[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 33 (Wednesday, February 22, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H2010-H2029]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1620
                    PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT OF 1995

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call 
[[Page H2011]] up House Resolution 91 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                               H. Res. 91

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 830) to amend chapter 35 of title 44, United 
     States Code, to further the goals of the Paperwork Reduction 
     Act to have Federal agencies become more responsible and 
     publicly accountable for reducing the burden of Federal 
     paperwork on the public, and for other purposes. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate 
     shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Government Reform and 
     Oversight. After general debate the bill shall be considered 
     for amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill and the 
     amendments recommended by the Committee on Government Reform 
     and Oversight now printed in the bill shall be considered as 
     read. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Lazio). The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Linder] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson], 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 91 is a completely open rule providing 
for the consideration of H.R. 830, legislation that is designed to 
reduce the information collection burdens on the public, maximize the 
utility of Government information, and assure a more efficient and 
productive administration of information resources. In short, this 
legislation reasserts and enhances the commitment of Congress to uphold 
the principles of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980.
  This rule provides for 1 hour of general debate divided equally 
between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight, after which time any member will have 
the opportunity to offer an amendment to the bill under the 5-minute 
rule. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit. Under this 
rule, members may offer amendments to H.R. 830 at any time, regardless 
of whether they have been preprinted in the Record.
  Mr. Speaker, today, we mark the 50th day of the 104th Congress. By 
all accounts, this Congress has allowed more votes, more hours of 
debate, and more bipartisanship in this Chamber than we have seen in 
decades. I must say that the Rules Committee has worked well together 
to provide Members on both sides of the aisle with every opportunity to 
engage in extensive debate and offer significant amendments on every 
piece of legislation considered this year.
  It has been a busy 50 days with more to come, and I believe that the 
efforts by every member of the Rules Committee to open the process have 
empowered us all to work in bipartisan fashion.
  I am pleased this bill will be considered under an open rule, which 
was unanimously approved by the Rules Committee yesterday. While the 
chairman and the ranking minority member of the Government Reform and 
Oversight Committee testified to the Rules Committee that they do not 
expect many amendments, there were a number of amendments that were 
either withdrawn or not approved during committee consideration of H.R. 
830. Hopefully, this rule will provide these Members and the entire 
House with sufficient time to review these amendments and express any 
persisting apprehension about the bill.
  I strongly support the goals and purpose of the 1980 Paperwork 
Reduction Act. However, it is clear the bill was not entirely effective 
in reducing the paperwork burden, as the total pages of rules printed 
in the Federal Register increased from an average of 50,618 during 
President Reagan's terms, to an average of 53,596 during President 
Bush's term, to an average of 61,000 pages during President Clinton's 
term.
  The 1995 Paperwork Reduction Act is designed to reduce these 
paperwork burdens, and H.R. 830 has received considerable support. I 
believe that the Government Reform and Oversight Committee has crafted 
a good piece of legislation, and the members of the Rules Committee 
simply want to enable any member to offer perfecting amendments to the 
whole House that may enhance the benefits of legislation to the 
American people.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 830 was favorably reported out of the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight by a vote of 40 to 4, and this rule 
received unified support from the Rules Committee. I urge my colleagues 
to support this rule, and I look forward to a thoughtful and 
deliberative debate on H.R. 830.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. BEILENSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief because, as the 
gentleman said, this is an open rule. In fact, it is exactly the kind 
of rule that we all think of when we hear the term open rule: There is 
no limit on the time for considering amendments; there are no waivers 
of rules; there are no preprinting provisions; there are no conditions 
or requirements of any kind.
  This is a completely unrestricted open rule, and it has our full 
support.
  Furthermore, the bill which this rule makes in order, the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 is, itself, relatively noncontroversial and has 
substantial support on both sides of the aisle. The one provision in 
the bill that is a major point of contention for Members on our side 
will be debated when the gentlewoman from Illinois, the ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, 
Mrs. Collins, offers her amendment.
  The Collins amendment would strike the provisions of H.R. 830 that 
allow the Office of Management and Budget to review and reject Federal 
regulations that require businesses to disclose information to third 
parties, including their employees and the public.
  This amendment would preserve the 1990 Supreme Court decision in the 
case of Dole versus the United Steelworkers of America, which held that 
OMB did not have the authority to review OSHA requirements that 
companies post safety notices in the workplace. In other words, the 
amendment would prevent the Paperwork Reduction Act from being used as 
a mechanism to deny workers the right to know about hazards they face 
in the workplace.
  Other amendments we are anticipating include: one to be offered by 
the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] which would place a priority 
on reducing paperwork for very small businesses; one to be offered by 
the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo] addressing the right of private 
citizens to seek court actions challenging Federal agency information 
collection activities that have not been cleared by OMB; and one to be 
offered by the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney] which would 
sunset this bill after 5 years.
  Mr. Speaker, again, the rule before us is a completely unrestricted 
open rule, and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the following material for the Record:

                                      FLOOR PROCEDURE IN THE 104TH CONGRESS                                     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Resolution      Process used for floor    Amendments
          Bill No.                       Title                  No.             consideration          in order 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 1......................  Compliance.................  H. Res. 6     Closed.....................  None      
H. Res. 6...................  Opening Day Rules Package..  H. Res. 5     Closed; contained a closed   None5,i1,s
                                                                          rule on H.R. 1 within the    50,r50,xl
                                                                          closed rule.                 s37,r50,x
                                                                                                       ls27     
[[Page H2012]]
                                                                                                                
