Electronic government (e-government) intersects many legislative issues, including privacy,digital divide (the lack of equal access to computers, whether due to a lack of financial resources ornecessary skills), public access to government information, service delivery, and informationsecurity. E-government solutions are prominently represented in efforts to improve the managementand efficiency of government information technology resources. As such, e-government can beconsidered a process, or a means to an end, rather than an end in and of itself. E-government is stillin the earliest stages of development and promises to evolve with advances in technology andincreased acceptance and trust in electronic communications. (1) The dynamic nature of e-governmentand its broad sectoral applications may sometimes contribute to a lack of a common understandingof its meaning and significance. To help policymakers discern e-government initiatives relative totheir applications to various issues, this report identifies and defines the principal e-governmentsectors and phases of development. This report also outlines some of the major issue opportunitiesand challenges associated with e-government. E-government means different things to different people. Some observers define e-governmentin terms of specific actions: using a government kiosk to receive job information, applying forSocial Security benefits through a web site, or creating shared databases for multiple agencies, asexamples. Other observers define e-government more generally as automating the delivery ofgovernment services. While perceptions of e-government vary widely, some common themes canbe identified that capture its evolutionary nature. E-government involves using information technology, and especially the Internet, to improve the delivery of government services to citizens, businesses, and other government agencies. It hasthe potential to more directly connect the federal government with its citizens in a manner that opensnew opportunities while also raising new challenges. E-government could enable citizens to interactand receive services from the federal government (or state and local governments) 24 hours a day,seven days a week. Some observers of e-government initiatives suggest service delivery couldbecome more convenient, dependable, and less costly. The Gartner Group describes e-governmentas "the continuous optimization of service delivery, constituency participation, and governance bytransforming internal and external relationships through technology, the Internet, and new media." (2) Mark Forman, Associate Director for Information Technology and E-Government at the Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB) has defined e-government as "the use of Internet technology andprotocols to transform agency effectiveness, efficiency, and service quality." (3) E-government is itself a process still in the early stages of development. Initial forays into e-government initiatives have focused mostly on providing enhanced access to information and basicservices. Although the full transformative effects of e-government remain largely unrealized at thistime, the rapid growth in interest and resources dedicated to e-government initiatives may contributeto swifter changes. One area where the implications for implementing e-government initiatives may have asignificant effect relates to the concerns of federalism. The Constitution established a federal systemof governance granting certain powers to the national government while reserving others to the statesand the people. Throughout the history of the country, the nature of American federalism hasevolved, reflecting the political, economic, and social changes that have occurred. (4) However, oneof the hallmarks of a federal system of governance is the emphasis on vertical divisions of power. In contrast, e-government initiatives utilize information technologies that emphasize a horizontal,or networked, model of communication and interaction. While e-government is designed, in part,to break down the barriers separating different agencies, it could also have a similar effect on theboundaries of federal governance. In light of the divergent properties of federalism and e-government, the advent of e-government has the potential to effect significantly the power relationship between the national and stategovernments. An example includes initiatives to create "one-stop-shopping" Web sites to obtaingovernment services and information, such as the FirstGov site. In addition to its original role ofproviding access to all federal government Web sites, FirstGov has added links to most state Websites as well. (5) One of the goals of these types of sitesis to create an experience that attenuates theagency-centric approach to providing services. Although this usually refers to agencies at the samelevel of government, it could also include services that are provided through some form of national,state, and/or local cooperation, such as welfare, transportation, or law enforcement activities. However, these same efforts to improve the delivery of government services could also diffusepolitical responsibility and credit, making it less clear from where the funding and direction areoriginating. Discussed in greater detail below, the advent of e-government raises a number of issues. It isimportant to stress at this point the multidimensional nature of those issues. On the one hand,e-government provides new opportunities to enhance governance, which can include improvedefficiency, new services, increased citizen participation, and an enhanced National InformationInfrastructure. On the other hand, e-government also presents new challenges to governanceincluding information security, privacy, disparities in computer access, and management and fundingrequirements. Together, all of these issues are complicated by their combined intra- andinter-governmental nature. They can crosscut both the various sectors and stages of e-governmentdevelopment. However, they also share a number of recurring themes often associated withprevious, less technologically-dependent approaches to improving government such as jurisdictionalauthority, procedures for the appropriate handling of information, building and maintaininginfrastructures, providing services, and citizens' rights. The multidimensional nature ofe-government suggests that there are no quick fixes for the concerns raised, but rather that issues willneed to be addressed with careful attention to context and precedent. Although e-government encompasses a wide range of activities and actors, three distinct sectorscan be identified. These include