be collected and how it will 

be shared; the intended uses of the information; and security measures to protect the information. All completed PIAs will be reviewed by the agency’s Chief Information Officer, or equivalent official, before being made public. 

The Committee intends that the OMB guidance on conducting 

PIAs under subsection 208(b) should allow for consistency with 

post-procurement PIAs done by some agencies. In addition, the 

Committee intends that the OMB guidance on the process for developing a PIA allow for consistency with work done by agencies 

to assess privacy requirements under the PRA and the Privacy Act 

of 1974, with regard to new collections of information that include 

personally identifiable information. On occasions where a Privacy 

Act systems of record notice is required, agencies can satisfy the 

publication requirement for PIAs by attaching the PIA to a Privacy 

Act systems of record notice published in the Federal Register. 

Subsection 208(c) requires that agencies post privacy notices on 

all federal government websites and details the kind of information 

that should be included in guidance to create such notices. Website 

privacy policies have become a standard and important means of 

examining the practices of a website and ensuring the trust of 

website visitors, and it is essential that federal government 

websites provide clear, concise and accurate notices to all visitors. 

OMB has previously recognized the importance of website privacy 

policies and has given basic guidance to agencies.33 Guidance on 

this subject should be continually updated to reflect the changes in 

technology and fair information practices. The Committee does not 

intend section 208 to require a modification of OMB policy restricting the tracking of individuals through agency websites, through 

the use of such devices as ‘‘persistent cookies.’’

Subsection 208(c)(2) requires that these notices also be posted in 

a machine-readable format. Privacy policies in machine-readable 

formats are designed to be a simple, automated way for users to 

30

gain more control over the use of personal information on websites 

they visit. In creating guidance for putting privacy policies into 

such formats, the Director should seek to ensure that federal government agencies are using an interoperable standard that can 

adequately relate the agencies’ privacy practices. 

Currently, the leading standard for privacy policies in machinereadable formats is the Platform for Privacy Preferences Project 

(P3P). P3P has been developed by the World Wide Web Consortium. At its most basic level, P3P is a standardized set of multiplechoice questions, covering all the major aspects of a website’s privacy policies. Taken together, they present a clear snapshot of how 

a site handles personal information about its users. P3P-enabled 

websites make this information available in a standard, machinereadable format. P3P-enabled browsers can ‘‘read’’ this snapshot 

automatically and compare it to the consumer’s own set of privacy 

preferences using XML. P3P enhances user control by putting privacy policies where users can find them, in a form users can understand, and it enables users to act on what they see. As of the writing of this report, several government agencies have already implemented P3P on their Web site, including the Federal Trade Commission, Department of Commerce and US Postal Service. 

Section 209. Federal information technology workforce development 

Section 209 reflects the fact that attracting and retaining a high 

quality information technology workforce is essential to successful 

implementation of electronic government. Training in IT disciplines 

is important not just with respect to professionals who develop and 

maintain IT systems. As more of the federal government’s work becomes automated, the government will need managers who understand how to administer their programs using new technologies to 

maximum advantage, and how to oversee contractors who perform 

IT work on behalf of the government. Similarly, the federal workforce generally increasingly will need to be well trained in the use 

of information technologies to perform their jobs. 

Section 209 will improve the IT skills of the federal workforce, 

by establishing a Federal Information Technology Training Center 

to comprehensively address the government’s IT workforce needs. 

The section requires the Office of Personnel Management to analyze the personnel needs of the government related to IT on an ongoing basis; oversee the development of curricula, training methods 

and training schedules that correspond to those needs; and oversee 

the training of federal employees in IT disciplines at a rate that ensures that the government’s needs are met. The bill authorizes for 

the Office of Personnel Management $7,000,000 for FY 2003 to 

carry out the provisions in this section. 

Section 210. Common protocols for geographic information systems 

Geographic information systems (GIS) allow government and the 

private sector to develop innovative multi-layered maps and analyses using the government’s massive amounts of geographic data, 

and it can be a vital tool in disaster planning, crime mapping, land 

use planning, sustainable development, and a broad range of private sector applications. Section 210 will promote the development 

of interoperable GIS technologies, leading to widespread sharing of 

31

geographic information; and geographic information will be electronically accessible to a much greater degree. 

Subsection 210(c) requires the Department of the Interior to develop common GIS protocols. The Department will work through an 

interagency group, and will work with private sector experts and 

standards groups, state, local and tribal governments, and other interested parties. The interagency group is intended as a reference 

to the Federal Geographic Data Committee, which was organized 

in 1990 pursuant to OMB Circular A–16 and which promotes the 

coordinated use, sharing, and dissemination of geospatial data on 

a national basis. As described in subsection 210(e), the common 

protocols will maximize the electronic compatibility of geographic 

information from various sources and promote the development of 

interoperable GIS technologies for low-cost use and sharing of geographic data by government entities and the public. The OMB Director will oversee the initiative and the adoption of common standards related to the protocols. 

Section 211. Share-in-savings program improvements 

Section 211 is intended to study the effectiveness of share-in-savings contracting approaches for information technology projects, 

and it authorizes pilot projects in which agencies may retain a portion of the savings realized from the contract. The section amends 

section 5311 of the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, which established 

limited pilot project authority for share-in-savings IT contracts. 