H.R. 5......................  Unfunded Mandates..........  H. Res. 38    Restrictive; Motion adopted  N/A       
                                                                          over Democratic objection             
                                                                          in the Committee of the               
                                                                          Whole to limit debate on              
                                                                          section 4; Pre-printing               
                                                                          get preference.                       
H.J. Res. 2.................  Balanced Budget............  H. Res. 44    Restrictive; only certain    2R; 4D    
                                                                          substitutes.                          
H. Res. 43..................  Committee Hearings           H. Res. 43    Restrictive; considered in   N/A       
                               Scheduling.                  (OJ)          House no amendments.                  
H.R. 2......................  Line Item Veto.............  H. Res. 55    Open; Pre-printing gets      N/A       
                                                                          preference.                           
H.R. 665....................  Victim Restitution Act of    H. Res. 61    Open; Pre-printing gets      N/A       
                               1995.                                      preference.                           
H.R. 666....................  Exclusionary Rule Reform     H. Res. 60    Open; Pre-printing gets      N/A       
                               Act of 1995.                               preference.                           
H.R. 667....................  Violent Criminal             H. Res. 63    Restrictive; 10hr. Time Cap  N/A       
                               Incarceration Act of 1995.                 on amendments.                        
H.R. 668....................  The Criminal Alien           H. Res. 69    Open; Pre-printing gets      N/A       
                               Deportation Improvement                    preference; Contains self-            
                               Act.                                       executing provision.                  
H.R. 728....................  Local Government Law         H. Res. 79    Restrictive; 10 hr. Time     N/A       
                               Enforcement Block Grants.                  Cap on amendments; Pre-               
                                                                          printing gets preference.             
H.R. 7......................  National Security            H. Res. 83    Restrictive; 10 hr. Time     N/A       
                               Revitalization Act.                        Cap on amendments; Pre-               
                                                                          printing gets preference.             
H.R. 729....................  Death Penalty/Habeas.......  N/A           Restrictive; brought up      N/A       
                                                                          under UC with a 6 hr. time            
                                                                          cap on amendments.                    
S. 2........................  Senate Compliance..........  N/A           Closed; Put on suspension    None      
                                                                          calendar over Democratic              
                                                                          objection.                            
H.R. 831....................  To Permanently Extend the    H. Res. 88    Restrictive; makes in order  1D        
                               Health Insurance Deduction                 only the Gibbons                      
                               for the Self-Employed.                     amendment; waives all                 
                                                                          points of order; contains             
                                                                          self-executing provision.             
H.R. 830....................  The Paperwork Reduction Act  H. Res. 91    Open.......................  N/A       
H.R. 889....................  Emergency Supplemental/      H. Res. 92    Restrictive; makes in order  1D        
                               Rescinding Certain Budget                  only the Obey Substitute.             
                               Authority.                                                                       
71 percent restrictive; 29 percent open. These figures use Republican scoring methods from the 103d Congress.   
  Not included in this chart are three bills which should have been placed on the Suspension Calendar. H.R. 101,
  H.R. 400, and H.R. 440.                                                                                       

Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon], the chairman, for reporting this unrestricted rule to the 
House floor and I want to acknowledge the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Beilenson] for his support of the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 91 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 830.

                              {time}  1628


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 830) to amend chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code, to 
further the goals of the Paperwork Reduction Act to have Federal 
agencies become more responsible and publicly accountable for reducing 
the burden of Federal paperwork on the public, and for other purposes, 
with Mr. Combest in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. 
Collins] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger].
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to bring to the floor today the first 
reauthorization of the Paperwork Reduction Act since it expired in 
1989. This bill continues the very long tradition of seeking to reduce 
the burdens of Federal regulations on individuals and businesses which 
first began with the Commission on Federal Paperwork in 1977. The 
report of that Commission, chaired by our former good friend and 
colleague, Frank Horton, led to the establishment of the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs at OMB, or IRA, and the passage of 
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980.
  The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 was reported out of the Committee 
on Government Reform and Oversight on February 10 of this year with an 
overwhelming 40-to-4 vote, obviously a very broad bipartisan vote. I am 
here today to encourage all of my colleagues to support the passage of 
this important measure today.
  As I say, the legislation is premised on the continuing belief in the 
principles and requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980. All 
of the legislation's amendments to the 1980 act, as amended in 1986, 
are intended to further its original purposes, to strengthen OMB and 
agency paperwork reduction efforts, to improve OMB and agency 
information resources management, including in specific functional 
areas such as information dissemination, and to encourage and provide 
for more meaningful public participation in paperwork reduction and 
broader information resources management decisions.

