[Senate Report 110-465]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
110th Congress
2d Session SENATE Report
110-465
_______________________________________________________________________
Calendar No. 970
E-GOVERNMENT REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2007
__________
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
to accompany
S. 2321
TO AMEND THE E-GOVERNMENT ACT OF 2002 (PUBLIC LAW 107-347) TO
REAUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
September 16, 2008.--Ordered to be printed
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii TED STEVENS, Alaska
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
BARACK OBAMA, Illinois PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri JOHN WARNER, Virginia
JON TESTER, Montana JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire
Michael L. Alexander, Staff Director
Kevin J. Landy, Chief Counsel
Adam R. Sedgewick, Professional Staff Member
Brandon L. Milhorn, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
John K. Grant, Minority Counsel
Trina Driessnack Tyrer, Chief Clerk
Calendar No. 970
110th Congress
SENATE
Report
2d Session 110-465
======================================================================
E-GOVERNMENT REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2007
_______
September 16, 2008.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Lieberman, from the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs, submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany S. 2321]
The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs, to which was referred the bill (S. 2321) to amend the
E-Government Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-347) to reauthorize
appropriations, and for other purposes, having considered the
same, reports favorably thereon with an amendment and
recommends that the bill do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
I. Purpose and Summary..............................................1
II. Background and Need for the Legislation..........................1
III. Legislative History..............................................5
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis......................................6
V. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact..................................8
VI. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................8
VII. Changes to Existing Law.........................................11
I. Purpose and Summary
S. 2321 is a bipartisan bill to reauthorize the E-
Government Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-347). The bill extends
appropriations for programs whose authorizations of
appropriations have expired, creates new requirements for the
accessibility of government information, and mandates the
development of best practices to enhance privacy impact
assessments.
II. Background and Need for the Legislation
The E-Government Act of 2002 improved the management and
promotion of electronic government services; enhanced the
public's access to information over the Internet and its
ability to participate in regulatory processes; and
strengthened privacy protections. S. 2321 will ensure that this
progress will continue and requires that additional steps be
taken to further develop E-Government solutions across the
government.
The E-Government Act established an Office of Electronic
Government (hereinafter ``the Office'') in the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) to ``provide effective leadership
of Federal Government efforts to develop and promote electronic
Government services and processes.''\1\ Information Technology
(IT) represents a significant portion of the Federal budget,
with OMB estimating that the federal government will spend over
$71 billion on IT projects in FY 2009. The E-Government Act
created a substantial role for the Office in overseeing the
expenditure of these funds. The Office also oversees the cross-
agency E-Government initiatives that have been designed to help
reach the goal of ``systems based on functionality and the
needs of the citizen rather than agency jurisdiction.''\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Pub. L. No. 107-347 Sec. 2.
\2\S. Rept. 107-174, 107th Cong., 2nd Sess. (2002), pg. 6. (S. 803
was the original version of the E-Government Act; the legislation was
subsequently enacted as H.R. 2458).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Among the programs being re-authorized in S. 2321 is the
Federal Internet Portal, which can now be found at USA.gov. In
FY 2007, USA.gov received approximately 97 million visits.\3\
This portal provides a single website where government
information and services are organized by subject and function.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Testimony of Karen S. Evans before the Senate Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, December 11, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. 2321 also extends authorizations for Section 207(g) of
the E-Government Act, which required the development and
maintenance of a government-wide repository and website to
fully integrate information about research and development
funded by the federal government. This mandate is not being
fully met and the Committee intends that the funds authorized
in this Act further develop this repository. As the Committee
stated when reporting out the E-Government Act: ``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.''\4\ While OMB continues to implement the Federal
Funding and Transparency Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-282), which
requires disclosure on a publicly accessible website of non-
federal entities receiving federal funding (currently located
at www.usaspending.gov), the Committee believes that OMB should
consider incorporating the information required by Section
207(g) that relates to research and development into this
website.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\S. Rept. 107-174, 107th Cong., 2nd Sess. (2002), pg. 27. (S. 803
was the original version of the E-Government Act; the legislation was
subsequently enacted as H.R. 2458).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another provision that will have its authorizations
extended in S. 2321 is the Federal Information Security
Management Act (FISMA), which was another critical component of
the original E-Government Act. FISMA established guidelines for
computer security throughout the federal government and
provided for both OMB and Congressional oversight. Using the
framework established by FISMA, agencies have taken significant
strides in protecting their information systems since the
passage of the Act, but the Committee believes more needs to be
done to protect against information security breaches and
abuse.