Share-in-savings contracts are contracts in which the private contractor is paid out of a portion of the savings realized from implementation of the project. Agencies have been slow to use the authority provided in section 5311; the Committee believes that allowing the agency to retain a portion of the savings could provide 

additional incentives. The agency would be permitted to retain up 

to half of the excess of the total savings over the amount of the savings paid to the contractors, and to use the retained amount to acquire additional information technology. The OMB Director will be 

required to submit a report to Congress on the effectiveness of the 

pilots. 

Section 212. Integrated reporting feasibility study and pilot projects 

Section 212 has three main purposes. First, it is intended to enhance the interoperability of information systems maintained by 

the federal government. Second, it is intended to help reduce burdens imposed on the public, including the regulated community, 

when submitting information electronically to the federal government, and simultaneously improve the accuracy of the information 

that is submitted. Finally, it is intended to help the public obtain 

information from multiple agencies, collected under multiple programs, in an integrated fashion without violating personal privacy 

rights. 

Section 212 has two main requirements: the development of a report on progress made by the executive branch in improving public 

access to government information by integrating access to information within and across agencies; and the completion of pilot projects 

to achieve such outcomes. 

Subsection 212(c) requires the OMB Director to conduct a study 

and submit a report to the Senate Committee on Governmental AfVerDate May 23 2002 04:14 Jul 02, 2002 Jkt 099010 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR174.XXX pfrm12 PsN: SR174
32

fairs and the House Committee on Government Reform within 

three years after the date the bill is enacted that addresses: • The integration of data elements electronically collected by 

agencies under federal statutes without reducing the quality, 

accessibility, scope, or utility of the information in each database; • The feasibility of developing—or enabling the development 

of—and using software or Internet tools to help persons required to submit information to agencies improve the accuracy 

of information electronically submitted; • The feasibility of developing a distributed information system that provides integrated public access to information held 

by one or more agencies, including the underlying raw data, in 

such a manner that public users need not know which agency 

holds the information. A distributed information system means 

an open, transparent architecture that allows integrated data 

access by the public to information that may be housed in different agencies or different locations within an agency; • The feasibility of including other elements identified by 

the OMB Director; and • Recommendations that Congress or the executive branch 

can implement to reduce the burden on submitting information 

to agencies and strengthen public access to government databases. 

Subsection 212(d) requires the OMB Director to consult with 

agencies, the regulated community, public interest organizations, 

and others on designating a series of up to five pilot projects to 

help in preparation of the report described above. The pilots are to 

address the following with at least one pilot addressing each: • Reduce information collection burdens by eliminating duplicative reporting requirements. This could be done by having 

a uniform registry system so that common data elements, such 

as organization name and address, do not need to be reported 

multiple times; 

• Create interoperability between public databases of two or 

more agencies in order to improve public access. This could be 

done by integrating data elements, developing key identifiers 

that help make such linkages, or other approaches; and 

• Develop software, or enable the development of software, 

to reduce errors in electronically submitted information. 

As agencies proceed to implement the pilot projects, they must 

seek input from users regarding the utility of the pilot as well as 

ways to improve it. The OMB Director, to the extent practicable, 

should consult with relevant agencies, State, local and tribal governments. 

Subsection 212(e) affirms that personal privacy as well as confidential business information are protected. 

Section 213. Community technology centers 

Section 213 provides for a study by the Department of Education 

to evaluate the best practices being used by community technology 

centers that receive federal funds. The study and other provisions 

in the section are intended to improve the effectiveness of the nation’s networks of community technology centers and other facilities that provide Internet access to the public. Many of the individVerDate May 23 2002 04:14 Jul 02, 2002 Jkt 099010 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR174.XXX pfrm12 PsN: SR174
33

34 Impact of CTCNet Affiliates: Findings from a National Survey of Users of Community Technology Centers,’’ Community Technology Centers’ Network, July 1998. 

uals who use community technology centers would benefit from 

knowing more about how to access the government services and information they need over the Internet. Section 213 directs the Department of Education to develop an online tutorial to government 

offerings, and to promote its use at community technology centers 

and other institutions that provide Internet access to the public. 

Community technology centers are a diverse collection of organizations and local government entities that provide technology access to lower-income and under-served communities. Access to computers and the Internet are not seen as an end in themselves, but 

rather the means to educational and economic opportunity. Users 

of community technology centers vary widely in age and background; they use the centers to participate in General Educational 

Development or other adult education programs, improve English 

language skills, receive tutoring or homework help, improve job 

skills and look for jobs on the Internet, use e-mail, and use the 

Internet to look up other types of information.34 Among federal 

agencies, the Department of Education has provided the most funding to community technology centers in recent years. Other agencies that have funded the centers include the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the National Science Foundation. 

The study to be prepared by the Department of Education and 

submitted to Congress will include an evaluation of best practices 

used by successful community technology centers; a strategy for establishing a network to share information and resources as the centers evolve; an analysis of whether the centers have been deployed 

effectively throughout the country; a database of all community 

technology centers receiving federal funds, and recommendations 

for enhancing the development of the centers. Section 213 also directs the OMB Director to work with the Department of Education 

and other relevant agencies and the private and non-profit sectors 

to provide assistance to community technology centers, public libraries, and other institutions that provide computer and Internet 

access to the public. The Department of Education will develop an 

online tutorial that explains how to access government information 

and services on the Internet. The bill authorizes appropriations of 

$2,000,000 for fiscal year 2003 and $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2004 

to complete the study and tutorial and to promote the availability 

of community technology centers. 