                              {time}  1630

  With the regard to the reduction of information collection burdens, 
the legislation increases the act's 1986 goal of an annual 5 percent 
reduction in public paperwork burdens to a full 10 percent. OMB is 
required to include in its annual report to Congress, recommendations 
to revise statutory paperwork burdens. The legislation includes third-
party disclosure requirements in the definition of collection of 
information to overturn the Supreme Court's decision, Dole versus 
United Steelworkers of America. This will ensure that collection and 
disclosure requirements are covered by the OMB paperwork clearance 
process, and this will be the subject of an amendment later in this 
debate. The Act is also amended to require each agency to develop 
paperwork clearance process to review and solicit public comment on 
proposed information collections before submitting them to OMB for 
review. Public accountability is also strengthened through requirements 
for public disclosure of communications with OMB regarding information 
collections--with protections for whistleblowers complaining of 
unauthorized collections--and for OMB to review the status of any 
collection upon public request. In combination with more general 
requirements, such as encouraging data sharing between the Federal 
Government and State, local, and tribal governments, the legislation 
strives to further the act's goals of minimizing government information 
collection burdens, while maximizing the utility of government 
information.
  The legislation also adds further detail to strengthen other 
functional areas, such as statistical policy and information 
dissemination. The dissemination provisions, for example, delineate 
clear policies that were not articulated in the act's previous 
references to dissemination. These provisions require OMB to develop 
governmentwide policies and guidelines for information dissemination 
and to promote public access to information maintained by Federal 
agencies. In turn, the agencies are to: First, ensure that the public 
has timely and equitable access to public information; second, solicit 
public input on their information dissemination activities; and third, 
not establish restrictions on dissemination or redissemination of 
government information. Emphasis is placed on efficient and effective 
use of new technology and a reliance on a diversity of public and 
private sources of information to promote dissemination of government 
information, particularly in electronic formats.
  With regard to over-arching information resources management [IRM] 
policies, the legislation charges agency heads with the responsibility 
to carry out agency IRM activities to improve 
[[Page H2013]]  agency productivity, efficiency, and effectiveness. It 
makes program officials responsible and accountable for those 
information resources supporting their programs. The IRM mandate is 
strengthened by focusing on managing information resources in order to 
improve program performance, including the delivery of services to the 
public and the reduction of information collection burdens on the 
public.
  To improve accountability for agency IRM responsibilities, as well as 
responsibilities for paperwork reduction, the agency responsibilities 
provided in the act are amended to complement and more directly 
parallel OMB's functional responsibilities.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to comment on a very minor section of 
the bill that was later removed during the committee's consideration 
which would have codified OMB circular A-130, a long-standing executive 
branch policy which states that the government should not compete with 
the private sector in using public information.
  Single issue interest groups have distorted, I think, and 
misrepresented this provision to suggest that it was included in this 
bill solely to benefit one specific company. And I agreed to remove 
this provision from the bill, and it is not in the bill, and would 
consider it at another time, but I do want to state for the Record that 
as a matter of policy Congress should not condone the Government 
competing against the private sector, which was the concern raised in 
this amendment. But because it became extraordinarily controversial and 
because it was presented and seen as benefiting one company, although 
that was not the purpose, it has been deleted from this measure.
  I am aware that a number of amendments will be offered to this bill. 
While many of these amendments were offered and defeated in the 
committee, I appreciate all of the constructive efforts that have been 
made by Members on both sides to improve this bill.
  Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that I have given what is contained in the 
bill, but the bottom line is when you forget all about the 
technicalities of the bill, the effort here is to reduce the paperwork 
burden which has proliferated over the years the incredible mountain of 
information that the government demands be collected and reported and 
recorded. Very, very, many of these requirements are necessary, many of 
them are clearly not. And the bottom line is we are attempting to bring 
some sort of reasonable restraints on the ability and the power of the 
Federal Government to impose these burdens on the private sector and on 
local and State governments.
  So at the end of the amendment process, which we will hopefully begin 
soon, I hope all Members will join what has really been a very long and 
bipartisan effort to minimize Federal paperwork requirements imposed on 
American citizens and taxpayers. This bill, I might say, Mr. Chairman, 
has been endorsed by former OMB Directors from both political parties, 
and various versions of this bill have been cosponsored by an equal 
number of Republicans and Democrats. And this specific bill has been 
enthusiastically endorsed by President Clinton's administration. And I 
have been advised that it will be a key vote for the National 
Federation of Independent Business for the 104th Congress.
  So we have an opportunity to do something here this afternoon and 
evening on a very bipartisan basis, which is good government, not very 
exciting, not very sexy issue, but it is one that I think is 
extraordinarily important for every small and large business, every 
household, every municipality in this country, and that is to reduce 
the crushing burden of paperwork requirements the Federal Government 
imposes.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  (Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, today we are considering the 
reauthorization of the Paperwork Reduction Act. For many years, this 
act, and its subsequent reauthorizations, have been bipartisan.
  Similarly, this bill contains many provisions of bipartisan 
agreement. However, a problem continues with this act, becuase it 
expands the authority of OMB to interfere with agency decisions for 
reasons other than paperwork reduction.
  Over the years of Republican administrations, OMB became a haven for 
special interests to quietly plead for lesser regulations than those 
imposed by the Federal agencies. This back-door special interest access 
came after these business lobbyists failed to get their way at the 
agencies.
  No records were kept of these meetings. No one knew what went on 
behind those closed doors. However, we did witness the OMB cancellation 
of regulation after regulation. We also saw White House officials 
stonewall all questions about who came to the Office of Management and 
Budget, and what was said.
  Let me give you an example of OMB's interference with agency 
regulations. In one case, it blocked regulations that required 
companies to post a notice to their workers of any toxic chemicals used 
at the work site, after companies complained about the posting 
requirements, even though OMB did not have the authority to do so.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  When the case reached the Supreme Court, it ruled that OMB did not 
have the authority to act. This bill would overturn that Supreme Court 
decision known as Dole versus Steelworkers of America, and give the 
Office of Management and Budget that authority.
  I will offer an amendment to strike this offensive provision. 
Watching a bill to reduce paperwork be turned into a bill to keep 
workers in the dark about worksite dangers is truly shameful.
  This bill gives permanent authorization to OMB's Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs. That is also a mistake. Without the 
threat of reauthorization, agencies grow complacent. Without the need 
for reauthorization, it is too easy for agencies to ignore 
congressional oversight. Congresswoman Maloney will offer an amendment 
to sunset this bill after 5 years, and I support her amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, there are some good provisions in H.R. 830, but I urge 
my colleagues to consider our amendments carefully, and give them your 
support.