One of the central goals of the E-Government Act, which S.
2321 is intended to reinforce, is promoting the use of the
Internet to improve citizens' access to government services and
information. But at the same time, the Act reflected
recognition by Congress that the federal government's over-
reliance on Internet solutions could limit access to government
services and information for those lacking easy access to the
Internet.\5\ This concern remains relevant. The Committee does
not intend that E-Government solutions entirely replace
alternative ways for the public to apply for federal benefits
or seek information from federal agencies. Recent studies have
suggested that as federal agencies decrease the availability of
non-Internet mechanisms and some government forms become more
complex, public libraries and other entities are increasingly
burdened with providing computer and Internet access and
assisting the public in their interactions with federal
agencies.\6\ The goals of the E-Government Act, and the
Committee's intent in reauthorizing that Act, are to maximize
technology's potential to enhance access to federal information
and services. The Committee believes that these goals should be
considered when OMB and federal agencies develop E-Government
programs and tools that require access to the internet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\Pub. L. No. 107-347, see Sec. 213 (requiring federal agencies to
support community technology centers and public libraries that offer
the public Internet access to government information and services),
Sec. 215 (requiring a study of how disparities in Internet access
influence the effectiveness of online government services).
\6\See John Bertot et al, Public access computing and Internet
Access in Public Libraries: The role of public libraries in E-
Government and emergency situation, 11 First Monday 9 . (``Increasingly,
government agencies refer individuals to their local public libraries
for assistance and technology to complete their interactions and meet
their government services needs. The significance to this development
is that public libraries, in the eyes of federal, state, and local
government agencies, are seen as part of the larger governmental fabric
that deliver a range of services--including emergency services--to its
citizens.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BEST PRACTICES FOR PRIVACY IMPACT ASSESSMENTS
Section 208 of the E-Government Act of 2002 requires
agencies to complete a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) for any
new information technology or new collection of information
that collects, maintains, or disseminates personal information.
This provision requires that agencies take into account privacy
considerations and adopt appropriate privacy protections before
developing or procuring IT systems or initiating new
information collections. PIAs ensure that program managers,
privacy officers, and policy makers can review the potential
privacy implications of new IT systems, and new programs or
policies that involve the collection of personal information.
When developed early and rigorously, PIAs can reassure the
public that an information system will adequately secure
personal information. In addition, they can result in savings
of millions of dollars by identifying potential problems at an
early stage of development, thus forestalling later costly
redesigns of a system to bring it into compliance with privacy
laws and regulations.
Since the passage of the Act, PIAs--which are publicly
available documents--have become a critical tool for agencies.
But while some agencies have been quite successful with
properly developing PIAs, policies for their use government-
wide are inconsistent and PIAs have varied dramatically in
quality. As Ari Schwartz, Vice President and Chief Operating
Officer, Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), testified
before the Committee: ``While some agencies, like the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have set a high standard
for PIAs and have continued to improve them over time, the lack
of clear guidance has led some agencies to create cursory PIAs
or none at all.''\7\ S. 2321 will enhance Section 208 of the E-
Government Act by requiring OMB to develop best practices for
agencies to follow when creating PIAs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\Testimony of Ari Schwartz before the Senate Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, December 11, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMPROVING SEARCHES OF GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS ON THE WORLDWIDE WEB
S. 2321 addresses another problem that has developed since
the passage of the E-Government Act. Given the wealth of
government information and services that is now available
online, the Committee believes that that information must be
presented in a format that allows it to be as accessible and
useful as possible to the public. For technical reasons, the
intended audience often cannot find much of the information
that agencies place on their websites.