Section 214. Enhancing crisis management through advanced information technology 

Section 214 requires the Federal Emergency Management Agency to oversee a two-year study to develop a research and implementation strategy for effective use of information technology in preparing for and responding to natural and manmade disasters. The 

study will also examine opportunities for research and development 

on enhanced technologies. Among these, the study should examine 

technologies for (i) improving communications with citizens at risk 

before and during a crisis; (ii) enhancing the use of remote sensor 

data and other information sources for planning, mitigation, response, and advance warning; (iii) building more robust and trustVerDate May 23 2002 04:14 Jul 02, 2002 Jkt 099010 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR174.XXX pfrm12 PsN: SR174
34

worthy systems for communications in crises; and (iv) facilitating 

coordinated actions among responders through more interoperable 

communications and information systems. 

Section 215. Disparities in access to the internet 

Section 215 directs the National Science Foundation to enter into 

a contract with the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a 

study of how disparities in Internet access influence the effectiveness of online government services. There have been numerous 

studies into the digital divide in recent years, and it is not the 

Committee’s intent to replicate that work. Rather, the study should 

focus on the increase in online government services, and on whether that raises particular questions or concerns with respect to citizens who rely on government programs but lack Internet access. 

The commissioned study should also review alternative sources of 

internet access, such as access through public libraries. Finally, the 

study will include recommendations on how to ensure that online 

government initiatives will not have the unintended result of increasing any deficiency in public access to government services. 

The bill authorizes an appropriation of $950,000 in fiscal year 2003 

for the study. 

Section 216. Notification of obsolete or counterproductive provisions 

Section 216 specifies that if the OMB Director determines that 

any provision of the bill becomes obsolete or counterproductive, as 

a result of changes in technology or any other reason, the Director 

will notify the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate 

and the Committee on Government Reform of the House of Representatives. 

TITLE III: GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SECURITY REFORM

Section 301. Information security 

On October 30, 2000, Congress enacted a comprehensive framework for the management of government information security, 

based on legislation developed by the Committee; the provisions 

were included in the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001. Section 301 of S. 803, provides that 

these provisions are named the ‘‘Government Information Security 

Reform Act’’ (GISRA) and removes a sunset provision from that 

Act. 

The Committee has spent considerable time over many years examining the security of the government’s information technology 

systems. Responding to testimony and reports showing that weak 

security was a widespread problem with potentially devastating 

consequences, Senators Thompson and Lieberman in the 106th 

Congress introduced S. 1993, the Government Information Security 

Act of 1999. This bill was reported favorably by the Committee on 

March 23, 2001; the legislation, with amendment, was subsequently incorporated into the FY 2001 Defense Authorization bill 

and was enacted as subtitle G of title X, sections 1061–1064, of 

Public Law 106–398. 

The first section of GISRA added a new subchapter on Information Security (subchapter II of chapter 35) to title 44 of the United 

States Code (44 U.S.C. §§3531–3536). This new subchapter 

35

strengthened the responsibilities of OMB, agency heads and CIOs, 

and Inspectors General for developing and implementing security 

policies, and provided for an annual cycle of evaluation and reporting. Under the subchapter—

• OMB is responsible for establishing governmentwide policies, 

standards, and guidelines for information security. The law delegates OMB’s responsibilities with regard to national security systems to national security agencies. 

• Each agency is responsible for establishing an agency-wide security program overseen by the agency CIO, to address how the 

agency will upgrade its practices and procedures to ensure protection of computer information. Each program must include periodic 

risk assessments and provide for the development and implementation of risk-based, cost-effective policies and procedures for security. 

• Each agency is also required to have an annual independent 

evaluation of its information security program and practices. Evaluations of non-national-security systems are to be performed by the 

agency IGs or independent evaluators, and the results of the evaluations are to be reported to OMB. For national-security systems, 

the evaluators are designated by the national-security agencies, audits of the evaluations are performed by the IGs or outside evaluators, and the results of the audits are reported to OMB. OMB, 

in turn, is required to submit an annual report to Congress summarizing results of agencies’ evaluations of their information security programs. 

Other sections of GISRA also assign specific new responsibilities 

to particular agencies. The Department of Commerce, through 

NIST, was made responsible for issuing standards and guidance for 

federal information systems. The Defense Department and intelligence agencies were made responsible for issuing standards and 

guidelines for certain security-related systems. The statute also assigns specific responsibilities to the Justice Department, the General Services Administration, and the Office of Personnel Management. 

The information security legislation was reported by this Committee with no sunset provision, and it passed the Senate that way, 

but a two-year sunset was added in conference. The sunset provision is set forth in the last section of the new Information Security 

subchapter (44 U.S.C. §§3531–3536, at §3536); it states that the 

subchapter will not remain in effect after November 29, 2002. The 

information security provisions codified in title 44, which are subject to the sunset, assign responsibilities to OMB and the agencies 

and establish an annual cycle of evaluation and reporting; the sunset does not apply to other provisions of GISRA, which establish 

specific responsibilities for NIST, the national security agencies, 

and certain other specific agencies. The first annual cycle of evaluation and reporting has now been successfully completed, and section 301 of S. 803 will strike the sunset provision. 