                              {time}  1640

  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh].
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to rise today in support of this 
legislation.
  Let me explain that it was my experience working with Vice President 
Quayle at the Competitiveness Council that this paperwork act is 
vitally important in reducing the amount of paperwork burden that the 
Federal Government puts on private employers and ultimately, therefore, 
consumers and workers.
  The legislation that we have before us today does several very 
important things. Chief among them is the permanent reauthorization of 
that act so that we will be assured that all Government paperwork is 
reviewed by OMB in a central reviewing process to make sure we do not 
place unnecessary burdens, that we do not have forms that are 
duplicative, that we do not ask people to fill out forms for no good 
reason, if the Federal Government is involved.
  The second very important provision in this bill is to close one of 
the loopholes created by a Supreme Court case called the Steelworkers' 
case which said that if the Government required people to fill out a 
form or disclose a particular form to another party but not send that 
form back to Washington, then it would be exempt from this review 
process. The problem with that particular loophole is that we have seen 
a mushrooming of paperwork that fits that description.
  In our subcommittee we held hearings on this bill. One of my 
constituents who is from Shelbyville, IN, a gentleman named Bob 
Stolmeier, came and talked about the duplicative paperwork he has to 
fill out in his small business.
  In particular he talked about the hazard notification forms that he 
has 
[[Page H2014]]  to have available for his products and that he has to 
ship with his products to the customer. His product is to make plastic 
bags that have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration as 
being safe to come in contact with food that would be consumed by a 
human being. Therefore, it is a very safe product, but he nonetheless 
needs to have a five-page form talking about the potential hazards 
related to these plastic bags. It is something he says nobody has ever 
asked him to take a look at. It is not a hazardous material the way we 
think of a chemical or nuclear materials that could be threatening to 
health and safety, but the Government regulations require him to go 
through that each time he sets up business and every time he ships his 
product. It is an enormous cost. It is a self-imposed cost that affects 
our competitiveness. He is in direct competition with manufacturers of 
the same product overseas and says they do not have to supply that same 
paperwork.
  Those are some of the things that this bill would accomplish for men 
and women around the country. Let me say in general that if you stop 
and take a look at the magnitude of the problem, the Federal Government 
requires so much paperwork to be filled out that it would take over a 
million people working full time at entire year to fill out all of the 
forms that are required by the Federal Government. That is a million 
people doing nothing more than filling out forms and sending them in to 
Washington or having them there in their worksite.
  We need to cut back on this unnecessary paperwork, free up our 
workers, free up our farmers, reduce prices for the consumers, and help 
to eliminate unnecessary paperwork and redtape.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill. I am glad to see that 
it has broad bipartisan support and is not a huge controversial 
measure. The American people can rest assured that this change will do 
us a lot of good.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests 
for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, we had a couple of other requests, but I 
do not see them on the floor. I think this is evidence of what a 
bipartisan bill this is and how Members are convinced that we have a 
good piece of legislation here.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, 50 days ago I was a county prosecutor 
in Lake County, OH, so I'm somewhat new at this job. I am not new, 
however, at hearing people gripe about the Federal Government, 
Washington, DC., and the Congress.
  It has been my experience that when folks are not chastising us for 
being a group of self-serving politicians, they are blasting us for 
being a part of the place that reeks of inefficiency and waste. 
Washington could literally bury itself under the mountain of paperwork 
it insists others complete. And do not for a moment think that thought 
has not crossed the minds of many a business owner.
  A constituent of mine, William Koeblitz of Gates Mills, OH, recently 
testified before the Small Business Committee, which shares a 
jurisdictional interest with the House Committee on Government Reform 
and Oversight, of which I am a member. Mr. Koeblitz's testimony was on 
behalf of 215,000 businesses of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce 
Federation. Mr. Koeblitz is a member of Chamber's Board of Directors 
and also serves as chairman of its Regulatory Affairs Committee.
  Mr. Koeblitz, the CEO of a Cleveland-area company, explained how 
during each Congressional cycle the Chamber surveys its Members and 
asks them to rank issues of importance to them. Of the 64 issues 
identified for this Congress, paperwork reduction was No. 3, ranking 
behind only unfunded mandates and welfare reform.
  Mr. Koeblitz and Chamber officials were kind enough to provide my 
office with the following examples of paperwork nightmares, all from 
the same Pennsylvania independent laboratory--a company with just 10 
full-time employees. If these examples do not convey the message that 
paperwork reduction is necessary, nothing will.
  The company had to establish an entirely new and separate bookkeeping 
system just to keep up with the paperwork required by the Family and 
Medical Leave Act.
  To comply with a routine Affirmative Action Audit in 1988, the 
company had to expend approximately 600 hours of staff time to prepare 
and facilitate the process. And when we say ``mountain of paperwork'' 
it is no exaggeration. The completed paperwork package to comply with 
this, again--routine audit, weighed 13 pounds.
  I ask you, how much does the paperwork from an audit weigh when it is 
not routine? Thirty-seven pounds? One hundred and fourteen pounds? It 
is one thing to comply with regulations, but quite another to bury 
companies under excessive and needlessly complex documentation.
  I applaud Mr. Koeblitz for bringing this problem to the attention of 
the Congress and concur with the message he gave to the committee:

