[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 144 (Thursday, October 6, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 6, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                  THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT OF 1994

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed 
to the immediate consideration of calendar No. 704, S. 560, the 
Paperwork Reduction Act; that the committee amendment be agreed to, the 
bill, as amended, be deemed read three times and passed, and the motion 
to reconsider be laid upon the table; further, that any statements 
appear in the Record as if read.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to rise before 
my colleagues today and urge their acceptance of bipartisan legislation 
to reauthorize the Paperwork Reduction Act. As chairman of the 
Governmental Affairs Committee, I am offering this bill as an amendment 
in the nature of a substitute to S. 560, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1994.
  I offer this amendment on behalf of myself and Senators Nunn, Roth, 
Levin, Sasser, Dorgan, Cohen, Lieberman, Pryor, Akaka, and Bennett--all 
members of the Governmental Affairs Committee. The amendment was 
reported favorably by a unanimous vote of the committee on August 2, 
1994.
  This legislation is very important, and should be acted on now. We 
should not let this Congress end with the Paperwork Reduction Act 
still-unreathorized. The reauthorization and amendments of the 
legislation are needed for two simple reasons.
  First, the Paperwork Reduction Act is vital to reducing Government 
paperwork burdens on the American public. Too often, individuals and 
businesses are burdened by having to fill out questionnaires and forms 
that simply are not needed to implement the laws of the land. Too much 
time and money is wasted in an effort to satisfy bureaucratic excess. 
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 created a clearance process to 
control this Government appetite for information. The Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1994 strengthens this process and will help the public 
break through the continuing waves of redtape.
  Second, the act is key to reducing the costs and improving the 
efficiency and effectiveness of government information activities. The 
Federal Government is now spending over $25 billion a year on 
information technology. The new age of computers and telecommunications 
provides many opportunities for improvements in Government operations. 
Unfortunately, as oversight by our Committee and others has shown, the 
government is simply wasting millions of dollars on poorly designed and 
often incompatible systems. This must stop. The Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1980 took a first step on the road to reform when it created 
information resources management [IRM] policies to be overseen by OMB. 
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1994 strengthens that mandate and 
establishes new requirements for agency IRM improvements.
  In these and other ways, this legislation strengthens the Paperwork 
Reduction Act and reflects the concerns of a broad array of Senators, 
as is seen in the origin of the Committee substitute. It is a 
compromise between S. 560--introduced by Senator Nunn, for himself, 
Senators Bumpers, Roth, Danforth, and 22 other Senators; and S. 681--
which I introduced, along with Senators Levin and Akaka. We arrived at 
our bi-partisan, consensus compromise after a year-long consultative 
effort, including a committee hearing on May 19, 1994. The result is 
strongly endorsed by the administration and the General Accounting 
Office.
  As my colleagues know, I have been working for several years to 
reauthorize this important law. Other members of the committee have, 
too--particularly, Senator Nunn, Senator Roth, and Senator Levin. We 
are all very pleased with the compromise we now have. We offer the 
substitute as an amendment to S. 560 in recognition of the support that 
bill has obtained, both in the Senate and the House. With that support, 
we hope our consensus legislation can now move quickly.
  Reflecting our support for this amendment, I ask unanimous consent 
that the following Senators who cosponsored the amendment in committee, 
be included as original co-sponsors to S. 560: Senators Glenn, Levin, 
Dorgan, Lieberman, Pryor, Akaka, and Bennett.
  With this amendment, we have the best of both S. 560 and S. 681:
  We reauthorize the act for 5 years;
  We overturn the Dole versus United Steelworkers Supreme Court 
decision, so that information disclosure requirements are covered by 
the OMB paperwork clearance process;
  We require agencies to evaluate paperwork proposals and solicit 
public comment on them before the proposals go to OMB for review;
  We create additional opportunities for the public to participate in 
paperwork clearance and other information management decisions;
  We strengthen agency and OMB information resources management [IRM] 
requirements;
  We establish information dissemination standards and require the 
development of a Government information locator service [GILS] to 
ensure improved public access to Government information; especially 
that maintained in electronic format; and
  We make other improvements in the areas of Government statistics, 
records management, computer security, and the management of 
information technology.
  These are important reforms--and I ask unanimous consent that a more 
detailed summary of the legislation be printed in the Record at the 
conclusion of my statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. GLENN. Even with these reforms, reaching agreement on this 
legislation has involved considerable compromise. There has been give 
and take on both sides. The result, like most compromises, may well 
displease some. It may also not completely resolve conflicting views on 
many of the OMB paperwork and regulatory review controversies that have 
dogged congressional oversight of the Paperwork Reduction Act. But 
again, the committee substitute is a compromise that addresses many 
real issues and moves the Government forward toward the reduction of 
paperwork burdens on the public and improvements in the management of 
Federal information resources. I believe this is a very good compromise 
that can and should pass both the Senate and the House. I urge my 
colleagues to support the committee substitute.

