On December 17, 2002, President George W. Bush signed the E-Government Act of 2002 into law. Building upon the Clinger-Cohen Act, the E-Government Act serves as the primary legislative vehicle to guide evolving federal IT management practices and to promote initiatives to make government information and services available online. In doing so, it also represents a continuation of efforts to realize greater efficiencies and reduce redundancies through improved intergovernmental coordination, and by aligning IT investments. The law contains a variety of provisions related to federal government IT management, information security, and the provision of services and information electronically. One of the most recognized provisions involves the creation of an Office of Electronic Government (OEG) within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The OEG is headed by an Administrator, who is responsible for carrying out a variety of information resources management (IRM) functions, as well as administering the interagency E-Government Fund authorized by the law. The E-Government Act also served an important role in providing the first, and current, official federal definition of e-government. As a somewhat amorphous concept, the term electronic government, or e-government, conjures different images for different people. For some, it is submitting a form online. For others, it might be sending an e-mail message to their Member of Congress. A 2000 Gartner Group report described e-government as "the continuous optimization of service delivery, constituency participation, and governance by transforming internal and external relationships through technology, the Internet, and new media." A year later, Mark Forman, the first Associate Director for Information Technology and E-Government at (OMB), defined e-government as "the use of Internet technology and protocols to transform agency effectiveness, efficiency, and service quality." Section 2 of the E-Government Act defines e-government as: the use by the Government of web-based Internet applications and other information 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. In addition, Section 207 of the E-Government Act broke new ground by establishing requirements for the accessibility, usability, and preservation of electronic government information. However, while the reporting requirements of this section appear to have been fulfilled, ongoing concerns about issues such as the archiving of official electronic records and the accessibility of current electronic information for citizens have prompted the introduction of new legislation in the 110 th Congress. For example, the revelation of deficiencies regarding the retention and preservation of official electronic communications (i.e., e-mail messages) by the White House have contributed to calls for more stringent rules and oversight related to the archiving of such materials. Similarly, S. 2321 , the E-Government Reauthorization Act of 2007, includes a provision (discussed later in this report) requiring the Director of OMB to promulgate new guidelines to make federal websites more searchable by online search engines such as Google or Yahoo! Search. While many of the Bush Administration's e-government initiatives are separate from, and pre-date, the E-Government Act, some of the goals of these initiatives are statutorily affirmed by the act's provisions. For example, Section 216 addresses the development of common protocols for geographic information systems, which is also one of the objectives of the Geospatial One-Stop project. Section 206 directs agencies to use electronic dockets in their rulemaking process, which represents a more distributed alternative to the centralized docket being implemented under the Regulations.gov initiative. Section 203 directs agencies to adopt electronic signature methods. Likewise, the E-Authentication initiative strives to develop a government-wide approach to electronic identity systems. In addition, some of the act's broader provisions, such as those related to the development of privacy guidelines, information security standards, and the identification of means to bridge disparities in Internet access among citizens, contribute to the technological and regulatory infrastructure needed to support e-government generally. Funding for e-government activities was to be primarily provided through a combination of a dedicated fund in the form of the E-Government Fund, as well as other appropriations specifically authorized in the E-Government Act. As discussed later in this report, the E-Government Fund was established by Title I of the E-Government Act to serve as a dedicated funding source for interagency IT projects. However, although the E-Government Act authorized a cumulative minimum of $345 million from FY2003-FY2007, concerns regarding oversight have prompted Congress to appropriate no more than $5 million in any given fiscal year since the passage of the act. Congress has also repeatedly declined to approve the Bush Administration's alternative proposals to allow OMB to tap the $40 million surplus fund of GSA's General Supply Fund. Partly as a consequence of the relatively small amounts appropriated for the E-Government Fund, OMB has attempted to finance various e-government projects through an interagency "pass-the-hat" approach. Using this model, departments and agencies have been expected to contribute a portion of their budget to the managing partner department or agency responsible for developing the shared e-government application or service. Shortly before the fifth anniversary of the passage of the E-Government Act, authorization of appropriations for several key provisions expired on September 30, 2007. Some of the activities and offices affected by the expiring authorizations include, but are not limited to, the General Services Administration (GSA) E-Government Fund (Sec. 101); the OMB Office of Electronic Government (Sec. 101); the GSA program to operate a federal Internet portal (Sec. 204); the development of a government-wide online repository of federally funded research and development (Sec. 207); the GSA program to study and enhance the effectiveness of community technology centers that provide computer and Internet access to the public (Sec. 213); the GSA program to develop and maintain common protocols for geographic information systems (Sec. 216); the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) (Title III); and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) responsibility to develop standards, guidelines, and associated methods and techniques for protecting federal information systems (Sec. 303). Although the authorizations of appropriations for these provisions have expired, the activities have continued to be funded through the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2008 ( P.L. 110-161 ) for FY2008. Congress does, at times, approve spending for unauthorized appropriations to maintain the continuity of programs and services. However, the occasion to consider reauthorization of the E-Government Act provides Congress the opportunity to assess the results of federal e-government initiatives since 2002, consider how they have affected the administration of government, and decide what changes, if any, are necessary. In considering whether to reauthorize any, some, or all of these provisions, Congress could choose to amend the E-Government Act to establish a permanent authorization for the functions and structures that have become integral to the operation of government. Congress could also choose to add new provisions to reflect the maturing of both the initiatives and technology now in place. Likewise, Congress could choose to eliminate provisions that have not met expectations or that have been subsumed by changes in events and/or technology. Alternatively, Congress could choose not to reauthorize any of the provisions of the E-Government Act. The E-Government Act was first introduced with bipartisan support during the 107 th Congress as S. 803 by Senator Joseph Lieberman on May 1, 2001. The bill was referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs, which held a hearing on the legislation on July 11, 2001. At the hearing, Senator Lieberman described the bill as "a work in progress" and said that he expected the bill to change as further comments and feedback were received. This initial bill was itself partly the product of comments received through a website launched by Senator Lieberman and Senator Fred Thompson on May 18, 2000. The website, called the E-Government Project, solicited comments from the public, as well as government agencies, on 44 topics in what was referred to as an "experiment in interactive legislation." Operated as a mediated forum to emphasize "appropriateness and relevance," "nearly 1,000 comments were submitted, approximately one-half of which were posted on the website after being reviewed by Committee staff." Also, on July 11, 2001, Representative Jim Turner introduced H.R. 2458 , identical to the original version of S. 803 , which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform. On March 21, 2002, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs approved an amendment in the nature of a substitute for S. 803 . Some of the differences between the original bill and the amendment included the replacement of a provision that would have established a federal chief information officer with a provision to establish an Office of E-Government within OMB to be headed by a Senate-confirmed Administrator; the replacement of a plan for an online telephone directory with a provision for a full federal Internet portal; and a consolidation of a variety of reporting requirements into a single annual e-government report to be submitted to Congress by OMB. On July 27, 2002, the Senate approved this amended version by Unanimous Consent and sent it to the House, where it was referred to the House Committee on Government Reform. On September 18, 2002, the House Committee on Government Reform Subcommittee on Technology and Procurement Policy held a hearing on the bill. The subcommittee subsequently marked up and forwarded an amended version of H.R. 2458 to the full committee by voice vote on October 1, 2002. During the markup session, the Subcommittee approved a number of amendments, including some that drew from other legislation before the Subcommittee.