government-to-government (G2G), government-to-business (G2B),and government-to-citizen (G2C). Some observers also identify a fourth sector,government-to-employee (G2E). However, since G2E operations are intra-agency activities, theycan be considered a subset of the G2G sector and are not addressed separately in this report. Aseparate report focusing specifically on G2E issues is forthcoming. In many respects, the G2G sector represents the backbone of e-government. Some observers suggest that governments (federal, state, local) must enhance and update their own internal systemsand procedures before electronic transactions with citizens and businesses can be successful. (6) G2Ge-government involves sharing data and conducting electronic exchanges between governmentalactors. This involves both intra- and inter-agency exchanges at the federal level, as well asexchanges between the federal, state, and local levels. Motivating Forces Behind the G2G Sector. There are a number of forces motivating G2G e-government initiatives. One of these involves legislation. There are a variety of laws and regulations that are contributing to the implementation ofe-government initiatives. (7) For example, thePaperwork Reduction Act (PRA) reduces theinformation collection and reporting requirements of the federal government while also promotingthe coordination of government-wide information management activities. (8) The Computer SecurityAct requires federal agencies to develop information security plans, and tasks the National Institutefor Standards and Technology (NIST) with the responsibility to develop federal governmentcomputer security standards. The Clinger-Cohen Act, among other provisions, established a chiefinformation officer (CIO) in each executive branch agency, decentralized and streamlinedinformation technology procurement procedures, and assigned information technology capitalplanning and investment responsibilities to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). (9) TheGovernment Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA) requires OMB to provide leadership in acquiringand implementing the technology necessary to substitute electronic documents for paperdocuments. (10) GPEA also tasks OMB, inconjunction with the National Telecommunications andInformation Administration (NTIA), to establish procedures for the use and acceptance of electronicsignatures (11) in the executive branch of the federalgovernment. A second force spurring G2G initiatives is the interest in improved efficiency. One of the expected benefits of information technology investment solutions often cited by proponents is costsavings achieved by increasing the speed of transactions, reducing the number of personnel necessaryto complete a task, and improving the consistency of outcomes. (12) As attention to efforts to containthe growth of the federal budget has heightened, so has interest in using information technologysolutions to streamline procedures and trim costs. Related to this interest in efficiency, a third driving force is the growing attention being paid to improving the management of federal government information technology and public resources. Efforts to identify and apply "best practices" from other areas of the public and private sectors havehelped fuel the development of federal e-government initiatives. State and local governments areoften perceived as models for e-government initiatives due to their role in delivering services tocitizens. (13) State and local governments are alsothe targets of many G2G efforts due to their relativeproximity, geographically and politically, to citizens. A growing reliance on information technologygenerally, and the need to update and invest in long term information technology projects, such asthe overhaul of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)systems, have emphasized the importance of good information technology management practicesto help ensure the success of these projects. As part of re-examining information technologymanagement strategies, policymakers have considered many approaches to restructuring government. In this context, e-government is often proposed as a solution. Examples of G2G Initiatives. One example of a G2G e-government initiative is the Northeast Gang Information System (NEGIS). NEGIS issponsored by the Department of Justice and serves as a shared resource for street gang informationfor states in the northeast, including Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, Massachusetts, and NewYork. It includes information such as gang-related activities, gang intelligence, and a referencelibrary. NEGIS connects the state police departments of the participant-states, which, in turn,transmit the information to the states' other law enforcement agencies. A second example is the Electronic Contractor Past Performance System maintained by theNational Institutes of Health (NIH). Started in December 1996, this online database contains pastperformance scorecards of government contractors, as rated by contract/project officers. It isdesigned to help agencies determine the suitability of potential contractors on the basis of criteriasuch as the quality of product or service, cost control, timeliness of performance, and businesspractices. Thirteen agencies contribute to the database, including the Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA), the Department of Commerce, and the General Services Administration (GSA). Government-to-Business (G2B) initiatives receive a significant amount of attention, in part because of the high enthusiasm of the business sector and the potential for reducing costs throughimproved procurement practices and increased competition. (14) The G2B sector includes both the saleof surplus government goods to the public, as well as the procurement of goods and services. Although not all are directly dependent on the use of information technology, several differentprocurement methods are used in relation to the G2B sector. Performance-based contracting is amethod in which the payment made to the contractor is based on the actual goals and outcomes ofthe job. Share-in-Savings contracts are those in which the contractor pays for the up-front costs ofa project, such as the installation of a new computer system, and receives payment passed on thesavings generated by switching from the previous system. (15) Reverse auctions , on the other hand, arereliant on the use of information technology and could become a frequently used method forpurchasing products that are standardized and easily evaluated for quality, such as off-the-shelftechnology components or office supplies. Conducted over the