                               Exhibit 1

Summary of Glenn-Nunn-Roth Governmental Affairs Committee Substitute to 
              S. 560, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1994

       The committee substitute to S. 560 would reauthorize 
     appropriations for the Paperwork Reduction Act and amend the 
     Act to strengthen its paperwork reduction and information 
     resources management [IRM] purposes. Its most important 
     provisions are:
       1. Agency responsibilities--Detailed agency 
     responsibilities for paperwork clearance (e.g., early agency 
     evaluation and public comment) and IRM (e.g., coordinating 
     systems planning with budget and financial management 
     review).
       2. Third-Party paperwork--Overturns the Supreme Court 
     decision, Dole versus United Steelworkers, by including 3rd-
     party ``disclosure'' requirements in the definition of 
     ``collection of information,'' to ensure OMB paperwork 
     review.
       3. Burden--Adds detail to the definition and strengthens 
     references to reducing burden in order to maintain the Act's 
     primary focus on reducing paperwork burdens on the public.
       4. 5 percent goal--Maintains the 5% annual paperwork 
     reduction goal from current law.
       5. Public disclosure--In addition to consolidating the 
     Act's public disclosure requirements (i.e., for paperwork 
     clearance, not regulatory review), adds a limitation to 
     protect ``whistleblowers'' by withholding from public 
     disclosure any communications from people about unauthorized 
     ``bootleg'' paperwork, if they fear retaliation (e.g., from 
     an agency).
       6. Requests for OMB review--Allows public requests for an 
     OMB determination of whether agency paperwork is covered by 
     the Act and properly cleared.
       7. Dissemination--Details OMB and agency information 
     dissemination management responsibilities.
       8. Information technology and IRM planning--Links IT/IRM 
     decision-making to program performance and budgetary/
     financial management consistent with GAO ``Best Practices'' 
     studies.
       9. Years of authorization--5-year $8 million annual 
     authorization.
       The Committee substitute was offered at the Governmental 
     Affairs Committee mark-up on August 2, 1994, by Chairman 
     Glenn, on behalf of himself, and Senators Nunn, Roth, Levin, 
     Sasser, Dorgan, Cohen, Lieberman, Pryor, Akaka, and Bennett. 
     The committee voted unanimously to favorably report S. 560, 
     as amended by the substitute.

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 560, the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1994. This legislation was reported out of the 
Committee on Governmental Affairs unanimously, reflecting the 
bipartisan efforts of Senators Glenn, Nunn, and myself. Senator Nunn 
and I were cosponsors of S. 560 while Senator Glenn had sponsored S. 
681. While the two bills had many differences of substance, emphasis, 
and form, the major difference in my opinion concerned the 1990 Supreme 
Court decision in Dole versus United Steelworkers of America, which 
held that certain paperwork requirements were not within the 
jurisdiction of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
  I am pleased that the reported legislation overturns the Dole case, 
so that all paperwork falls under the act and is thereby subject to 
review by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. The 
legislation also authorizes appropriations for OIRA for 5 more years, 
strengthens OIRA and agency responsibilities for the reduction of 
paperwork burdens on the public, and improves policies for information 
resources management.
  The paperwork burden produced by Government's enormous appetite for 
information is an ever increasing problem. The fact that the problem is 
growing does not mean that efforts under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1980 have not been worthwhile. The problem would have been much worse 
without such efforts. The mechanism for reducing burdens cannot be 
faulted because Congress passes more laws that generate more paperwork.
  The legislation before us recognizes that an information collection 
may be problematic not only because the collection has no public 
utility but also because the collector may already have access to the 
information and need not bother our citizenry with a request for the 
same information. I applaud the efforts of GAO to underscore this 
simple truth by highlighting the benefits of information resources 
management. This legislation effectuates the principle that information 
resources management and reduction of paperwork burdens are two sides 
of the same coin. While some may view the two aspects as competing for 
scarce OIRA resources, that view is mistaken. The two aspects are 
inextricably linked.
  This legislation enjoys widespread support among the business 
community, both big and small, as well as among State and local 
government paperwork collections. They all will be pleased to see that 
this legislation strengthens the paperwork reduction aspects of the Act 
and that, in particular, it retains the direction to OIRA that it 
manage the paperwork burden on the public to achieve a 5 percent 
reduction.
  Paperwork burdens, like other regulatory burdens, are a hidden tax on 
the American people--a tax without measure, a tax unrestricted by 
budgetary or constitutional imitations, but a tax no less real.
  Unfortunately, there are some liberal interest groups who have never 
been happy with the Act and who are even less happy with this improved 
amendment. For the last 14 years, whenever such groups were displeased 
by the exercise of authority that the Act placed upon OIRA to deny 
clearance to a noncomplying information collection, they complained 
that OIRA's action was ``substantive'' in its effect and in violation, 
therefore, of section 3518(e) of the Act. That provision states that:

