```

[Senate Report 107-174]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                       Calendar No. 439
107th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 2d Session                                                     107-174
_______________________________________________________________________

                       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
                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
99-010                    WASHINGTON : 2002

                   COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

               JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan                 FRED THOMPSON, Tennessee
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii              TED STEVENS, Alaska
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois          SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey     GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
MAX CLELAND, Georgia,                THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware           ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
JEAN CARNAHAN, Missouri              JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
MARK DAYTON, Minnesota               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 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Remarks of Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, Congressional 
Record, May 1, 2001, at S. 4102.

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Id.

    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 technology 
issues is far more effective than the silo-by-silo way of doing 
business favored by the traditional budgetary process.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Hearing before the Senate Comm. On Governmental Affairs, July 
11, 2001, p. 6.
    \4\ Id. at p. 7.
    \5\ Id. at pp. 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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. 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 ofgovernment. 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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, 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ ``E-Government: To Connect, Protect and Serve Us,'' p. 3.

    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 
management 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ See ``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.
    \9\ See ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.
    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ See ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ ``E-Government: To Connect, Protect and Serve Us,'' p. 16; 
``e-Government: The Next American Revolution,'' pp. 26-27.
    \12\ See ``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 bill will also improve computer security by mandating 
the development of aframework 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 ``E-Government 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 
Director 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 
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 afterbeing 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         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 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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ Hearing before the Senate Comm. on Governmental Affairs, July 
11, 2001, pp. 6-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ Id., pp. 66-68.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 e-
government'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 the establishment of separate 
reporting requirements on the extent of the government's compliance 
with the bill's provisions.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ Id., pp. 69-71.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ Id., p. 11.
    \18\ Id., pp. 13-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ Id., pp. 11-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ Id., p. 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ Id., pp. 31-33.
    \22\ Id., pp. 33-35.
    \23\ Id., pp. 86-90.
    \24\ Id., pp. 38-40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ Id., pp. 48-50.
    \26\ Id., pp. 50-52.
    \27\ Id., pp. 52-54.
    \28\ Id., pp. 135-143.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\ OMB officials indicated during negotiations that a more 
appropriate forum for discussing the Federal CIO issue would be the 
reauthorization of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 Internet-based 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.

     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 Clinger-Cohen 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 accountability 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 
resourcemanagement 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     (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.
    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 multi-agency 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 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 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.
    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 signature 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 federalbridge 
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 
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 performance in 
the development of agency regulations by increasing access, 
accountability, and transparency, and will enhance public 
participation in the regulatory process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\ See ``Federal Rulemaking: Agencies' Use of Information 
Technology to Facilitate Public Participation,'' General Accounting 
Office, B-284527, June 30, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 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.
    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 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 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 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\ See OMB Memorandum m-99-18, June 2, 1999; OMB Memorandum m-00-
13, June 22, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 gain more control over the use of personal 
information on websites they visit. Increating 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 
machine-readable 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 multiple-choice 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, machine-readable 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 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 
toinformation 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 Affairs 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 individuals 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\ Impact of CTCNet Affiliates: Findings from a National Survey 
of Users of Community Technology Centers,'' Community Technology 
Centers' Network, July 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 ofEducation 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 trustworthy 
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. Sec. Sec. 3531-3536). This 
new subchapter 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 andguidance 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. Sec. Sec. 3531-3536, 
at Sec. 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 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-as-you-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 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. 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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 1913. Courts of appeals

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                     HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            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 [shall 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.
     * * * * * * *

Sec. 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.
          [(5)] (6) Provide leadership in management 
        innovation, through--
                  (A) experimentation, testing, and 
                demonstration programs; and
                  (B) the adoption of modern management 
                concepts and technologies.
          [(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.
          [(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.
          [(8)] (9) Provide advice to agencies on the 
        qualification, recruitment, performance, and retention 
        of managerial personnel.
          [(9)] (10) Perform any other functions prescribed by 
        the Director.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

``Sec. 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

Sec. 1491. Share-in-savings pilot program

    (a) Requirement.--The Administrator may authorize [the 
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; [and]
          (2) paying the private sector source an amount equal 
        to a portion of the savings derived by the Federal 
        Government from any improvements in mission-related 
        processes and administrative processes that result from 
        implementation of the solution[.] ; 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, [carry 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
     * * * * * * *
    36. Management and Promotion of Electronic Government 
      Services................................................      3601
     * * * * * * *

        CHAPTER 35--COORDINATION OF FEDERAL INFORMATION POLICY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec.
3501. Purposes.
3502. Definitions.
     * * * * * * *
[3536. Expiration.]
     * * * * * * *

           Subtitle G--Government Information Security Reform

    [``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.

Sec. 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;
          (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.

Sec. 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.
          (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
                                  (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.

Sec. 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.
          (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.

Sec. 3604. E-Government Fund

    (a)(1) There is established in the General Services 
Administration the E-Government Fund.
    (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--
                         (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.

Sec. 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 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.

                                  

```