       We should let the American business community get back to 
     the business of running their companies rather than spending 
     ridiculous amounts of time complying with federal government 
     edicts.

  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 830.
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 
830, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
  I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this legislation. Much work has 
gone into this legislation during the past two Congresses by the Small 
Business Committee and the Committee on Government Reform. This bill 
has been developed on a bipartisan basis and has received considerable 
bipartisan support. I want to particularly acknowledge the work of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] and of the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Sisisky] who as a member of my Small Business Committee, 
has been most persistent on this legislation.
  Both gentlemen sponsored similar legislation last Congress, H.R. 
2995, which had over 100 cosponsors, evenly split between Republicans 
and Democrats. I also want to acknowledge the support of the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. LaFalce] who as the ranking member of the Small 
Business Committee, has worked in support of this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, the provisions of last Congress' H.R. 2995 are found in 
Title V of H.R. 9, the Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act of 1995. 
H.R. 830 is a refinement of those provisions and is totally responsive 
to this vital piece of the Republican contract. I strongly believe this 
legislation which amends the 1980 Paperwork Reduction Act, and the 
strengthening amendments to the Regulatory Flexibility Act we will be 
considering next week, are precisely the kind of commonsense regulatory 
reforms that this Congress can enact for the benefit of small 
businesses and all the American people.
  On January 27, the Small Business Committee held a hearing on 
legislative proposals for paperwork reduction. The Administrator of the 
White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs [OIRA], Mrs. 
Sally Katzen, indicated the administration fully supported the bill we 
have before us today. After describing problems this administration has 
in implementing the Act as a result of the 1990 Supreme Court decision 
in Dole versus Steelworkers of America, she specifically stated the 
Clinton administration supports overturning that decision. She further 
echoed the testimony of our small business witnesses that strengthening 
amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act are needed.
  Authorization for appropriations to OIRA expired in 1989. The Supreme 
Court decision followed in 1990. Our small business witnesses noted 
that the Act's promise to protect them from bureaucratic excesses and 
unnecessary regulations has significantly eroded during the past 5 
years. They gave three reasons: The Court decision which gave agencies 
an excuse to avoid the Act's requirements, the growing tendency of 
agencies to ignore the Act's requirements, and the inability of the 
Executive branch and the Congress to come to an agreement during the 
past three Congresses on what amendments are needed to the Act.
  Put simply, this legislation needs to be enacted to strengthen the 
tools in the Act that encourage small businesses to participate in 
reducing the cumulative burdens of regulatory paperwork. The Act needs 
to be strengthened, corrected, and renewed, not weakened by time and 
neglect.
  One of our witnesses estimated that 510 billion dollars worth of time 
and effort are spent by the American public meeting the Federal 
Government's information needs. Those are the hidden taxes, the off-
budget costs of government programs. We need to be sure that we keep 
these costs to a minimum. The ability of small businesses, for example, 
to create new jobs and retain existing ones, depends on keeping the 
costs to a minimum.
  I believe H.R. 830 will reverse the erosion that has occurred in 
recent years. It will strengthen the small business community' ability 
to reduce unnecessary regulations.
  Let me point to the strong support within the small business 
community for this legislation. This bill has a broad base of support 
from a Paperwork Reduction Act Coalition, which includes some 75 trade, 
professional, and citizen associations. Small business organizations 
such as National Federation of Independent Businesses, National Small 
Business 
[[Page H2015]]  United, the Small Business Legislative Counsel, the 
U.S. Chamber and the National Association of Manufacturers, who are 
members of the Coalition, have independently indicated they will 
highlight a vote for this bill as an important pro-small business vote.
  I want to again, commend the work of Chairman Clinger on this 
legislation. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of H.R. 830.
  Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Chairman, today is a great day for small business. 
And it is--just as surely--a great day for this House.
  Today we have a chance to really change the way Government does 
business. Paperwork reduction is not something that only academics and 
bureaucrats care about. It is a reform that will have a direct impact 
on millions of people--and especially small businesses--on a day-to-day 
basis.
  If we really want to reinvent Government, we must constantly be 
thinking of ways for Government to perform its necessary functions 
without imposing a crushing burden on small businesses.
  This administration has received praise from many quarters for its 
reinventing Government initiative. I, for one, think this praise is 
well-deserved. The National Security Committee, on which I serve, 
worked hand in hand with the administration last year to craft sweeping 
legislation to reinvent the Government procurement system.
  However, despite this and other successes, much more remains to be 
done. If you ask small businesses how they think Government should be 
reinvented, I think most would say paperwork reduction is a 
good place to start. As a senior member of the Small Business 
Committee, I know that small businesses rank paperwork reduction as one 
of their highest priorities.
  Small firms are forced to spend billions of dollars each year filling 
out Government paperwork. We sometimes forget that many small 
businesses, especially the smallest of the small, have a hard time just 
keeping their heads above water. Government paperwork is really a 
hidden tax on small business, and it makes it that much harder for them 
to survive.
  Since small businesses are responsible for creating most new jobs in 
today's economy, it only makes sense to do what we can to eliminate 
this impediment to small business job creation. Paperwork reduction is 
a reform that both Democrats and Republicans can enthusiastically 
support.
  We can be proud that the original Paperwork Reduction Act, as well as 
H.R. 830, have been genuinely bipartisan efforts. In the last Congress, 
Mr. Clinger joined me in introducing a very similar bill, cosponsored 
by a bipartisan group of 120 Members. In this Congress, I had the 
pleasure of joining with Mr. Clinger in renewing this effort. Both H.R. 
830 and its Senate counterpart enjoy the backing of the Clinton 
administration.
  I think that this legislation is an encouraging example of how 
Members of both parties can put aside partisan differences when it 
comes to small business and job creation, and I hope it can serve as a 
model for constructive bipartisan cooperation in the future.
  Mr. Chairman, today we have a chance to help small businesses in 
America do what they do best--create more jobs. I strongly urge my 
Democratic and Republican colleagues to give their wholehearted support 
to H.R. 830.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for 
amendment under the 5-minute rule, and the bill and the amendments 
printed in the bill are considered as having been read.
  The text of the bill, H.R. 830, is as follows:
                                H.R. 830
       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Paperwork Reduction Act of 
     1995''.