       (n)othing in this chapter shall be interpreted as 
     increasing or decreasing the authority of the President * * * 
     with respect to the substantive policies and programs of 
     departments, agencies, and offices * * *.

  These liberal interest groups never seemed to notice the ``or 
decreasing'' language in section 3518(e). Thus they sought to transform 
a ``savings clause'' regarding the President's authority to oversee the 
departments and agencies of Government into a limitation on that 
authority. As both the Reagan and the Clinton regulatory review 
executive orders exemplify, Presidents have constitutional authority--
and, I would add, a constitutional duty--to take care that 
administration policies are being properly implemented. It is that 
authority the Act leaves intact--neither increased nor decreased.
  The reason I note this argument by liberal interest groups is that it 
has had a way of insinuating itself into Governmental Affairs Committee 
reports on the Paperwork Reduction Act, such as in 1990 and 1994. I 
take exception to its insinuation, as I believe others may as well. The 
authority given to OIRA under the Act is not mechanical but 
discretionary. All of the discretion given to OIRA in the words of the 
Act is actually given and is not contradicted or overridden by section 
3518(e). The fact that OIRA exercises is discretion in a different way 
from what I might prefer does not mean that OIRA has violated the Act, 
acted outside its authority, or misinterpreted Committee intent, so 
long as OIRA has weighed the appropriate factors under the Act in 
reaching its judgment.
  In reviewing an information collection under the Act, Sally Katzen of 
the Clinton administration and Wendy Gramm of the Reagan administration 
might well give different weight to the appropriate factors in reaching 
a judgment. That one or the other conclusion may be more agreeable does 
not make the less agreeable judgment inconsistent with the Act.
  This legislation, it should always be remembered, is an overlay on 
the President's constitutional authority to oversee the departments and 
agencies of government. That the President has such authority is the 
key to the correct interpretation of this legislation.

  Finally, I would like to underscore a point to which Senators Glenn, 
Nunn, and I gave considerable attention. This legislation is a rewrite 
of the 1980 Act. Its form is necessitated by the number of technical 
and other changes made. This form is in no way intended to start a new 
legislative history with the 1994 Act. Rather, this legislation is only 
a pro tanto modification intended to carry on the legislative history 
of the 1980 Act. The report, at page 17, makes this very same point. It 
is an important point, and it should be noted by anyone interested in 
the legislative history that guides the interpretation of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act.
  In closing, I wish to commend my colleagues, Senator Glenn and 
Senator Nunn, for their co-operation and patience in fashioning 
legislation on a very complex subject. This legislation merits the 
support of every Member.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the committee 
substitute for S. 560, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1993, which I 
sponsored. I complement my good friend from Ohio [Mr. Glenn], the 
chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, for his skillful 
leadership and tenacity in making this possible. The agreement embodied 
in the committee substitute has garnered unanimous support within the 
committee, the support of the administration, and the support of the 
broad-based Paperwork Reduction Act Coalition as well that of elected 
officials, and many in the educational and non-profit communities.
  The committee substitute is a skillful blending of S. 560, as 
introduced, and the chairman's bill S. 681. Both had the same basic 
objectives--to reauthorize appropriations for the Office of Information 
and Regulatory Affairs [OIRA] at OMB and to strengthen the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1980. Each bill, however, reflected substantially 
different perspectives on how the Paperwork Reduction Act should be 
strengthened. The committee substitute reflects the core of both bills.
  We could not have successfully reach this point without the 
assistance of our Republican colleagues on the committee, led by my 
friend from Delaware [Mr. Roth], whose steadfast assistance was 
invaluable. S. 560, the Nunn-Bumpers-Danforth Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1993, enjoys strong bipartisan support with Members outside the 
membership of the Governmental Affairs Committee.
  Given the importance of this issue to the small business community, 
S. 560, as introduced, has many original cosponsors from the ranks of 
the Committee on Small Business. My friend from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers], 
the chairman of the Small Business Committee, is the principal 
cosponsor of S. 560 on the Democratic side. Senator Pressler, the 
committee's ranking Republican member, was also among the original 
cosponsors of S. 560. In all, fully a quarter of the membership if the 
Senate cosponsored S. 560, as introduced. I believe that the committee 
substitute is equally worthy of their support.
  Mr. President, as was described by my friend from Ohio [Mr. Glenn], 
the committee substitute includes the many valuable provisions of S. 
681 relating to improving information resources management [IRM] by the 
Federal Government. The smart use of information by the government, and 
it potential to minimize the burdens placed on the public, is a core 
concept of the 1980 act. The IRM provisions of the committee substitute 
clearly build upon the foundation laid more than a decade ago by our 
former colleague from Florida, Lawton Chiles, the father of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act.
  The committee substitute being considered today also reflects most of 
the provisions found in S. 560, as introduced. Taken together these 
provisions reaffirm the fundamental objective of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act--to minimize the Federal paperwork burdens imposed on 
individuals, businesses, especially small businesses, educational and 
non-profit institutions, and State and local governments.
  Mr. President, let me highlight several provisions. The committee 
substitute adopts the provisions of S. 560 which emphasize the 
fundamental responsibilities of each Federal agency to minimize new 
paperwork burdens by thoroughly reviewing each proposed collection of 
information for need and practical utility, the act's fundamental 
standards. The committee substitute emphasizes the responsibility of 
each Federal agency to conduct this review itself, before submitting 
the proposed collection of information for public comment and clearance 
by OIRA.
  The bill before us reflects the provisions of S. 560 that further 
enhance public participation in the review of paperwork burdens, when 
they are first being proposed or when an agency is seeking to obtain 
approval to continue to use an existing paperwork 
requirement. Strengthening public participation is at the core of the 
1980 act.