Internet, a reverse auction entailscompanies openly bidding against each other in real time to win a government contract. The purposeof reverse auctions is to drive prices down to market levels. Due to the emphasis on price, reverseauctions are best-suited in cases where quality and expected performance are clear and easilyassessed. Motivating Forces Behind the G2B Sector. There are two primary forces driving the G2B sector. The first is the business community. In manyindustries, the use of electronic means to carry out various activities, such as procurement, sales, andhiring is commonplace. For example, the auto industry created an electronic business exchangecalled Covisint in fall 2000. Covisint provides an online environment for automakers and partssuppliers to buy and sell goods, share information, and collaborate on new products. (16) In addition,the software industry is producing an ever-growing number of products focused on moving routinebusiness activities online. Many companies would like to extend the cost savings realized in theirbusiness-to-business (B2B) transactions to their business with federal, state, and local governments(B2G). The second primary force motivating interest in the G2B sector is the growing demand by policymakers for cost cutting and more efficient procurement. Similar to the interest in efficiencythat is helping propel G2G initiatives, many G2B initiatives are promoted on their potential tostreamline and improve the consistency of personnel-intensive tasks, such as processing licenserenewals or employee benefit changes. However, there is some disagreement over whether theseefforts should help centralize or decentralize procurement by agencies. Until the passage of theClinger-Cohen Act in 1996, procurement decisions for information technology products and serviceswere generally centralized, with the General Services Administration (GSA) performing a significantrole. Among its provisions, the Clinger-Cohen Act decentralized some of the decisions back to theagencies. Some observers suggest that decentralized procurement allows agencies greater controlover their own projects, and reduces the amount of time between when a product is ordered andwhen it is delivered. (17) In contrast, other observerspromote centralized procurement on the basis thatit will lower costs by aggregating the purchases of similar products by multiple agencies and enhanceaccountability by limiting the number of people authorized to enter into purchase agreements. (18) Examples of G2B Initiatives. One example of a G2B initiative is GSA Auctions. (19) GSAAuctions is an online auction Web site in which GSA sellsfederal surplus property to the highest bidders. Items sold include everything from hand tools andfurniture to industrial machinery and vehicles. Perhaps one of the more well-known items was theauction of a fifty-year-old Coast Guard cutter, the Tamaroa, which appeared in the movie PerfectStorm . A second example of a G2B initiative is Buyers.gov, a business and auction exchange administered by the GSA Federal Technology Service (FTS). The Buyers.gov site facilitates thepurchase of information technology products by federal government agencies through the use ofreverse auctions and aggregating demand for commonly purchased products. (20) A third G2B initiative, also administered by GSA, is FedBizOpps. (21) FedBizOpps is a Web sitedesigned to serve as a central location for agencies to post procurement notices, such asRequest-for-Purchase (RFP) notices. The goal of the site is to create a standardized, easy-to-accesspoint of contact for businesses which may want to bid on a government contract instead of havingto search through the variety of agency-specific methods of advertising contracting opportunities. (22) A similar site called DoDBusOpps was also established specifically for the Department of Defense. (23) The third e-government sector is Government-to-Citizen (G2C). G2C initiatives are designed to facilitate citizen interaction with government, which is what some observers perceive to be theprimary goal of e-government. These initiatives attempt to make transactions, such as renewinglicenses and certifications, paying taxes, and applying for benefits, less time consuming and easierto carry out. G2C initiatives also often strive to enhance access to public information through theuse of dissemination tools, such as web sites and/or kiosks. Another feature of many G2C initiativesis the effort to attenuate the agency-centric, and at times, process-laden nature of some governmentfunctions. Some e-government advocates suggest that one of the goals of implementing theseinitiatives should be to create a "one-stop shopping" site where citizens can carry out a variety oftasks, especially those that involve multiple agencies, without requiring the citizen to initiate contactswith each agency individually. (24) A potentialoutgrowth of G2C initiatives is that they may facilitatecitizen-to-citizen interaction and increase citizen participation in government by creating moreopportunities that overcome possible time and geographic barriers, thereby connecting citizens whomay not ordinarily come into contact with one another. Motivating Forces Behind the G2C Sector. Interest in G2C initiatives is driven by a combination of several factors. One is citizen demand,especially by younger citizens and those accustomed to using electronic transactions in other areasof their lives (e.g., banking). (25) Some observersexpect the citizen demand for e-government toincrease significantly over the next ten years as the youth, who are now growing up with personalcomputers and the Internet as a routine presence in their lives, become adults. (26) However, studiesillustrating the relatively low political activity of young adults suggest this uptick in citizenparticipation may be delayed several years. (27) Citizen demand may also be driven by increased timepressures. As citizens feel they have increased demands placed on their time, they may look forways to reduce time spent standing in lines and taking care of administrative tasks. One way to dothis is to be able to complete routine governmental transactions, such as renewing a license orapplying for a permit online. Similar to G2G and G2B projects, G2C initiatives are also driven byan interest in "better government" through improved efficiency and more reliable outcomes. Examples of G2C Initiatives. Although many examples of G2C initiatives can be found at the local and state level, there are also examples at thefederal level. One of these examples is the establishment of the FirstGov Web site. (28) FirstGov, apublic-private partnership, is