     SEC. 2. COORDINATION OF FEDERAL INFORMATION POLICY.

       Chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code, is amended to 
     read as follows:
        ``CHAPTER 35--COORDINATION OF FEDERAL INFORMATION POLICY
``Sec.
``3501. Purposes.
``3502. Definitions.
``3503. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
``3504. Authority and functions of Director.
``3505. Assignment of tasks and deadlines.
``3506. Federal agency responsibilities.
``3507. Public information collection activities; submission to 
              Director; approval and delegation.
``3508. Determination of necessity for information; hearing.
``3509. Designation of central collection agency.
``3510. Cooperation of agencies in making information available.
``3511. Establishment and operation of Government Information Locator 
              Service.
``3512. Public protection.
``3513. Director review of agency activities; reporting; agency 
              response.
``3514. Responsiveness to Congress.
``3515. Administrative powers.
``3516. Rules and regulations.
``3517. Consultation with other agencies and the public.
``3518. Effect on existing laws and regulations.
``3519. Access to information.
``3520. Authorization of appropriations.
     ``Sec. 3501. Purposes

       ``The purposes of this chapter are to--
       ``(1) minimize the paperwork burden for individuals, small 
     businesses, educational and nonprofit institutions, Federal 
     contractors, State, local and tribal governments, and other 
     persons resulting from the collection of information by or 
     for the Federal Government;
       ``(2) ensure the greatest possible public benefit from and 
     maximize the utility of information created, collected, 
     maintained, used, shared and disseminated by or for the 
     Federal Government;
       ``(3) coordinate, integrate, and to the extent practicable 
     and appropriate, make uniform Federal information resources 
     management policies and practices as a means to improve the 
     productivity, efficiency, and effectiveness of Government 
     programs, including the reduction of information collection 
     burdens on the public and the improvement of service delivery 
     to the public;
       ``(4) improve the quality and use of Federal information to 
     strengthen decisionmaking, accountability, and openness in 
     Government and society;
       ``(5) minimize the cost to the Federal Government of the 
     creation, collection, maintenance, use, dissemination, and 
     disposition of information;
       ``(6) strengthen the partnership between the Federal 
     Government and State, local, and tribal governments by 
     minimizing the burden and maximizing the utility of 
     information created, collected, maintained, used, 
     disseminated, and retained by or for the Federal Government;
       ``(7) provide for the dissemination of public information 
     on a timely basis, on equitable terms, and in a manner that 
     promotes the utility of the information to the public and 
     makes effective use of information technology;
       ``(8) ensure that the creation, collection, maintenance, 
     use, dissemination, and disposition of information by or for 
     the Federal Government is consistent with applicable laws, 
     including laws relating to--
       ``(A) privacy and confidentiality, including section 552a 
     of title 5;
       ``(B) security of information, including the Computer 
     Security Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-235); and
       ``(C) access to information, including section 552 of title 
     5;
       ``(9) ensure the integrity, quality, and utility of the 
     Federal statistical system;
       ``(10) ensure that information technology is acquired, 
     used, and managed to improve performance of agency missions, 
     including the reduction of information collection burdens on 
     the public; and
       ``(11) improve the responsibility and accountability of the 
     Office of Management and Budget and all other Federal 
     agencies to Congress and to the public for implementing the 
     information collection review process, information resources 
     management, and related policies and guidelines established 
     under this chapter.