TITLE IV: AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS AND EFFECTIVE DATE

Section 401. Authorization of appropriations 

Section 401 authorizes appropriations necessary to carry out the 

provisions in title I and title II of the bill, for fiscal years 2003 

36

through 2007. The exceptions are those sections in which appropriations are specifically provided. 

Section 402. Effective date 

Section 402 specifies that the provisions in title I and II will become effective within 120 days of the bill’s enactment. The exceptions are sections 207, 214, 215, and 216, which take effect immediately, as do titles III and IV. 

V. REGULATORY IMPACT

Paragraph 11(b)(1) of the Standing Rules of the Senate requires 

that each report accompanying a bill evaluate the regulatory impact of the legislation. The Committee believes that the bill 

strengthens government management practices and privacy protections, and will result in reduced costs for regulated entities. The 

legislation will not result in additional regulation, increased economic impact, adverse impact on personal privacy, or additional paperwork on any individuals or businesses. 

VI. CBO COST ESTIMATE

U.S. CONGRESS, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, Washington, DC, June 7, 2002. 

Hon. JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Chairman, Committee on Governmental Affairs, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 803, the E-Government Act 

of 2002. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Matthew Pickford. 

Sincerely, 

BARRY B. ANDERSON

(For Dan L. Crippen, Director). 

Enclosure.

S. 803—E-Government Act of 2002

Summary: S. 803 would authorize appropriations for programs to 

improve electronic access to government information and services. 

The bill also would specifically authorize and centralize many 

Internet-related activities currently underway throughout the government. For example, S. 803 would establish an Office of Electronic Government within the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) and a Chief Information Officers Council. Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, we estimate that implementing 

S. 803 would cost about $50 million on 2003 and about $500 million over the 2003–2007 period. 

The bill would not affect direct spending or receipts, so pay-asyou-go procedures would not apply. S. 803 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would not affect the budgets of 

state, local, or tribal governments. 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: As shown in the following table, CBO estimates that implementing S. 803 would cost 

37

about $500 million over the 2003–2007 period, subject to appropriation of the necessary amounts. The costs of this legislation fall 

within budget functions 250 (general science, space, and technology), 500 (education, training, employment, and social services), 

and 800 (general government).

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars—

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Specified Authorization Level ........................................................................ 80 54 102 150 0

Estimated Outlays ......................................................................................... 44 37 56 92 0

Estimated Authorization Level ...................................................................... 10 33 36 38 192

Estimated Outlays ......................................................................................... 9 33 36 38 166

Total Estimated Authorization Level ................................................ 90 87 138 188 192

Total Estimated Outlays .................................................................. 53 70 92 130 166

Basis of estimate: For this estimate, we assume that the necessary amounts will be provided each year and that spending will 

follow historical patterns for similar activities. CBO estimates that 

S. 803 would authorize the appropriation of approximately $700 

million over the 2003–2007 period for the management and promotion of electronic government services and processes. This estimate assumes that funding would be adjusted for anticipated inflation. 

Specific authorizations 

The bill would authorize the appropriation of about $385 million 

over the 2003–2006 period for the following activities: 

• $368 million for the General Services Administration 

(GSA) to fund the E-Government Fund for the interagency 

projects, develop electronic signatures for executive agencies, 

and maintain and promote the federal Internet portal. For 

2002, $5 million was appropriated for this program that supports interagency electronic government initiatives to provide 

individuals, businesses, and other governmental agencies more 

timely access to federal information, benefits, services, and 

business opportunities; 

• $6.9 million for the National Science Foundation to develop and maintain a database and website devoted to research 

and development conducted by federal agencies and to study 

disparities in access to the Internet;

• $7 million for the Office of Personnel Management to oversee the development and operation of a Federal Information 

Technology Center; and 

• $4 million for the Department of Education to study, develop, and maintain community development centers. 

In addition, S. 803 would authorize the appropriation of approximately $41 million for other ongoing efforts, including developing 

electronic signatures, maintaining and promoting the federal Internet protal, and developing and maintaining databases and websites 

for federally funded research, information technology training, and 

education. 

Estimated authorizations 

S. 803 also would authorize such sums as necessary during the 

next five years for those ongoing electronic government programs. 

38

CBO estimates that to continue the activities that would be authorized by the bill over the next five years would require the appropriation of an additional $309 million over the 2003–2007 period 

for the management and promotion of electronic government services and processes. 

Savings 

The use of electronic information systems to collect information 

from the public and to provide government services could reduce 

administrative costs at federal agencies. Implementing S. 803 could 

help the government achieve such savings; however, CBO has no 

basis for estimating any such potential savings over the next few 

years. 

Pay-as-you-go considerations: None. 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: S. 803 contains no 

intergovernemntal or private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA 

and would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Matthew Pickford; Impact 

on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Susan Sieg Tompkins; 

and Impact on the Private Sector: Paige Piper/Bach. 

Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

VII. CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW

In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by S. 803 as reported are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted 

is enclosed in brackets, new matter is printed in italic, and existing 

law in which no change is proposed in shown in roman): 

UNITED STATES CODE 

TITLE 28—JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL 

PROCEDURE 

* * * * * * * 

PART V—PROCEDURE 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 123—FEES AND COSTS 

* * * * * * * 

§ 1913. Courts of appeals 

* * * * * * * 

HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES

* * * * * * * 

39

COURT FEES FOR ELECTRONIC ACCESS TO INFORMATION

Pub. L. 102–140, title III, Sec. 303, Oct. 28, 1991, 105 Stat. 810, 

as amended by Pub. L. 104–317, title IV, Sec. 403(b), Oct. 19, 1996, 

110 Stat. 3854, provided that: 

‘‘(a) The Judicial Conference øshall hereafter¿ may, only to the 

extent necessary, prescribe reasonable fees, pursuant to sections 

1913, 1914, 1926, 1930, and 1932 of title 28, United States Code, 

for collection by the courts under those sections for access to information available through automatic data processing equipment. 

These fees may distinguish between classes of persons, and shall 

provide for exempting persons or classes of persons from the fees, 

in order to avoid unreasonable burdens and to promote public access to such information. The Director of the Administrative Office 

of the United States Courts, under the direction of the Judicial 

Conference of the United States, shall prescribe a schedule of reasonable fees for electronic access to information which the Director 

is required to maintain and make available to the public.’’

* * * * * * * 

TITLE 31—MONEY AND FINANCE 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 5—OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 

* * * * * * * 

Subchapter I—Organization 

Sec. 

501. Office of Management and Budget. 

502. Officers. 

* * * * * * * 

507. Office of Electronic Government. 

* * * * * * *

§ 503(b) 

(b) Subject to the direction and approval of the Director, the Deputy Director for Management shall establish general management 

policies for executive agencies and perform the following general 

management functions: 

(1) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(A) * * * 

(B) * * * 

(C) * * * 

(D) * * * 

(E) * * * 

(F) * * * 

(G) * * * 

(H) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(4) * * * 

(5) Chair the Chief Information Officers Council established 

under section 3603 of title 44.

40

ø(5)¿ (6) Provide leadership in management innovation, 

through—

(A) experimentation, testing, and demonstration programs; and 

(B) the adoption of modern management concepts and 

technologies. 

ø(6)¿ (7) Work with State and local governments to improve 

and strengthen intergovernmental relations, and provide assistance to such governments with respect to intergovernmental programs and cooperative arrangements. 

ø(7)¿ (8) Review and, where appropriate, recommend to the 

Director changes to the budget and legislative proposals of 

agencies to ensure that they respond to program evaluations 

by, and are in accordance with general management plans of, 

the Office of Management and Budget.

ø(8)¿ (9) Provide advice to agencies on the qualification, recruitment, performance, and retention of managerial personnel. 

ø(9)¿ (10) Perform any other functions prescribed by the Director. 

* * * * * * *

‘‘§ 507. Office of Electronic Government 

‘‘The Office of Electronic Government, established under section 

3602 of title 44, is an office in the Office of Management and Budget.’’. 

* * * * * * *

TITLE 40—PUBLIC BUILDINGS, 

PROPERTY, AND WORKS 

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 25—INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 

MANAGEMENT 

* * * * * * *

Subchapter III—Information Technology Acquisition Pilot 

Programs 

PART B—SPECIFIC PILOT PROGRAMS 

§ 1491. Share-in-savings pilot program 

(a) REQUIREMENT.—The Administrator may authorize øthe heads 

of two executive agencies to carry out¿ heads of executive agencies 

to carry out a total of 5 projects under a pilot program to test the 

feasibility of—

(1) contracting on a competitive basis with a private sector 

source to provide the Federal Government with an information 

technology solution for improving mission-related or administrative processes of the Federal Government; øand¿

(2) paying the private sector source an amount equal to a 

portion of the savings derived by the Federal Government from 

41

any improvements in mission-related processes and administrative processes that result from implementation of the 

solutionø.¿ ; and

(3) encouraging the use of the contracting and sharing approach described in paragraphs (1) and (2) by allowing the 

head of the executive agency conducting a project under the 

pilot program— (A) to retain, out of the appropriation accounts of the executive agency in which savings computed under paragraph 

(2) are realized as a result of the project, up to the amount 

equal to half of the excess of— (i) the total amount of the savings; over 

(ii) the total amount of the portion of the savings 

paid to the private sector source for such project under 

paragraph (2); and 

(B) to use the retained amount to acquire additional information technology.’’;

(b) LIMITATIONS.—The head of an executive agency authorized to 

carry out a project under the pilot program may, under the pilot 

program, øcarry out one project and¿ enter into not more than five 

contracts for the project. 

(c) SELECTION OF PROJECTS.—The projects shall be selected by 

the Administrator, in consultation with the Administrator for the 

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs and the Administrator 

for the Office of Electronic Government.

(d) REPORT.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—After 5 pilot projects have been completed, 

but no later than 3 years after the effective date of this subsection, the Director shall submit a report on the results of the 

projects to the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate 

and the Committee on Government Reform of the House of Representatives. 