  The committee substitute reflects the provision of S. 560, as 
introduced, which requires the establishment of a Government-wide goal, 
and individual agency goals, for the reduction of paperwork burdens on 
the public. Given past experience, some question the effectiveness of 
such goals in producing net reductions in Government-wide paperwork 
burdens. The proponents believe that such agency goals, if taken 
seriously, can become an effective restraint on the cumulative growth 
of Government-sponsored paperwork burdens.
  Mr. President, the bill before us also includes amendments to the 
1980 act which further empower members of the public to help police 
Federal agency compliance with the act. I would like to describe two of 
these provisions, both of which are derived from provisions contained 
in S. 560, as introduced.
  One provision would enable a member of the public to obtain a written 
determination from the OIRA Administrator regarding whether a 
Federally-sponsored paperwork requirement is in compliance with the 
act. If the agency paperwork requirement is found to be non-complaint, 
the Administrator is charged with taking appropriate remedial action. 
This provision is based upon a similar process added to the Office of 
Federal Procurement Policy Act in 1988.
  The second provision encourages members of the public to identify 
paperwork requirements that have not been submitted for review and 
approval pursuant to the act's requirements. Although the act's public 
protection provisions explicitly shield the public from the imposition 
of any formal agency penalty for failing to comply with such an 
unapproved, or ``bootleg'', paperwork requirement, individuals often 
feel compelled to comply. This is especially true when the individual 
has an on-going relationship with the agency and that relationship 
accords the agency substantial discretion that could be used to 
redefine their future dealings. Under the committee substitute, a 
member of the public can ``blow the whistle'' on such a bootleg 
paperwork requirement and be accorded the protection of anonymity.
  Finally, Mr. President, I would like to highlight that the committee 
substitute clarifies the 1980 act to make explicit that it applies to 
Government-sponsored third-party paperwork burdens. These are 
recordkeeping, disclosure, or other paperwork burdens that one private 
party imposes on another private party at the direction of a Federal 
agency. In 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that such Government-
sponsored third-party paperwork burdens were not subject to the 
Paperwork Reduction Act. The Court's decision in Dole versus United 
Steelworkers of America created a potentially vast loophole. The public 
could be denied the act's protections on the basis of the manner in 
which a Federal agency chose to impose a paperwork burden, indirectly 
rather than directly. It is worthy of note that Lawton Chiles went to 
the trouble and expense of fling an amicus brief to the Supreme Court 
arguing that no such exemption for third-party paperwork burdens was 
intended. Given the plain words of the statute, the Court decided 
otherwise. The bill before us makes explicit the act's coverage of all 
Government-sponsored paperwork burdens. Once this bill is enacted, we 
can feel confident that this major loophole will be closed. But given 
more than a decade of experience under the act, it is prudent to remain 
vigilant to additional efforts to restrict the act's reach and public 
protections.
  Mr. President, rather than taking any more of the Senate's time to 
discuss the provisions of the committee substitute and how they change 
the 1980 act, I would ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record 
some views regarding how the bill we are about to consider affects the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 and prior amendments to it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection its so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, the committee substitute, like S. 560, as 
introduced, enjoys strong support from the business community, 
especially the small business committee. It has the support of a broad 
Paperwork Reduction Act Coalition, representing virtually every segment 
of the business community. Participating in the coalition are the major 
national small business associations--the National Federation of 
Independent Business [NFIB], the Small Business Legislative Council 
[SBLC], and National Small Business United [NSBU] as well as the many 
specialized national small business association, like the American 
Subcontractors Association, that comprise the membership of SBLC or 
NSBU. Other participants represent manufacturers, aerospace and 
electronics firms, construction firms, providers of professional and 
technical services, retailers of various products and services and the 
wholesalers and distributors who support them. I would like to identify 
a few other organizations that comprise the coalition's membership: the 
Aerospace Industries Association [AI], the American Consulting 
Engineers Council [ACEC], the Associated Builders and Contractors 
[ABC], the Associated General Contractors of America [AGC], the 
Chemical Manufacturers Association [CMA], the Computer and Business 
Equipment Manufacturers Association [CBEMA], the Contract Service 
Association [CSA], the Electronic Industries Association [EIA], the 
Independent Bankers Association of America [IBAA], the International 
Communications Industries Association [ICIA], the National Association 
of Manufacturers, the National Association of Wholesalers and 
Distributors, the National Security Industrial Association [NSIA], the 
National Tooling and Machining Association [NTMA], the Printing 
Industries Association [PIA], and the Professional Services Council 
[PSC]. Leadership for the coalition is being provided by the Council on 
Regulatory and Information Management [C-RIM] and by the U.S. Chamber 
of Commerce. C-RIM is the new name for the Business Council on the 
Reduction of Paperwork, which has dedicated itself to paperwork 
reduction and regulatory reform issues for more than a half century.
  The coalition also includes a number of professional associations and 
public interest groups that support strengthening the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1980. These include the Association of Records 
Managers and Administrators [ARMA] and Citizens for a Sound Economy 
[CDE], to name but two very active coalition members.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
following my remarks a listing of the organizations that comprise the 
Paperwork Reduction Act Coalition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 2.)
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, given the regulatory and paperwork burdens 
faced by State and local governments, legislation to strengthen the 
Paperwork Reduction Act is high on the agenda of the associations 
representing elected officials. The Governor of Florida, my friend 
Lawton Chiles, has worked hard on this issue within the National 
Governors Association. During its 1994 annual meeting, the National 
Governors Association adopted a resolution in support of S. 560.
  Mr. President, in addition to the broad support I have just 
described, the committee substitute for S. 560 has won the support of 
the Clinton administration. This legislation will advance the 
administration's broad initiatives to improve the delivery of services 
to the public, while minimizing the paperwork burdens that Government 
imposes in fulfilling its functions. With its emphasis on information 
resources management and the smart use of technology to undertake 
Government activities while imposing the least burden, the committee 
substitute for S. 560 can be an effective tool for advancing the 
administration's reinventing Government initiatives. Having available 
to the President the tools provided by a strengthened Paperwork 
Reduction Act can only help advance the implementation of the 
recommendations of the Vice President's National Performance Review.
  Mr. President, I again congratulate my good friend from Ohio [Mr. 
Glenn] for his leadership in getting us to this point. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in supporting passage of the committee amendment 
to S. 560, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1994.