administered by GSA. Established in September 2000, FirstGov isdesigned to serve as the online portal (29) for 51million pages of government information, services, andonline transactions. According to the Web site, FirstGov "has the most comprehensive search ofgovernment anywhere on the Internet." Its creators also hope that FirstGov will serve as "the catalystfor a growing electronic government." A second example is the IRS. (30) In addition to providing all IRS tax forms online fordownloading, the IRS Web site also contains a wealth of information to answer a variety oftax-related questions that citizens might normally ask during a call to an IRS telephone help line ora visit to one of its centers. The IRS also allows citizens and businesses to file and pay their taxesonline using an option called e-file . Depending on one's tax situation, e-file can enable afiler tosubmit information, make payments, and receive refunds electronically. In addition to identifying e-government initiatives according to their sector, such projects canalso be classified according to their level or stage of development. Although different e-governmentinitiatives strive to accomplish different goals, some observers argue that one of the overarchingthemes of e-government is to fully realize the capabilities of available information technology in aneffort to transform government from an agency-centric, limited service operation into an automated,citizen-centric operation capable of delivering government services to citizens, businesses, and othergovernment agencies 24 hours a day, seven days a week. However, for a variety of technical,economic, and political reasons, it will take time for these initiatives to evolve into their fullpotential. For that reason, some observers use a common schema for classifying the stages ofevolution of e-government projects. (31) The schemais based on the degree to which the properties ofinformation technology have been utilized to enable the delivery of services electronically. Usingthis schema, there are four stages of evolution; presence, interaction, transaction, and transformation. It is important to note that an e-government initiative does not necessarily have to start at the firststage and work its way through all of the stages. Instead, a project can skip levels, either from itsinception or as it develops. Presence is the first stage of development and is the establishment of a placeholder for delivering information in the future. It represents the simplest and least expensive entrance intoe-government, but it also offers the fewest options for citizens. A typical example is a basic Website that lists cursory information about an agency, such as hours of operation, mailing address,and/or phone numbers, but has no interactive capabilities. It is a passive presentation of generalinformation. Some observers refer to these types of sites as 'brochureware,' suggesting they are theelectronic equivalent of a paper brochure. The second stage is interaction. Although interactive Web-based initiatives offer enhanced capabilities, efforts in this group are still limited in their ability to streamline and automategovernment functions. Interactions are relatively simple and generally revolve around informationprovision. These types of initiatives are designed to help the customer avoid a trip to an office ormake a phone call by making commonly requested information and forms available around the clock. These resources may include instructions for obtaining services, downloadable forms to be printedand mailed back to an agency, or perhaps e-mail contact to respond to simple questions. The third stage in the evolution of e-government initiatives is transaction. These initiatives are more complex than simple information provision and embody the types of activities popularlyassociated with e-government. They enable clients to complete entire tasks electronically at any timeof the day or night. These initiatives effectively create self-service operations for tasks such aslicense renewals, paying taxes and fees, and submitting bids for procurement contracts. Althoughthe level of interactivity is of a higher magnitude than second stage initiatives, the activities stillinvolve a flow of information that is primarily one-way (either to government or to the client,depending on the activity). The electronic responses are generally highly regularized and createpredictable outcomes (e.g., approving a license renewal, creating a receipt, acknowledging a bid). The highest order of evolution for e-government initiatives is transformation. Initiatives at this level utilize the full capabilities of the technology to transform how government functions areconceived, organized, and executed. Such initiatives would have the robust customer relationshipmanagement capabilities required to handle a full range of questions, problems, and needs. Currently, there are very few examples of this type of initiative, in part due to administrative,technical, and fiscal constraints. One of the distinctions of these initiatives is that they facilitate theseamless flow of information and collaborative decision making between federal, state, local, public,and private partners. In other words, transformative e-government initiatives often seek to removethe organizational barriers that promote agency-centric solutions and, instead, promotecustomer-centric solutions. Some advocates suggest that, at its most advanced level, e-governmentcould potentially re-organize, combine, and/or eliminate existing agencies and replace them withvirtual organizations. (32) On the one hand, proponents of e-government suggest these initiatives will provide a variety of opportunities to improve governance. As discussed above, there are a number of forces drivingthe different e-government sectors. However, proponents of e-government suggest there are someoverarching benefits that will result, either directly or indirectly, from these initiatives. E-government is one means Congress may use to try to achieve objectives related to these issues. Efficiency. As with many information technology-related projects, one of the anticipated benefits is improved efficiency. In e-governmentprojects, this efficiency can take many forms. Some projects seek to reduce errors and improveconsistency of outcomes by automating standardized tasks. A related efficiency goal of manye-government initiatives is to reduce costs and layers of organizational processes by re-engineeringand streamlining operating procedures. Similarly, some e-government advocates suggest thatreducing the amount of time spent on repetitive tasks will give those federal employees anopportunity