(2) CONTENTS.—The report shall include— (A) a description of the reduced costs and other measurable benefits of the pilot projects; 

(B) a description of the ability of agencies to determine 

the baseline costs of a project against which savings would 

be measured; and 

(C) recommendations of the Director relating to whether 

Congress should provide general authority to the heads of 

executive agencies to use a share-in-savings contracting approach to the acquisition of information technology solutions for improving mission-related or administrative processes of the Federal Government. 

* * * * * * *

TITLE 44—PUBLIC PRINTING AND 

DOCUMENTS

* * * * * * *

Chap. Sec. 

1. Joint Committee on Printing ....................................................... 101 

3. Government Printing Office ........................................................ 301 

* * * * * * * 

42

Chap. Sec. 

36. Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services.3601 

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 35—COORDINATION OF FEDERAL 

INFORMATION POLICY 

* * * * * * *

Sec. 

3501. Purposes. 

3502. Definitions. 

* * * * * * * 

ø3536. Expiration.¿

* * * * * * *

Subtitle G—Government Information Security 

Reform 

ø‘‘Sec. 3536. Expiration ‘‘This subchapter shall not be in effect 

after the date that is two years after the date on which this subchapter takes effect.’’.¿

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 36—MANAGEMENT AND PROMOTION OF 

ELECTRONIC GOVERNMENT SERVICES

Sec. 

3601. Definitions. 

3602. Office of Electronic Government. 

3603. Chief Information Officers Council. 

3604. E-Government Fund. 

3605. E-Government report.

§ 3601. Definitions 

In this chapter, the definitions under section 3502 shall apply, 

and the term—

(1) ‘‘Administrator’’ means the Administrator of the Office of 

Electronic Government established under section 3602; 

(2) ‘‘Council’’ means the Chief Information Officers Council 

established under section 3603; 

(3) ‘‘electronic Government’’ means the use by the Government 

of web-based Internet applications and other digital technologies, combined with processes that implement these technologies, to—

(A) enhance the access to and delivery of Government information and services to the public, other agencies, and 

other Government entities; or 

(B) bring about improvements in Government operations 

that may include effectiveness, efficiency, service quality, or 

transformation; 

(4) ‘‘enterprise architecture’’ means a framework for incorporating business processes, information flows, applications, 

and infrastructure to support agency and interagency goals; 

(5) ‘‘Fund’’ means the E-Government Fund established under 

section 3604; 

43

(6) ‘‘interoperability’’ means the ability of different software 

systems, applications, and services to communicate and exchange data in an accurate, effective, and consistent manner; 

and 

(7) ‘‘integrated service delivery’’ means the provision of Internet-based Federal Government information or services integrated according to function rather than separated according to 

the boundaries of agency jurisdiction. 

§ 3602. Office of Electronic Government 

(a) There is established in the Office of Management and Budget 

an Office of Electronic Government. 

(b) There shall be at the head of the Office an Administrator who 

shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and 

consent of the Senate. 

(c) The Administrator shall assist the Director in carrying out—

(1) all functions under this chapter; 

(2) all of the functions assigned to the Director under title II 

of the E-Government Act of 2002; and 

(3) other electronic government initiatives, consistent with 

other statutes. 

(d) The Administrator shall assist the Director and the Deputy 

Director for Management and work with the Administrator of the 

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in setting strategic direction for implementing electronic Government, under relevant statutes, including—

(1) chapter 35; 

(2) division E of the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (division E of 

Public Law 104–106; 40 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.); 

(3) section 552a of title 5 (commonly referred to as the Privacy 

Act); 

(4) the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (44 U.S.C. 

3504 note); 

(5) the Government Information Security Reform Act; and 

(6) the Computer Security Act of 1987 (40 U.S.C. 759 note). 

(e) The Administrator shall work with the Administrator of the 

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs and with other offices 

within the Office of Management and Budget to oversee implementation of electronic Government under this chapter, chapter 35, the 

E-Government Act of 2002, and other relevant statutes relating to—

(1) capital planning and investment control for information 

technology; 

(2) the development of enterprise architectures;

(3) information security; 

(4) privacy; 

(5) access to, dissemination of, and preservation of Government information; and 

(6) other areas of electronic Government. 

(f) Subject to requirements of this chapter, the Administrator 

shall assist the Director by performing electronic Government functions as follows: 

(1) Advise the Director on the resources required to develop 

and effectively operate and maintain Federal Government information systems. 

44

(2) Recommend to the Director changes relating to Governmentwide strategies and priorities for electronic Government. 

(3) Provide overall leadership and direction to the executive 

branch on electronic Government by working with authorized 

officials to establish information resources management policies 

and requirements, and by reviewing performance of each agency 

in acquiring, using, and managing information resources. 

(4) Promote innovative uses of information technology by 

agencies, particularly initiatives involving multiagency collaboration, through support of pilot projects, research, experimentation, and the use of innovative technologies. 

(5) Oversee the distribution of funds from, and ensure appropriate administration of, the E-Government Fund established 

under section 3604. 

(6) Coordinate with the Administrator of General Services regarding programs undertaken by the General Services Administration to promote electronic government and the efficient use of 

information technologies by agencies. 

(7) Lead the activities of the Chief Information Officers Council established under section 3603 on behalf of the Deputy Director for Management, who shall chair the council. 