                               Exhibit 1

  Comments of Senator Nunn on S. 560, as reported by the Committee on 
                           Government Affairs

       The Committee substitute for S. 560, the ``Paperwork 
     Reduction Act of 1994'', reflects an agreement that combines 
     provisions of S. 560, as introduced, with S. 681, the 
     ``Paperwork Reduction Reauthorization Act of 1993'', 
     introduced by Chairman Glenn. Both bills made numerous 
     amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act, often from a 
     different perspective. Given the number of changes to be 
     made, it was decided that the substitute text of S. 560 would 
     be in the form of a complete substitute for text of Chapter 
     35, of title 44, United States Code, in which the Paperwork 
     Reduction Act is codified. This raised substantial concerns 
     about the report to accompany the reported text of S. 560 and 
     whether the legislative history of the 1980 Act and 
     subsequent Congressional action could be adequately 
     preserved.
       These concerns about preserving the Act's existing 
     legislative history prompted a very detailed review of the 
     Committee's proposed report in light of previous Committee 
     actions. Detailed comments were provided on the draft report.
       Committee reports are a ``touchstone'' for those who are 
     charged with implementing statutes in consonance with 
     Congressional intent, for future Congresses when engaging in 
     oversight, and for the courts. Accordingly, I want to make 
     several points regarding the Committee Report (S. Rpt. 103-
     392) accompanying the bill:
       1. The Report's section on ``Implementation of the 
     Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980'' is presented as an 
     historical account of what has happened as a result of the 
     1980 Act. I do not share this understanding of past events. 
     There are factual inaccuracies, omissions, and 
     interpretations of the Committee's past actions with which I 
     do not agree. Taken together, they could well lead to a 
     future interpretational result that would be contrary to my 
     understanding of the intent underlying the Committee 
     substitute for S. 560, as introduced.
       For example, President Carter, not President Reagan, 
     initiated linking the President's Constitutional authority to 
     review regulations to the information clearance authority 
     delegated by Congress by the Federal Reports Act and its 
     successor, the Paperwork Reduction Act. The origins of the 
     issues associated with this linkage did not begin with the 
     Reagan Administration. Moreover, they were well known to the 
     Committee during its work on the legislation that became the 
     1980 Act. Acknowledging the Committee's long understanding of 
     this core relationship is necessary to recognizing my 
     understanding that S. 560, as reported, is a reaffirmation of 
     a complementary relationship between the President's 
     authority to review regulations and the specific 
     responsibilities assigned to the Director of OMB by 
     Congress in the Paperwork Reduction Act.
       Contrary to the impression left by the Report's recitation 
     of past events, the Committee passed and reported a bill in 
     1984 to reauthorize appropriations and amend the 1980 Act. In 
     my view, concerns over ``regulatory review'' was not the 
     reason the full Senate was unable to act on that bill.
       The Report's account also could be read to suggest that the 
     Committee reached a position regarding the Supreme Court 
     decision in Dole v. U.S. Steelworkers when it states that the 
     ``Committee's report accompanying its 1990 legislation . . . 
     describes these contentious issues and reveals the 
     accompanying divisions within the Committee.'' I believe it 
     important to acknowledge that in 1990 the Committee chose not 
     to deliberate upon a legislative response to the Dole 
     decision. My recollection is that based on a bipartisan 
     request from a majority of the Members of the Committee on 
     Small Business deliberations on the appropriate response to 
     the Dole decision were reserved for consideration by the full 
     Senate. The Senate was unable to engage in that deliberation.
       There are other examples which leave the impression that 
     problems with the Act's implementation rest largely with OMB. 
     I would maintain that concern with agencies efforts to evade 
     or undermine the 1980 Act have been as important to the 
     Committee's deliberations. The 1982 Justice Department 
     Opinion and agency reactions to it, for example, were central 
     to the Committee's deliberations and actions in 1983, 1984, 
     and 1986.
       2. A major objective of my effort to pass Paperwork 
     Reduction Act legislation has been to clarify the Act to 
     overcome the confusion caused by the Court's reasoning in 
     Dole v. United Steelworkers of America. The bill makes clear, 
     particularly in its amendments to the terms ``collection of 
     information'' and ``recordkeeping requirements'' that the 
     scope of the Act's provisions apply to all federally 
     sponsored collections of information, including disclosure 