     ``Sec. 3502. Definitions

       ``As used in this chapter--
       ``(1) the term `agency' means any executive department, 
     military department, Government corporation, Government 
     controlled corporation, or other establishment in the 
     executive branch of the Government (including the Executive 
     Office of the President), or any independent regulatory 
     agency, but does not include--
       ``(A) the General Accounting Office;
       ``(B) Federal Election Commission;
       ``(C) the governments of the District of Columbia and of 
     the territories and possessions of the United States, and 
     their various subdivisions; or
       ``(D) Government-owned contractor-operated facilities, 
     including laboratories engaged in national defense research 
     and production activities;
       ``(2) the term `burden' means time, effort, or financial 
     resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, or 
     provide information to or for a Federal agency, including the 
     resources expended for--
       ``(A) reviewing instructions;
       ``(B) acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and 
     systems;
       ``(C) adjusting the existing ways to comply with any 
     previously applicable instructions and requirements;
       ``(D) searching data sources;
       ``(E) completing and reviewing the collection of 
     information; and
       ``(F) transmitting, or otherwise disclosing the 
     information;
       ``(3) the term `collection of information' means the 
     obtaining, causing to be obtained, soliciting, or requiring 
     the disclosure to third parties or the public, of facts or 
     opinions by or for an agency, regardless of form or format, 
     calling for either--
       ``(A) answers to identical questions posed to, or identical 
     reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed on, ten or 
     more persons, other than agencies, instrumentalities, 
     [[Page H2016]]  or employees of the United States; or
       ``(B) answers to questions posed to agencies, 
     instrumentalities, or employees of the United States which 
     are to be used for general statistical purposes;
       ``(4) the term `Director' means the Director of the Office 
     of Management and Budget;
       ``(5) the term `independent regulatory agency' means the 
     Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the 
     Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Consumer Product 
     Safety Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, the 
     Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Energy 
     Regulatory Commission, the Federal Housing Finance Board, the 
     Federal Maritime Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, 
     the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Mine Enforcement 
     Safety and Health Review Commission, the National Labor 
     Relations Board, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the 
     Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, the Postal 
     Rate Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and 
     any other similar agency designated by statute as a Federal 
     independent regulatory agency or commission;
       ``(6) the term `information resources' means information 
     and related resources, such as personnel, equipment, funds, 
     and information technology;
       ``(7) the term `information resources management' means the 
     process of managing information resources to accomplish 
     agency missions and to improve agency performance, including 
     through the reduction of information collection burdens on 
     the public;
       ``(8) the term `information system' means a discrete set of 
     information resources and processes, automated or manual, 
     organized for the collection, processing, maintenance, use, 
     sharing, dissemination, or disposition of information;
       ``(9) the term `information technology' has the same 
     meaning as the term `automatic data processing equipment' as 
     defined by section 111(a)(2) of the Federal Property and 
     Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 759(a)(2));
       ``(10) the term `person' means an individual, partnership, 
     association, corporation, business trust, or legal 
     representative, an organized group of individuals, a State, 
     territorial, or local government or branch thereof, or a 
     political subdivision of a State, territory, or local 
     government or a branch of a political subdivision;
       ``(11) the term `practical utility' means the ability of an 
     agency to use information, particularly the capability to 
     process such information in a timely and useful fashion;
       ``(12) the term `public information' means any information, 
     regardless of form or format, that an agency discloses, 
     disseminates, or makes available to the public; and
       ``(13) the term `recordkeeping requirement' means a 
     requirement imposed by or for an agency on persons to 
     maintain specified records, including a requirement to--
       ``(A) retain such records;
       ``(B) notify third parties or the public of the existence 
     of such records;
       ``(C) disclose such records to third parties or the public; 
     or
       ``(D) report to third parties or the public regarding such 
     records.

     ``Sec. 3503. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs

       ``(a) There is established in the Office of Management and 
     Budget an office to be known as the Office of Information and 
     Regulatory Affairs.
       ``(b) There shall be at the head of the Office an 
     Administrator who shall be appointed by the President, by and 
     with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Director shall 
     delegate to the Administrator the authority to administer all 
     functions under this chapter, except that any such delegation 
     shall not relieve the Director of responsibility for the 
     administration of such functions. The Administrator shall 
     serve as principal adviser to the Director on Federal 
     information resources management policy.