A report by CDT and OMB Watch summarized the scope of the
problem: ``[T]he federal government is putting more information
and services online, but a considerable amount of government
information is, for all practical purposes, invisible to many
users. Many federal agencies operate Web sites that are simply
not configured to enable access through popular search engines.
These Web sites don't allow search engines to `crawl' them, an
industry term for indexing online content, and sometimes even
block sites from being found by search engines.''\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\``Hiding in Plain Sight: Why Important Government Information
Cannot Be Found Through Commercial Search Engines,'' Center for
Democracy & Technology and OMB Watch, December 2007, pg. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To address this problem, the legislation requires OMB to
promulgate guidance on making federal government information
more accessible to search capabilities, including commercial
search engines, and it requires that agencies comply with the
guidance. Several companies that host search engines, including
Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo, support a technical standard
called the Sitemap Protocol which provides a mechanism for a
website owner to produce a list of all web pages on a website
and systematically communicate this information or ``sitemap''
to search engines. Using a sitemap, information will be more
likely to be displayed in search results, regardless of the
search engine being used. The Sitemap Protocol has already been
used by federal agencies, including the Department of Energy's
Office of Scientific and Technical Information, the Government
Accountability Office, the Library of Congress, the National
Agricultural Library, and the National Archives and Records
Administration, to improve citizen access to their online
resources. The Committee encourages the Director to include the
Sitemap Protocol in its guidance to agencies, if it continues
to find the protocol to be an effective means of making
information more readily accessible.
The Committee also believes this guidance should be used to
encourage agencies to put more information in a structured
format, such as extensible markup language (XML), which would
allow this information to be harnessed and used by external
applications and was recommended in Section 101 of the E-
Government Act.\9\ Data presented in this format allows for a
rapid exchange of information that can be easily manipulated in
a variety of ways by external websites, allowing for greater
analysis of data.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\44 U.S.C. 3602(8)(b).
\10\See Jerry Brito, Hack, Mash, & Peer, 9 Colum. Sci. & Tech L.
Rev. 119 (2007-2008). (``As we have seen, ``structured data'' is a term
of art. It means that information is presented in a format that allows
computers to easily parse and manipulate it. While a static web page
that lists a series of news stories or proposed regulations is not
structured, the web page may have a companion XML file containing the
same information. A structured XML file would allow a user to sort the
data by ascending or descending date, alphabetically by headline or
author, by number of words, and in many other ways that a static web
page does not afford.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This legislation is not intended to limit the use of
complex search applications included on government websites,
including federated search capabilities, which may integrate
multiple databases across many websites for public use.\11\ It
also does not prevent agencies from using complex databases or
other methods to present information to the public--merely to
ensure that information is being presented in a way that
guarantees maximum public access without impairing the
integrity of the data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\For example science.gov pulls content from the 13 federal
science agencies in response to queries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Legislative History
S. 2321 was introduced by Chairman Lieberman on November 7,
2007 in the Senate, with Senators Collins and Carper as
original co-sponsors. The bill was read twice and referred to
the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
HEARING
On December 11, 2007, the committee held a hearing
entitled: ``E-Government 2.0: Improving Innovation,
Collaboration, and Access,'' at which S. 2321 was discussed.
The committee heard testimony from the following witnesses:
Karen S. Evans, Administrator, Office of Electronic
Government and Information Technology, Office of Management and
Budget;
John Lewis Needham, Manager, Public Sector Content
Partnerships, Google, Inc.;
Ari Schwartz, Vice President and Chief Operating Officer,
Center for Democracy and Technology;
Jimmy Wales, Founder, Wikipedia.
Karen Evans testified regarding the federal government's
progress in reaching the goals of the E-Government Act. She
testified that ``reauthorization will allow the intent and
purpose of the E-Government Act to continue to be a driving
force behind providing increased opportunity for the American
public to participate in government.''