     requirements which involve one private party providing 
     information to a third party.
       In the Section-by-Section Analysis of the amended 
     definition for ``collection of information'', the Report 
     states:
       To the extent that the debate over the Dole decision has 
     involved charges that overturning the decision would amount 
     to legislatively authorizing substantive regulatory review, 
     the Committee notes that the Act, as stated in section 
     3518(e) of current law, is not to be ``interpreted as 
     increasing or decreasing the authority . . . [of OMB] with 
     respect to the substantive policies and programs of 
     [agencies]''.
       This Committee notation comes in the context of discussing 
     an amendment intended to overturn the Dole decision's impact 
     on the scope of the Act's provisions. Plaintiffs in that 
     case, as they have done as witnesses before the Committee on 
     several occasions, make much of how the language of section 
     3518(e) limits the authority of the Director of OMB under the 
     Paperwork Reduction Act. Their concern, as I interpret it, is 
     more the scope of the Director's authority, than it is the 
     scope of what the Act's provisions cover.
       The above referenced Committee notation needs to quote 
     section 3518(e) in its entirety. The provision is a savings 
     provision rather than a limitation. Further, it is not 
     applicable solely to the Director of OMB, but was designed 
     not to impair the President's authority under the 
     Constitution and other statutory law. This meaning is not 
     affected by the Committee's amendments to overturn the Dole 
     decision or interpretations of it. Section 3518(e) reads:
       (d) Nothing in this chapter shall be interpreted as 
     increasing or decreasing the authority of the President, the 
     Office of Management and Budget or the Director thereof, 
     under the laws of the United States, with respect to the 
     substantive policies and programs of departments, agencies 
     and offices, including the substantive authority of any 
     Federal agency to enforce the civil rights laws. (Emphasis 
     added)
       Vital to an understanding of this savings provision is the 
     clause ``increasing or decreasing the authority of the 
     President . . .''. For example, the Paperwork Reduction Act 
     should not be read to decrease the authority or prohibit the 
     President from exercising authority he could otherwise assert 
     or appropriately delegate to the Director of OMB under the 
     Constitution or other laws.
       3. The Section-by-Section Analysis for Section 3508 needs 
     to make clear that the Director's standard of review 
     contained in Section 3508 is unchanged and continues to apply 
     to all collection of information clearance decisions, 
     including all such decisions set forth in Section 3507(d). 
     Under S. 560, as reported, Section 3507(d) continues to 
     describe how the Director will apply this standard of review 
     for collections of information specifically contained in 
     proposed rules subject to notice and comment rulemaking. The 
     same Section 3508 standard of review applies when the 
     Director makes a determination pursuant to the use of term 
     ``unreasonable'' in Section 3507(d)(4)(C). (See, S. Rpt. 96-
     930 at 49 and Congressional Record Dec. 15, 1980 at page S-
     16700, Kennedy Statement)
       4. A final, additional comment relates to the Report's 
     treatment of the relationship between the Act's objective to 
     improve ``information resources management'' and the 
     objective to reduce regulatory paperwork burdens on the 
     public. I see these objectives as mutually reinforcing. These 
     two objective have more in common than they are separate and 
     distinct. The implementation of these two objectives of the 
     1980 Act are fundamentally linked and intertwined, and 
     effective implementation should reflect this understanding. I 
     believe that this point needs to be further emphasized.
       A unequivocal recognition of fundamental linkage of these 
     two objectives of the 1980 Act is, furthermore, complementary 
     to ongoing Administration efforts to ``reinvent'' government 
     and its delivery of services to the public through the 
     implementation of the recommendations contained in the Report 
     on the Vice President's National Performance Review. The 
     extent to which the bill's annual goals of reducing the 
     cumulative paperwork burden on the public are met will be a 
     measure of performance in implementing these amendments to 
     the Act.
       The linkage between regulatory and information management 
     reforms is what distinguishes the Paperwork Reduction Act 
     from other such reforms. Better ``information resources 
     management'' amounts to a strategy on how to be smart about 
     the consideration and use of alternative information 
     technologies in reducing the burdens of the regulatory 
     process upon the private sector, state and local governments, 
     and the public. The practical benefits of implementing this 
     fundamental concept of linkage is at the heart of this bill's 
     broad support.