to develop new skills and advance their careers. (33) New and Improved Services. Another opportunity promoted by e-government supporters is the potential to improve the quality, range, andaccessibility of services. Some observers suggest that, in addition to enhanced efficiency, the qualityof services may be improved through quicker transactions, improved accountability, and betterprocesses. The evolution of e-government also creates the potential for new services. Along withthe possibility of combining existing services, e-government initiatives could contribute to aqualitative change in how government conducts business and how citizens interact with governmentand each other. Increased Citizen Participation. A third benefit anticipated by some e-government advocates is increased citizen participation in government. Oneway this could occur is by connecting people who live in remote areas of the country so that they cansend and receive information more easily. A second way suggested by some observers is throughincreased participation in government by younger adults. Some advocates believe that the generationof citizens about to come of political age, who have grown up with the Internet and digitalcommunications technologies in their everyday lives, will be more likely to become participantcitizens if the means to do so are similar to the ones they use for personal and professional activities. By extension, e-government initiatives could also enhance citizen-to-citizen (C2C) interaction byproviding opportunities for people with similar interests, opinions, and concerns, who may begeographically separated, to interact and share information. Improved National Information Infrastructure. A fourth possible benefit of the drive to implement e-government initiatives is the improvement ofthe national information infrastructure (NII). During the years leading up to the Y2K rollover, therewas growing concern over the protection of NII. As part of the efforts to address the Y2K problem,former President Clinton released Presidential Decision Directive No. 63. "The Directive sets upgroups within the federal government to develop and implement plans that would protectgovernment-operated infrastructures and calls for a dialogue between government and the privatesector to develop a National Infrastructure Assurance Plan that would protect the nation's criticalinfrastructures by the year 2003." (34) Followingthe successful handling of the Year 2000 (Y2K)problem, attention began to wane again. However, the events of September 11, 2001 havere-invigorated the sense of urgency to focus interest in NII issues. On October 16, 2001 PresidentBush signed Executive Order 13231, which outlines the Administration's policies and objectives forcritical infrastructure protection and reiterates many of the provisions in PDD-63. This heightenedawareness, along with the effort to make many government services available online, could renewinterest in the NII and lead to its further development to accommodate the resource needs of theseinitiatives. By extension, additional investment in NII could lead to increased attention toinformation security issues and the development of new technologies. On the other hand, despite the potential opportunities for the implementation of e-government initiatives, there are a number of challenges that could prevent the realization of these anticipatedbenefits. Some of the challenges, such as disparities in computer access (digital divide - the lack ofequal access to computers, whether due to a lack of financial resources or necessary skills), arepre-existing conditions that are connected to larger issues. Others, such as funding rules andconcerns about federalism, are problems that have emerged out of efforts to integrate informationtechnology into government generally. Computer Security. Perhaps one of the most significant challenges for implementing e-government initiatives is computer security. In a seriesof evaluations published since July 1999, the General Accounting Office (GAO) has repeatedlyreported that the largest federal agencies "were not adequately protecting critical federal operationsand assets from computer-based attacks." (35) Specifically, GAO has identified six areas of weakness: security program management, access controls, software development and change controls,segregation of duties, operating systems controls, and service continuity. (36) For e-governmentactivities, service continuity is critical not only for the availability and delivery of services, but alsoto build citizen confidence and trust. However, the risks of fraud and misuse of sensitive data areconcerns as well. Privacy. Related to computer security, privacy also presents a challenge to the implementation and acceptance of e-government initiatives. Concerns about the use of "cookies," (37) sharinginformation between agencies (computer matching) (38) ,and the disclosure or mishandling of private information are frequent subjects of debate. As GAOreported in a September 2000 report regarding online privacy protections at federal web sites, nearlyone-third (23 of 70) of the agencies had shared personal information with other agencies, and, insome cases, with private sector entities. (39) In June2000, it was reported that the National DrugControl Policy Office was using cookies to track the Internet movements of visitors to its site. (40) These privacy breaches could have a negative impact on citizens' trust in government Web sites andWeb-based services. Addressing the issue of privacy in the context of e-government may requireboth technical and policy responses. Disparities in Computer Access. Another challenge for e-government is disparities in computer access. This challenge includes two policyissues: the often described "digital divide" and accessibility for people with disabilities. In the caseof the digital divide, not all citizens currently have equal access to computers, whether due to a lackof financial resources or necessary skills. While the placement of Internet-enabled computers inschools and public libraries is helping address this issue, these efforts are still progressing. (41) Someobservers point out that much of what governments do involves interactions with people least likelyto have access: the poor, the elderly, language-limited persons, and the less-well-educated. (42) Similarly, advocates for the disabled observe that computers can present new obstacles for citizenssuch as the blind or physically impaired, who may require costly hardware or software for theircomputers, such as screen readers or oral controls, to be able to access online information andservices. This also