John Lewis Needham described what steps can be taken to
present government information and services on the Internet in
a format that would allow citizens to more easily access the
material through commercial search engines. He stated that in
its work with other government entities, Google has found that
implementing the Sitemap Protocol is a technically simple and
inexpensive solution that would substantially increase the
ability of citizens to find government information and services
online.
Ari Schwartz of the Center for Democracy and Technology
provided specific examples of government information that was
on government websites but could not be found by commercial
search engines, including Flood Map modernization databases
from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, information
relating to endangered species, and resources from the
Smithsonian Institute. Schwartz also testified that the
development of best practices for Privacy Impact Assessments,
as mandated by S. 2321, would require OMB to provide better
guidance and would improve the quality of agencies' PIAs.
The last witness, Jimmy Wales, testified about the use of
``wikis'' and possible applications to E-Government. Wales
founded Wikipedia, which has used collaborative technology to
inexpensively create an online encyclopedia--populated with
information and edited by users of the site--with more than 9
million pages in more than 150 languages. Wales testified: ``It
is my belief that the government of the United States should be
using wiki technology for both internal and public-facing
projects. As with any large enterprise, internal communications
problems are the cause of many inefficiencies and failures.
Just as top corporations are finding wiki usage exploding,
because the tool brings about new efficiencies, government
agencies should be exploring these tools as well.''\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\Testimony of Jimmy Wales before the Senate Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, December 11, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ACTION
The Committee considered S. 2321 on November 14, 2007. The
Committee ordered the bill reported favorably without an
amendment by voice vote. Members present for the vote were
Lieberman, Carper, McCaskill, Tester, Collins, Stevens,
Voinovich, Coleman, and Coburn.
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 1. Short title
This section would permit the bill to be cited as the ``E-
Government Reauthorization Act of 2007.''
Section 2. Reauthorization of appropriations
Subsection (a) extends through fiscal year 2012 the
authorization of appropriations to carry out specified
provisions of the E-Government Act of 2002. In particular, in
subsection (a)(1) it extends the authorization of
appropriations for the federal internet portal; in subsection
(a)(2) it extends the authorizations of appropriations for the
development and maintenance of a governmentwide repository and
website for federally funded research and development; in
section (a)(3) it extends the authorizations of appropriations
for the study of best practices at community technology
centers, for the development and dissemination of the online
tutorial, and for the promotion of community technology
centers; in section (a)(4) it extends the authorizations of
appropriations for the development of common protocols for
geographic information systems; and in section (a)(5) it
extends the authorizations of appropriations for all provisions
for which an authorization of appropriations is not
specifically provided in titles I or II of the E-Government
Act.
Subsection (b) extends the authorization of appropriations
until 2012 for the Federal Information Security Management Act
of 2002.
Subsection (c) extends the authorization of appropriations
until 2012 for the E-Government Fund.
Subsection (d) allows assignment under the Information
Technology Exchange Program to occur in increments of 3 months
to 1 year with the ability to be extended an additional 3
months but may not commence after September 30, 2012.
Subsection (e) extends the money appropriated to the
Secretary of Commerce until fiscal year 2012 to carry out the
Computer Standards Program by the National Institute of
Standards and Technology.
Section 3. Best practices for privacy impact assessments
This section amends the E-Government Act by requiring the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget to develop best
practices for agencies to follow in conducting privacy impact
assessments.
Section 4. Improving searches of government information on the
worldwide web
This section amends the E-Government Act by requiring the
Director of OMB, within 1 year of the date of enactment, to
promulgate guidance and best practices to ensure that publicly
available federal government information and services are made
more accessible to external search engines. The guidance and
best practices shall include guidelines for each agency to test
the accessibility of websites to external search engines. The
Director shall conduct a periodic review to ensure that any
guidelines and best practices are consistent with any advances
made in information technology. The Director shall report
annually to Congress on the progress of each agency's
implementation of the guidelines and best practices and the
results of the agencies' testing of the website to ensure that
it is externally searchable by search engines.