                               Exhibit 2

                 The Paperwork Reduction Act Coalition

       Aerospace Industries Association of America.
       Air Transport Association of America.
       Alliance of American Insurers.
       American Consulting Engineers Council.
       American Institute of Merchant Shipping.
       American Iron and Steel Institute.
       American Petroleum Institute.
       American Subcontractors Association.
       American Telephone & Telegraph.
       Associated Builders & Contractors.
       Associated Credit Bureaus.
       Associated General Contractors of America.
       Associated Records and Managers Association.
       Association of Manufacturing Technology.
       Automotive Parts and Accessories Association.
       Biscuit and Cracker Manufacturers' Association.
       Bristol Myers.
       Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America.
       Chemical Manufacturers Association.
       Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association.
       Citizens Against Government Waste.
       Citizens For A Sound Economy.
       Computer and Business Equipment Manufacturers Association.
       Contract Services Association of America.
       Copper & Brass Fabricators Council.
       Council on Regulatory and Information Management.
       Dairy and Food Industries Supply Association.
       Direct Selling Association.
       Eastman Kodak Company.
       Electronic Industries Association.
       Financial Executives Institute.
       Food Marketing Institute.
       Gadsby & Hannah.
       Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association.
       General Electric.
       Glaxo, Inc.
       Greater Washington Board of Trade.
       Hardwood Plywood and Veneer Association.
       Independent Bankers Association of America.
       International Business Machines.
       International Communication Industries Association.
       International Mass Retail Association.
       Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturers Association.
       Mail Advertising Service Association International.
       McDermott, Will & Emery.
       Motorola Government Electronics Group.
       National Association of Homebuilders of the United States.
       National Association of Manufacturers.
       National Association of Plumbing-Heating-Cooling 
     Contractors.
       National Association of the Remodeling Industry.
       National Association of Wholesalers-Distributors.
       National Federation of Independent Business.
       National Food Processors Association.
       National Food Brokers Association.
       National Foundation for Consumer Credit.
       National Glass Association.
       National Restaurant Association.
       National Roofing Contractors Association.
       National Security Industrial Association.
       National Small Business United.
       National Society of Professional Engineers.
       National Society of Public Accountants.
       National Tooling and Machining Association.
       Northrop Corporation.
       Packaging Machinery Manufacturers Institute.
       Painting and Decorating Contractors of America.
       Printing Industries of America.
       Professional Services Council.
       Shipbuilders Council of America.
       Small Business Legislative Council.
       Society for Marketing Professional Services.
       Sun Company, Inc.
       Sunstrand Corporation.
       Texaco.
       United Technologies.
       Wholesale Florist and Florist Suppliers of America.