(8) Assist the Director in establishing policies which shall set 

the framework for information technology standards for the 

Federal Government under section 5131 of the Clinger-Cohen 

Act of 1996 (40 21 U.S.C. 1441), to be developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and promulgated 

by the Secretary of Commerce, taking into account, if appropriate, recommendations of the Chief Information Officers 

Council, experts, and interested parties from the private and 

nonprofit sectors and State, local, and tribal governments, and 

maximizing the use of commercial standards as appropriate, as 

follows: 

(A) Standards and guidelines for interconnectivity and 

interoperability as described under section 3504. 

(B) Standards and guidelines for categorizing Federal 

Government electronic information to enable efficient use of 

technologies, such as through the use of extensible markup 

language. 

(C) Standards and guidelines for Federal Government 

computer system efficiency and security. 

(9) Sponsor ongoing dialogue that—

(A) shall be conducted among Federal, State, local, and 

tribal government leaders on electronic Government in the 

executive, legislative, and judicial branches to encourage 

collaboration and enhance understanding of best practices 

and innovative approaches in acquiring, using, and managing information resources; 

(B) is intended to improve the performance of governments in collaborating on the use of information technology 

to improve the delivery of information and services; and 

(C) may include—

(i) development of innovative models—

(I) for electronic Government management and 

Government information technology contracts; and 

45

(II) that may be developed through focused discussions or using separately sponsored research; 

(ii) identification of opportunities for public-private 

collaboration in using Internet-based technology to increase the efficiency of Government-to-business transactions; 

(iii) identification of mechanisms for providing incentives to program managers and other Government 

employees to develop and implement innovative uses of 

information technologies; and 

(iv) identification of opportunities for public, private, 

and intergovernmental collaboration in addressing the 

disparities in access to the Internet and information 

technology. 

(10) Oversee the work of the General Services Administration and other agencies in developing the integrated 

Internet-based system under section 204 of the E-Government Act of 2002. 

(11) Coordinate with the Administrator of the Office of 

Federal Procurement Policy to ensure effective implementation of electronic procurement initiatives. 

(12) Assist Federal agencies, including the General Services Administration and the Department of Justice, and the 

Unites States Access Board in— (A) implementing accessibility standards under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 

794d); and 

(B) ensuring compliance with those standards 

through the budget review process and other means. 

(13) Oversee the development of enterprise architectures 

within and across agencies. 

(14) Administer the Office of Electronic Government established under section 3602. 

(15) Assist the Director in preparing the E-Government 

report established under section 3605. 

(g) The Director shall ensure that the Office of Management and 

Budget, including the Office of Electronic Government, the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, and other relevant offices, have 

adequate staff and resources to properly fulfill all functions under 

the E-Government Act of 2002. 

§ 3603. Chief Information Officers Council 

(a) There is established in the executive branch a Chief Information Officers Council.

(b) The members of the Council shall be as follows: 

(1) The Deputy Director for Management of the Office of Management and Budget, who shall act as chairperson of the Council. 

(2) The Administrator of the Office of Electronic Government. 

(3) The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. 

(4) The chief information officer of each agency described 

under section 901(b) of title 31. 

(5) The chief information officer of the Central Intelligence 

Agency. 

46

(6) The chief information officer of the Department of the 

Army, the Department of the Navy, and the Department of the 

Air Force, if chief information officers have been designated for 

such departments under section 3506(a)(2)(B). 

(7) Any other officer or employee of the United States designated by the chairperson. 

(c)(1) The Administrator of the Office of Electronic Government 

shall lead the activities of the Council on behalf of the Deputy Director for Management. 

(2)(A) The Vice Chairman of the Council shall be selected by the 

Council from among its members. 

(B) The Vice Chairman shall serve a 1-year term, and may serve 

multiple terms. 

(3) The Administrator of General Services shall provide administrative and other support for the Council. 

(d) The Council is designated 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. 

(e) The Council shall perform the following functions: 

(1) Develop recommendations for the Director on Government 

information resources management policies and requirements. 

(2) Share experiences, ideas, best practices, and innovative 

approaches related to information resources management. 

(3) Assist the Administrator in the identification, development, and coordination of multiagency projects and other innovative initiatives to improve Government performance through 

the use of information technology. 

(4) Promote the development and use of common performance 

measures for agency information resources management under 

this chapter and title II of the E-Government Act of 2002. 

(5) Work as appropriate with the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the Administrator to develop recommendations on information technology standards developed 

under section 20 of the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278g–3) and promulgated under section 5131 of the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (40 U.S.C. 1441), as 

follows: 

(A) Standards and guidelines for interconnectivity and 

interoperability as described under section 3504. 

(B) Standards and guidelines for categorizing Federal 

Government electronic information to enable efficient use of 

technologies, such as through the use of extensible markup 

language. 

(C) Standards and guidelines for Federal Government 

computer system efficiency and security. 

(6) Work with the Office of Personnel Management to assess 

and address the hiring, training, classification, and professional development needs of the Government related to information resources management. 

§ 3604. E-Government Fund 

(a)(1) There is established in the General Services Administration 

the E-Government Fund. 

47

(2) The Fund shall be administered by the Administrator of the 

General Services Administration to support projects approved by the 

Director, assisted by the Administrator of the Office of Electronic 

Government, that enable the Federal Government to expand its ability, through the development and implementation of innovative uses 

of the Internet or other electronic methods, to conduct activities electronically. 