The section also states that within 2 years of enactment of
S. 2321 each agency shall ensure compliance with the Director's
guidelines and best practices. Agencies must report annually to
the Director on their progress in complying with the best
practices and guidance, including the result of any testing of
agency websites.
Section 5. Providing agency E-Government reports to Congress
The E-Government Act requires agencies to submit to the OMB
Director an annual E-Government Status Report on the status of
the agency's implementation of electronic government
initiatives, its compliance with the E-Government Act, and how
the agency's electronic government initiatives improve
performance in delivering programs to the public. This section
requires that the annual E-Government Status Reports submitted
by agencies to the OMB Director also be submitted to Congress,
along with a summary of the reports.
V. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact
Pursuant to the requirement of paragraph 11(b)(1) of rule
XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate the Committee has
considered the regulatory impact of this bill. 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. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
December 3, 2007.
Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman,
Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 2321, the E-
Government Reauthorization Act of 2007.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Matthew
Pickford.
Sincerely,
Peter R. Orszag.
Enclosure.
S. 2321--E-Government Reauthorization Act of 2007
Summary: S. 2321 would reauthorize and amend the E-
Government Act of 2002. The legislation would authorize
appropriations for programs to improve the coordination,
deployment, and access to government information and services.
Specifically, S. 2321 would authorize and centralize many
Internet-related activities currently underway throughout the
government.
Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO
estimates that implementing S. 2321 would cost about $29
billion over the 2008-2012 period. Of this total, $27.9 billion
would result from the authorization of funding for the Federal
Information Security Management Act (FISMA). Such costs,
averaging about $6 billion a year, represent a continuation of
the current level of spending, with adjustments for anticipated
inflation.
We also estimate that enacting S. 2321 would increase
direct spending by $11 million over the 2008-2017 period for
the cost of the unfunded termination liability of share-in-
savings (SIS) contracts authorized by the bill.
S. 2321 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
cost of implementing S. 2321 is shown in the following table.
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--
--------------------------------------------
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Federal Information Security Management Act:
Estimated Authorization Level.................................. 5,722 5,837 5,953 6,072 6,194
Estimated Outlays.............................................. 4,578 5,242 5,919 6,037 6,158
Other Programs:
Estimated Authorization Level.................................. 242 241 248 252 257
Estimated Outlays.............................................. 154 239 246 251 255
Total Changes:
Estimated Authorization Level.................................. 5,964 6,078 6,201 6,324 6,451
Estimated Outlays.............................................. 4,732 5,481 6,165 6,288 6,413
CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING
Estimated Budget Authority..................................... * 1 1 2 2
Estimated Outlays.............................................. * 1 1 2 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: * = less than $500,000.
Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that the
necessary amounts will be provided each year and that spending
will follow historical patterns for ongoing activities. CBO
estimates that S. 2321 would authorize the appropriation of
approximately $29 billion over the 2008-2012 period for the
management and promotion of electronic government information
services and processes. This estimate assumes that future
funding would be adjusted for anticipated inflation.
SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
The legislation would reauthorize and amend the E-
Government Act through 2012. The current authorization expired
at the end of 2007. Significant components of the legislation
are described below.
Federal Information Security Management Act. As part of the
E-Government Act of 2002, FISMA sets requirements for securing
the government's information systems. The National Institute of
Standards and Technology develops information security
standards and guidelines for federal agencies, and OMB
coordinates information technology security policies and
practices. For fiscal year 2006, OMB estimates that federal
agencies spent around $5.5 billion to secure the government's
information systems. CBO estimates that continuing this level
of effort would cost $27.9 billion over the 2008-2012 period.
(That estimate reflects 2006 spending in this activity,
adjusted for anticipated inflation.)