           members of the small business legislative council

       Air Conditioning Contractors of America.
       Alliance for Affordable Health Care.
       Alliance of Independent Store Owners and Professionals.
       American Animal Hospital Association.
       American Association of Nurserymen.
       American Bus Association.
       American Consulting Engineers Council.
       American Council of Independent Laboratories.
       American Floorcovering Association.
       American Gear Manufacturers Association.
       American Machine Tool Distributors Association.
       American Road & Transportation Builders Association.
       American Society of Travel Agents, Inc.
       American Sod Producers Association.
       American Subcontractors Association.
       American Textile Machinery Association.
       American Trucking Associations, Inc.
       American Warehouse Association.
       American Wholesale Marketers Association.
       AMT-The Association for Manufacturing Technology.
       Apparel Retailers of America.
       Architectural Precast Association.
       Associated Builders & Contractors.
       Associated Equipment Distributors.
       Associated Landscape Contractors of America.
       Association of Small Business Development Centers.
       Automotive Service Association.
       Automotive Recyclers Association.
       Bowling Proprietors Association of America.
       Building Service Contractors Association International.
       Business Advertising Council.
       Christian Booksellers Association.
       Council of Fleet Specialists.
       Direct Selling Association.
       Electronics Representatives Association.
       Florists' Transworld Delivery Association.
       Helicopter Association International.
       Independent Bakers Association.
       Independent Medical Distributors Association.
       International Association of Refrigerated Warehouses.
       International Communications Industries Association.
       International Formalwear Association.
       International Television Association.
       Machinery Dealers National Association.
       Manufacturers Agents National Association.
       Manufacturers Representatives of America, Inc.
       Mechanical Contractors Association of America, Inc.
       National Association for the Self-Employed.
       National Association of Brick Distributors.
       National Association of Catalog Showroom Merchandisers.
       National Association of Home Builders.
       National Association of Investment Companies.
       National Association of Plumbing-Heating-Cooling 
     Contractors.
       National Association of Private Enterprise.
       National Association of Realtors.
       National Association of Retail Druggists.
       National Association of RV Parks and Campgrounds.
       National Association of Small Business Investment 
     Companies.
       National Association of the Remodeling Industry.
       National Association of Truck Stop Operators.
       National Association of Women Business Owners.
       National Chimney Sweep Guild.
       National Coffee Service Association.
       National Electrical Contractors Association.
       National Electrical Manufacturers Representatives 
     Association.
       National Fastener Distributors Association.
       National Food Brokers Association.
       National Grocers Association.
       National Independent Flag Dealers Association.
       National Knitwear Sportswear Association.
       National Limousine Association.
       National Lumber & Building Material Dealers Association.
       National Moving and Storage Association.
       National Ornamental & Miscellaneous Metals Association.
       National Paperbox Association.
       National Shoe Retailers Association.
       National Society of Public Accountants.
       National Tire Dealers & Retreaders Association.
       National Tooling and Machining Association.
       National Tour Association.
       National Venture Capital Association.
       Opticians Association of America.
       Organization for the Protection and Advancement of Small 
     Telephone Companies.
       Passenger Vessel Association.
       Petroleum Marketers Association of America.
       Power Transmission Representatives Association.
       Printing Industries of America, Inc.
       Professional Plant Growers Association.
       Promotional Products Association International.
       Retail Bakers of America.
       Small Business Council of America, Inc.
       SMC/Pennsylvania Small Business.
       Society of American Florists.
       The Council of Growing Companies.
       United Bus Owners of America.
  So the bill (S. 560), as amended, was deemed to have been read three 
times and passed.
  (The text of the bill will be printed in a future edition of the 
Record.)

                          ____________________