requires that these resources be designed in a manner that makes them accessibleusing these tools. On June 21, 2001, Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998went into effect. Section 508 requires all electronic and information technology deployed by federalagencies to be accessible to both federal employees and members of the public with disabilities. Thelaw applies to Web sites and equipment. Changes to the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) forimplementing Section 508 went into effect on June 25, 2001. (43) Government Information Technology Management and Funding. A multilayered challenge for the development of e-government isgovernment information technology management and funding. This includes issues such asgovernment information technology worker recruitment, retention, and compensation; theestablishment of a federal CIO; and cooperation between local, state, and federal governments. While e-government provides the opportunity for federal employees to develop new skills, it alsopresents the dilemma of hiring and retaining skilled information technology workers in a relativelyhigh-demand field. Below-market salaries (44) andthe inability to offer some types of benefits hindersthe government's ability to attract and retain skilled workers, forcing it to either outsource certainprojects or delay implementation. (45) Likewise, the growing debate over the establishment of a federal CIO raises questions about how to manage and develop information technology and e-government projects. More than just anorganizational issue, the outcome of the federal CIO issue has implications for the level of support,funding, and interagency cooperation that will take place. (46) Another issue related to technology management is federal funding of state and local e-government projects. Some observers claim that the terms attached to federal grants sometimesrequire predetermined solutions or restrict the use of funds across two or more programs, hinderingefforts to create integrated state-wide systems. However, efforts to lift restrictions on comminglingfederal and state funds could raise concerns regarding federalism, especially or projects that spanacross several agencies and budgets. This issue may become more critical if there is an increase inthe use of information technology grants by the federal government. (47) Title I establishes new organizational structures and amends different portions of Title 44ofthe United States Code. Section 101 establishes the Office of Electronic Government in OMB. Thisnew office is headed by an Administrator, who is to be appointed by the President. (48) As head of theOffice of Electronic Government, P.L. 107-347 tasks the Administrator with assisting the Directorof OMB, and the Deputy Director of Management, in coordination with the efforts of theAdministrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) to carry out relevantOMB responsibilities for prescribing guidelines and regulations for agency implementation of thePrivacy Act, the Clinger-Cohen Act, information technology acquisition pilot programs, and theGovernment Paperwork Elimination Act. It also requires the General Services Administration(GSA) to consult with the Administrator of the Office of Electronic Government on any efforts byGSA to promote e-government. Section 101 amends Title 44 by adding Chapter 36 - Management and Promotion of ElectronicGovernment Services, which focuses on issues related to the functions of the Administrator of theOffice of Electronic Government, the CIO Council, and the E-Government Fund. This chaptermakes the Administrator of the Office of Electronic Government responsible for carrying out avariety of information resources management (IRM) functions. Some of these responsibilities include: advising the Director of OMB on IRM resources and strategies; providing "overallleadership and direction on electronic government"; promoting the effective and innovative use ofinformation technology by agencies especially through multiagency collaborative projects;administering and distributing funds from the E-Government Fund (discussed in greater detailbelow); consulting with GSA "to promote electronic government and the efficient use of informationtechnologies by agencies"; leading activities on behalf of the Deputy Director of Management, whoserves as the Chair of the CIO Council; assisting the Director "in establishing policies which shallset the framework for information technology standards" to be developed by the National Institutefor Standards and Technology"; sponsoring an ongoing dialogue with federal, state, local, and triballeaders to encourage collaboration and enhance consultation on information technology bestpractices and innovation; promoting electronic procurement initiatives; and implementingaccessibility standards. Section 101 also establishes the CIO Council by law, with the Deputy Director of Managementof OMB as chairperson, and detail its organizational structure and mandate. In addition, Section 101establishes an E-Government Fund for interagency information technology projects. The fund willbe administered by the Administrator of the General Services Administration (GSA), with theassistance of the Administrator of the Office of Electronic Government. The provision authorizesappropriations for the E-Government Fund in the following amounts: $45 million for FY 2003, $50million for FY 2004, $100 million for FY 2005, $150 million for FY 2006, and "such sums asnecessary for fiscal year 2007." The provision also allows funds to be made available until expendedand require the Director of OMB to submit annual reports to the President and Congress regardingthe operation of the fund. Section 102 consists of conforming amendments. Title II focuses on enhancing a variety of e-government services, establishing performance measures, and clarifying OMB's role as the leader and coordinator of federal e-government services. The responsibilities of the Office of Electronic Government are described in greater detail. Section201 focuses on definitions used. Section 202 covers federal agency responsibilities asthey relateto the Director of OMB. Some of these responsibilities include participating in the CIO Council,developing performance measures for e-government initiatives, and submitting annual agencye-government status reports to the Director of OMB. Section 203 requires executive agencies to adopt electronic signature methods that would ensure acceptability and compatibility with OMB standards. Section 204 directs the Director of OMB to work with the Administrator of the General Services Administration (GSA) to "maintain and