OTHER PROGRAMS
The legislation would authorize the appropriation of such
sums as necessary over the 2008-2012 period to operate the
following programs:
The General Services Administration's (GSA's) E-
Government Fund for interagency projects develops electronic
signatures for executive agencies and maintains and promotes
the federal Internet portal. This program supports interagency
electronic government initiatives to provide individuals,
businesses, and other governmental agencies with timely access
to federal information, benefits, services, and business
opportunities.
The National Institute of Standards and
Technology's Office of Information and Security Programs
conducts research and issues standards related to the security
of federal information systems.
The Office of Personnel Management identifies
information technology personnel needs for the federal
workforce and provides training.
In addition, the bill would authorize other government
programs to develop and maintain databases and Web sites for
federally funded research and to support research and education
programs concerning electronic information systems.
CBO estimates that continuing the current and new
activities authorized by the bill for those programs would cost
$1.1 billion over the 2008-2012 period, assuming that current
funding would be adjusted for anticipated inflation.
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. 2321 could help the government achieve such
savings; however, CBO has no basis for estimating any potential
savings over the next few years.
DIRECT SPENDING
S. 2321 would authorize federal agencies to use SIS
contracts for the purchase of information technology
consultants and hardware through September 2012. The bill would
allow up to five contracts per year in fiscal years 2008
through 2012.
An SIS contract can be used to procure information
processing products and services without an up-front payment.
Payment for such goods and services would be made from any
operational savings or increased collections generated by the
use of such equipment or services. In addition, S. 2321 would
allow agencies to enter into SIS contracts without funds
available for the termination liability. The bill would limit
the amount of such unfunded termination liability to $5 million
per contract (or 25 percent of the termination costs, whichever
is less).
Based on information from GSA about the use of SIS
contracts, CBO estimates that 10 percent of the SIS contracts
authorized by S. 2321 would be terminated before completion.
Assuming that SIS contracts have an average duration of five
years and that the maximum termination liability could be
incurred in any year, we estimate that this provision would
cost $6 million over the 2008-2012 period and $11 million over
the 2008-2017 period.
Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: S. 2321
contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in UMRA and
would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
The bill would benefit the District of Columbia by allowing
private organizations to assign their employees to the Office
of the Chief Technology Officer, and allowing the office to
assign its employees to private organizations. In either case,
both the District and the private organizations must agree to
such assignments.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Spending: Matthew Pickford;
Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Elizabeth Cove;
Impact on the Private Sector: Paige Piper/Bach.
Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Assistant Director
for Budget Analysis.
VII. Changes in Existing Law, as Reported
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the following changes in existing
law made by the bill, as reported, are shown as follows:
(existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black
brackets, new matter is printed in italic, existing law in
which no change is proposed is shown in roman):
UNITED STATES CODE
* * * * * * *
TITLE 5--GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES AND ORGANIZATION
* * * * * * *
PART III--EMPLOYEES
* * * * * * *
SUBPART B--EMPLOYMENT AND RETENTION
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 37--INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY EXCHANGE PROGRAM
* * * * * * *
Sec. 3702. General provisions
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Duration.--Assignments under this chapter shall be for
a period of between 3 months and 1 year, and may be extended in
3-month increments for a total of not more than 1 additional
year, except that no assignment under this chapter may commence
after [the end of the 5-year period beginning on the date of
the enactment of this chapter] September 30, 2012.
* * * * * * *
TITLE 15--COMMERCE AND TRADE
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 7--NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY
* * * * * * *
Sec. 278g-3. Computer standards programs
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary of Commerce $20,000,000 for
each of fiscal years [2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007] 2003
through 2012 to enable the National Institute of Standards and
Technology to carry out the provisions of this section.