(3) Projects under this subsection may include efforts to— (A) make Federal information and services more readily— available to members of the public (including individuals, businesses, grantees, and State and local governments); 

(B) make it easier for the public to apply for benefits, receive 

services, pursue business opportunities, submit information, 

and otherwise conduct transactions with the Federal Government; and 

(C) enable Federal agencies to take advantage of information 

technology in sharing information and conducting transactions 

with each other and with State and local governments. 

(b)(1) The Administrator shall— (A) establish procedures for accepting and reviewing proposals for funding; and 

(B) consult with interagency councils, including the Chief Information Officers Council, the Chief Financial Officers Council, and other interagency management councils, in establishing 

procedures and reviewing proposals. 

(2) When reviewing proposals and managing the Fund, the Administrator shall observe and incorporate the following procedures: 

(A) A project requiring substantial involvement or funding 

from an agency shall be approved by a senior official with agencywide authority on behalf of the head of the agency, who shall 

report directly to the head of the agency. 

(B) Projects shall adhere to fundamental capital planning 

and investment control processes. 

(C) Agencies shall assess the results of funded projects. 

(D) Agencies shall identify in their proposals resource commitments from the agencies involved, and include plans for potential continuation of projects after all funds made available 

from the Fund are expended. 

(E) After considering the recommendations of the interagency 

councils, the Director, assisted by the Administrator, shall have 

final authority to determine which of the candidate projects 

shall be funded from the Fund. 

(c) In determining which proposals to recommend for funding, the 

Administrator—

(1) shall consider criteria that include whether a proposal—

(A) identifies the customer group to be served, including 

citizens, businesses, the Federal Government, or other governments; 

(B) indicates what service or information the project will 

provide that meets needs of customers; 

(C) directly delivers services to the public or provides the 

infrastructure for delivery; 

(D) ensures proper security and protects privacy; 

(E) is interagency in scope, including projects implemented by a primary or single agency that—

48

(i) could confer benefits on multiple agencies; and 

(ii) have the support of other agencies; 

(F) supports integrated service delivery; 

(G) describes how business processes across agencies will 

reflect appropriate transformation simultaneous to technology implementation; 

(H) has performance objectives that tie to agency missions 

and strategic goals, and interim results that relate to the 

objectives; and 

(I) is new or innovative and does not supplant existing 

funding streams within agencies; and 

(2) may also rank proposals based on criteria that include 

whether a proposal— (A) has Governmentwide application or implications; 

(B) has demonstrated support by the customers to be 

served; 

(C) integrates Federal with State, local, or tribal approaches to service delivery; 

(D) identifies resource commitments from nongovernmental sectors; 

(E) identifies resource commitments from the agencies involved; and 

(F) uses web-based technologies to achieve objectives. 

(d) The Fund may be used to fund the integrated Internet-based 

system under section 204 of the E-Government Act of 2002. 

(e) None of the funds provided from the Fund may be transferred 

to any agency until 15 days after the Administrator of the General 

Services Administration has submitted to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives, the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate, the Committee on 

Government Reform of the House of Representatives, and the appropriate authorizing committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives, a notification and description of how the funds are to 

be allocated and how the expenditure will further the purposes of 

this chapter. 

(f)(1) The Director shall report annually to Congress on the operation of the Fund, through the report established under section 

3605. 

(2) The report shall describe—

(A) all projects which the Director has approved for funding 

from the Fund; and 

(B) the results that have been achieved to date for these funded projects. 

(g)(1) There are authorized to be appropriated to the Fund—

(A) $45,000,000 for fiscal year 2003; 

(B) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2004; 

(C) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2005; 

(D) $150,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; and 

(E) such sums as are necessary for fiscal year 2007. 

(2) Funds appropriated under this subsection shall remain available until expended. 

§ 3605. E-Government report 

(a) Not later than March 1 of each year, the Director shall submit 

an E-Government status report to the Committee on Governmental 

49

Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Government Reform of 

the House of Representatives. 

(b) The report shall contain—

(1) a summary of the information reported by agencies under 

section 202 (f) of the E-Government Act of 2002; 

(2) the information required to be reported by section 3604(f); 

and 

(3) a description of compliance by the Federal Government 

with other goals and provisions of the E-Government Act of 

2002. 

UNITED STATES PUBLIC LAW 

* * * * * * *

FLOYD D. SPENCE NATIONAL DEFENSE 

AUTHORIZATION ACT (PUBLIC LAW 106–398) 

* * * * * * *

TITLE X 

* * * * * * *

Subtitle G

* * * * * * *

SEC. 1060. Short Title. 

This subtitle may be cited as the ‘‘Government Information Security Reform Act’’.

UNITED STATES PUBLIC LAW 

* * * * * * *

FEDERAL PROPERTY AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 

ACT OF 1949 (40 U.S.C.471) 

* * * * * * *

SEC. 113. ELECTRONIC GOVERNMENT AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES. 

The Administrator of General Services shall consult with the Administrator of the Office of Electronic Government on programs undertaken by the General Services Administration to promote electronic Government and the efficient use of information technologies 

by Federal agencies.

Æ