promote an integrated Internet-based system ofproviding the public with access to Government information and services." Section 205 directs the federal courts to develop Web sites containing information about theoperation of the court, dockets, and related materials. Similarly, section 206 directs regulatoryagencies to establish Web sites containing relevant public information. Section 207 outlines the responsibilities of the Director of OMB for maintaining accessibility,usability, and preservation of government information. Among its provisions, this sectionestablishes an Interagency Committee on Government Information with its members drawn fromexecutive branch agencies, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), as well asthe federal legislative and judicial branches. The Committee is tasked to conduct studies and submitrecommendations to the Director of OMB and Congress regarding the development of interoperablecataloguing and indexing standards by federal agencies and ensuring permanent public access toinformation disseminated by the federal government online. Section 208 establishes privacy requirements regarding agency use of personally identifiable information and requires the Director of OMB to establish privacy guidelines for federal Web sites. Section 209 allows for the development of curricula and training opportunities for federal government personnel in information technology and information resource management skills. Thissection also contains language similar to H.R. 3925 , the Digital Tech Corps Act of2002 , which allows for the exchange of mid-level information technology workers betweengovernment agencies and private sector organizations. Section 210 amends Chapter 137 of title 10, U.S.C., by adding a new section regarding the facilitation of new incentives and procedures to encourage agencies to use Share-in-Savingsprocurement techniques. The provisions of this section are similar to the language in H.R. 3832 , the Services Acquisition Reform Act of 2002 . Section 211 amends section 502 of title 40, U.S.C. by allowing state or local governments touse federal supply schedules to purchase information technology equipment, software, supplies, andservices. Vendor participation regarding state and local government purchases is voluntary. Section 212 requires the Director of OMB to conduct a feasibility study on integrating federalinformation systems across agencies and implement up to five pilot projects integrating dataelements. Section 213 mandates an interagency study on the best practices of federally-fundedcommunity technology centers. Section 214 directs the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to contract a study "onusing information technology to enhance crisis response and consequence management of naturaland manmade disasters." It also directs FEMA to conduct pilot projects based on the results of thestudy. Section 215 directs the Administrator of General Services to contract with the National Research Council to examine disparities in Internet access based on demographic characteristics. Section 216 directs the Administrator of the Office of E-Government, in consultation with theSecretary of the Interior, and working with the Director of OMB through an interagency workinggroup, to facilitate the development of common protocols for geographic information systems. Title III contains language similar to the proposed Federal Information Security ManagementAct (FISMA) of 2002, as it appears in P.L. 107-296 , the Homeland Security Act of 2002. Thelanguage of Title III permanent supersedes the FISMA language in P.L. 107-296 . FISMAre-authorizes and amends the Government Information Security Reform Act (GISRA). Section 301 amends subchapter II of chapter 35 of title 44 U.S.C. by stipulating the general authority, functions, and responsibilities of the Director of OMB and individual agencies, as it relatesto developing and maintaining federal information security policies and practices. It also requiresagencies to conduct annual independent evaluations of their information security programs andpractices. Agencies operating or controlling national security systems are also responsible formaintaining the appropriate level of information security protections for these systems. Section 302 amends the Clinger-Cohen Act by requiring the Secretary of Commerce, on the basis of proposals developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), topromulgate information security standards for federal information systems. Section 303 amends section 20 of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15U.S.C. 278g-3) by affirming the role of NIST to develop standards, guidelines, and minimumrequirements for information systems used by federal agencies, or by contractors on behalf of anagency. It also directs NIST to carry out these activities in consultation and coordination with therelevant agencies and offices, including but not limited to, the Director of OMB, the NationalSecurity Agency (NSA), the General Accounting Office (GAO), and the Secretary of HomelandSecurity. Section 304 amends the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278g-4) by replacing the Computer System Security and Privacy Advisory Board with theInformation Security and Privacy Advisory Board. It also directs the Information Security andPrivacy Advisory Board to advise NIST and the Director of OMB on information security andprivacy issues as it relates to government information systems. Section 305 contains technical and conforming amendments as it relates to the Computer Security Act, the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, and thePaperwork Reduction Act. Sections 401 and 402 authorize appropriations for the bill through fiscal 2007 and has the billtake effect 120 days after it is enacted. Title V contains language from H.R. 5215 , the Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002. Section 501 cites the short title of the provision as the Confidential Information Protection andStatistical Efficiency Act of 2002. Section 502 consists of the definitions used in title V. Section 503 designates the Director of OMB as being responsible for coordinating and overseeing the confidentiality and disclosure policies established in this title. It also stipulates thereporting requirements agencies have to the Director of OMB regarding these issues. Section 504 stipulates the limitations and effects this title would have on other federal and statelaws and regulations. Subtitle A includes sections 511-513 , which covers information protection requirements. (49) Section 511 contains the findings and purpose of the subtitle, which include to