* * * * * * *
TITLE 44--PUBLIC PRINTING AND DOCUMENTS
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 35--COORDINATION OF FEDERAL INFORMATION POLICY
* * * * * * *
Subchapter III--Information Security
* * * * * * *
Sec. 3548. Authorization of Appropriations
There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out the
provisions of this subchapter such sums as may be necessary for
each of fiscal years 2003 through [2007] 2012.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 36--MANAGEMENT AND PROMOTION OF ELECTRONIC GOVERNMENT
* * * * * * *
Sec. 3604. E-Government Fund
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(g)(1) There are authorized to be appropriated to the
Fund--
* * * * * * *
(E) such sums are necessary for [fiscal year 2007]
fiscal years 2007 through 2012.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 3606. E-Government report
(a) * * *
(b)[(1) a summary of the information reported by agencies
under section 202(f) of the E-Government Act of 2002;] (1) the
reports submitted by agencies to the Director under section
202(g) of the E-Government Act of 2002, and a summary of the
information reported by the agencies;
----------
UNITED STATES PUBLIC LAW
* * * * * * *
E-GOVERNMENT ACT OF 2002 (PUBLIC LAW 107-347)
* * * * * * *
TITLE II
* * * * * * *
SEC. 204. FEDERAL INTERNET PORTAL.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the General Services Administration
$15,000,000 for the maintenance, improvement, and promotion of
the integrated Internet-based system for fiscal year 2003, and
such sums as are necessary for fiscal years 2004 through [2007]
2012.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 207. ACCESSIBILITY, USABILITY, AND PRESERVATION OF GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(f) Agency Websites.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4) Searchability of government websites.--
(A) Functions of the director.--
(i) Guidelines.--Not later than 1
year after the date of enactment of the
E-Government Reauthorization Act of
2007, the Director shall promulgate
guidance and best practices to ensure
that publicly available online Federal
Government information and services are
made more accessible to external search
capabilities, including commercial and
governmental search capabilities. The
guidance and best practices shall
include guidelines for each agency to
test the accessibility of the websites
of that agency to external search
capabilities.
(ii) Review.--The Director shall
ensure periodic review of any guidance
and best practices promulgated under
clause (i) to ensure that the guidance
and best practices are consistent with
any advances made in information
technology.
(iii) Reports.--The Director shall
report annually to Congress, through
the report established under section
3606 of title 44, United States Code,
on--
(I) the progress of agencies
with the guidance promulgated
under clause (i); and
(II) the results of the
testing by agencies.
(B) Agency functions.--
(i) Compliance.--Effective on and
after 2 years after the date of
enactment of the E-Government Act of
2007, each agency shall ensure
compliance with any guidance
promulgated under subparagraph (A).
(ii) Reports.--Each agency shall
report annually to the Director, in the
report established under section
202(g), on--
(I) the use of best practices
and progress of that agency
with the guidance promulgated
under subparagraph (A); and
(II) the results of the
testing by that agency.
* * * * * * *
(g) Access to Federally Funded Research and Development.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(5) Authorization of appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated for the development,
maintenance, and operation of the Governmentwide
repository and website under this subsection--
(A) * * *
(B) such sums are necessary in each of the
fiscal years 2006 [and 2007] through 2012.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 208. PRIVACY PROVISIONS.
(a) * * *
(b) Privacy Impact Assessments.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) Responsibilities of the director.--The Director
shall--
(A) * * *
(B) oversee the implementation of the privacy
impact assessment process throughout the
Government; [and]
(C) require agencies to conduct privacy
impact assessments of existing information
systems or ongoing collections of information
that is in an identifiable form as the Director
determines appropriate[.]; and
(D) develop best practices for agencies to
follow in conducting privacy impact
assessments.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 213. COMMUNITY TECHNOLOGY CENTERS.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) * * *
(2) * * *
(3) such sums as are necessary in fiscal years 2005
through [2007] 2012.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 216. COMMON PROTOCOLS FOR GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out this
section, for each of the fiscal years 2003 through [2007] 2012.
* * * * * * *
TITLE IV
* * * * * * *
SEC. 401. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Except for those purposes for which an authorization of
appropriations is specifically provided in Title I or II,
including the amendments made by such titles, there are
authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to
carry out titles I and II for each of fiscal years 2003 through
[2007] 2012.