ensure that theconfidentiality of personally identifiable information, used by the federal government for statisticalpurposes, is maintained. Section 512 details the limitations on use and disclosure of data and information agencies needto follow. This includes barring agencies from disclosing personally identifiable information foruses other than statistical purposes, without the informed consent of the respondent. Section 513 details the fines and penalties applicable if an officer, employee, or agency of anagency knowingly discloses information in a manner prohibited by this title. Subtitle B includes section 521-526 , which covers statistical efficiency requirements. (50) Section 521 contains the findings and purposes of the subtitle, which include authorizing thesharing of business data between relevant agencies, and improving the comparability and accuracyof federal economic statistics. Section 522 stipulates that the term "Designated Statistical Agency" includes the Bureau of theCensus, the Bureau of Economic Analysis, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Section 523 stipulates the responsibilities of Designated Statistical Agencies, which includes identifying opportunities to eliminate the duplication of reporting requirements, entering into jointstatistical projects, and protecting the confidentiality of individually identifiable information. Section 524 outlines the responsibilities of Designated Statistical Agencies as they relate to thesharing of business data, including obligations to adhere to the requirements of other laws andlimitations regarding the disclosure of such information. Section 525 restricts the use of business data to statistical purposes and prohibit the publicationof business data in an identifiable form. Section 526 consists of conforming amendments. CRS Report RL31627(pdf) , Computer Software and Open Source Issues: A Primer , byJeffrey W.Seifert. CRS Report RL30153 , Critical Infrastructures: Background, Policy, and Implementation , by JohnD. Moteff. CRS Report RS21140, Electronic Congress: Proposals and Issues , by Jeffrey W.Seifert and R. EricPetersen. CRS Report RL30745, Electronic Government: A Conceptual Overview , by HaroldC. Relyea. CRS Report RL31088, Electronic Government: Major Proposals and Initiatives , byHarold C.Relyea. CRS Report RS20344, Electronic Signatures: Technology Developments and Legislative Issues , by[author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RL30914 , Federal Chief Information Officer (CIO): Opportunities and Challenges ,by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RL30661(pdf) , Government Information Technology Management: Past and Future Issues (The Clinger-Cohen Act) , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RL31103(pdf) , House of Representatives Information Technology Management Issues: An Overview of the Effects on Institutional Operations, the Legislative Process, and FuturePlanning , by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report 98-67 STM, Internet: An Overview of Key Technology Policy Issues Affecting Its Use and Growth , by [author name scrubbed], [author name scrubbed], [author name scrubbed], [author name scrubbed],and [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RL30590(pdf) , Paperwork Reduction Act Reauthorization and Government Information Management Issues , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report RL30824, The Privacy Act: Emerging Issues and Related Legislation , by Harold C.Relyea.

Summary: Electronic government (e-government) intersects many legislative issues, including privacy, digital divide (the lack of equal access to computers, whether due to a lack of financial resources ornecessary skills), public access to government information, service delivery, and informationsecurity. E-government solutions are prominently represented in efforts to improve the managementand efficiency of government information technology resources. To help policymakers discerne-government initiatives relative to their role in various issues, this report identifies and defines theprincipal e-government sectors and stages of development. It also outlines some of the opportunitiesand challenges associated with e-government. Some observers define e-government in terms of specific actions such as using a kiosk to receive job information, or applying for Social Security benefits through a web site. Other observersdefine e-government more generally as automating the delivery of government services. Whileperceptions vary widely, one organization, The Gartner Group, summarizes e-government as "thecontinuous optimization of service delivery, constituency participation, and governance bytransforming internal and external relationships through technology, the Internet, and new media." E-government initiatives could have implications for federalism. One of the hallmarks of a federal system of governance is the emphasis on vertical divisions of power. In contrast,e-government initiatives utilize information technologies that emphasize a horizontal, or networked,model of communication and interaction. While e-government is designed, in part, to dissolve thebarriers separating different agencies, it could also have a similar effect on the boundaries of federalgovernance. Although e-government encompasses a wide range of activities and actors, three distinct sectors can be identified. These include government-to-government (G2G), government-to-business (G2B),and government-to-citizen (G2C). Each of these sectors represents a different combination ofmotivating forces and initiatives. However, some common goals include improving the efficiency,reliability, and quality of services for the respective constituency groups. Due to a variety of technical, economic, and political reasons, e-government initiatives take time to evolve into their full potential. Consequently, one can divide e-government projects into fourstages of evolution: presence, interaction, transaction, and transformation. Each successive stagerepresents an augmented capability to provide information and services as interactive transactionsonline. Finally, proponents and critics of e-government recognize that there are a variety of opportunities and challenges involved with the successful implementation of e-governmentinitiatives. Some of the potential opportunities include new services, increased citizen participationin government, and an enhanced national information infrastructure. Some of the potentialchallenges include information security and privacy, disparities in computer access, and managementand funding requirements. This report will be updated as events warrant.