     ``Sec. 3504. Authority and functions of Director

       ``(a)(1) The Director shall--
       ``(A) develop, coordinate and oversee the implementation of 
     Federal information resources management policies, 
     principles, standards, and guidelines; and
       ``(B) provide direction and oversee--
       ``(i) the review and approval of the collection of 
     information and the reduction of the information collection 
     burden;
       ``(ii) agency dissemination of and public access to 
     information;
       ``(iii) statistical activities;
       ``(iv) records management activities;
       ``(v) privacy, confidentiality, security, disclosure, and 
     sharing of information; and
       ``(vi) the acquisition and use of information technology.
       ``(2) The authority of the Director under this chapter 
     shall be exercised consistent with applicable law.
       ``(b) With respect to general information resources 
     management policy, the Director shall--
       ``(1) develop and oversee the implementation of uniform 
     information resources management policies, principles, 
     standards, and guidelines;
       ``(2) foster greater sharing, dissemination, and access to 
     public information, including through--
       ``(A) the use of the Government Information Locator 
     Service; and
       ``(B) the development and utilization of common standards 
     for information collection, storage, processing and 
     communication, including standards for security, 
     interconnectivity and interoperability;
       ``(3) initiate and review proposals for changes in 
     legislation, regulations, and agency procedures to improve 
     information resources management practices;
       ``(4) oversee the development and implementation of best 
     practices in information resources management, including 
     training; and
       ``(5) oversee agency integration of program and management 
     functions with information resources management functions.
       ``(c) With respect to the collection of information and the 
     control of paperwork, the Director shall--
       ``(1) review and approve proposed agency collections of 
     information;
       ``(2) coordinate the review of the collection of 
     information associated with Federal procurement and 
     acquisition by the Office of Information and Regulatory 
     Affairs with the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, with 
     particular emphasis on applying information technology to 
     improve the efficiency and effectiveness of Federal 
     procurement and acquisition and to reduce information 
     collection burdens on the public;
       ``(3) minimize the Federal information collection burden, 
     with particular emphasis on those individuals and entities 
     most adversely affected;
       ``(4) maximize the practical utility of and public benefit 
     from information collected by or for the Federal Government; 
     and
       ``(5) establish and oversee standards and guidelines by 
     which agencies are to estimate the burden to comply with a 
     proposed collection of information.
       ``(d) With respect to information dissemination, the 
     Director shall develop and oversee the implementation of 
     policies, principles, standards, and guidelines to--
       ``(1) apply to Federal agency dissemination of public 
     information, regardless of the form or format in which such 
     information is disseminated; and
       ``(2) promote public access to public information and 
     fulfill the purposes of this chapter, including through the 
     effective use of information technology.
       ``(e) With respect to statistical policy and coordination, 
     the Director shall--
       ``(1) coordinate the activities of the Federal statistical 
     system to ensure--
       ``(A) the efficiency and effectiveness of the system; and
       ``(B) the integrity, objectivity, impartiality, utility, 
     and confidentiality of information collected for statistical 
     purposes;
       ``(2) ensure that budget proposals of agencies are 
     consistent with system-wide priorities for maintaining and 
     improving the quality of Federal statistics and prepare an 
     annual report on statistical program funding;
       ``(3) develop and oversee the implementation of 
     Governmentwide policies, principles, standards, and 
     guidelines concerning--
       ``(A) statistical collection procedures and methods;
       ``(B) statistical data classification;
       ``(C) statistical information presentation and 
     dissemination;
       ``(D) timely release of statistical data; and
       ``(E) such statistical data sources as may be required for 
     the administration of Federal programs;
       ``(4) evaluate statistical program performance and agency 
     compliance with Governmentwide policies, principles, 
     standards and guidelines;
       ``(5) promote the sharing of information collected for 
     statistical purposes consistent with privacy rights and 
     confidentiality pledges;
       ``(6) coordinate the participation of the United States in 
     international statistical activities, including the 
     development of comparable statistics;
       ``(7) appoint a chief statistician who is a trained and 
     experienced professional statistician to carry out the 
     functions described under this subsection;
       ``(8) establish an Interagency Council on Statistical 
     Policy to advise and assist the Director in carrying out the 
     functions under this subsection that shall--
       ``(A) be headed by the chief statistician; and
       ``(B) consist of--
       ``(i) the heads of the major statistical programs; and
       ``(ii) representatives of other statistical agencies under 
     rotating membership; and
       ``(9) provide opportunities for training in statistical 
     policy functions to employees of the Federal Government under 
     which--
       ``(A) each trainee shall be selected at the discretion of 
     the Director based on agency requests and shall serve under 
     the chief statistician for at least 6 months and not more 
     than 1 year; and
       ``(B) all costs of the training shall be paid by the agency 
     requesting training.
       ``(f) With respect to records management, the Director 
     shall--
       ``(1) provide advice and assistance to the Archivist of the 
     United States and the Administrator of General Services to 
     promote coordination in the administration of chapters 29, 
     31, and 33 of this title with the information resources 
     management policies, principles, standards, and guidelines 
     established under this chapter;
       ``(2) review compliance by agencies with--
       ``(A) the requirements of chapters 29, 31, and 33 of this 
     title; and
     [[Page H2017]]   ``(B) regulations promulgated by the 
     Archivist of the United States and the Administrator of 
     General Services; and
       ``(3) oversee the application of records management 
     policies, principles, standards, and guidelines, including 
     requirements for archiving information maintained in 
     electronic format, in the planning and design of information 
     systems.
       ``(g) With respect to privacy and security, the Director 
     shall--
       ``(1) develop and oversee the implementation of policies, 
     principles, standards, and guidelines on privacy, 
     confidentiality, security, disclosure and sharing of 
     information collected or maintained by or for agencies;
       ``(2) oversee and coordinate compliance with sections 552 
     and 552a of title 5, the Computer Security Act of 1987 (40 
     U.S.C. 759 note), and related information management laws; 
     and
       ``(3) require Federal agencies, consistent with the 
     Computer Security Act of 1987 (40 U.S.C. 759 note), to 
     identify and afford security protections commensurate with 
     the risk and magnitude of the harm resulting from the loss, 
     misuse, or unauthorized access to or modification of 
     information collected or maintained by or on behalf of an 
     agency.
       ``(h) With respect to Federal information technology, the 
     Director shall--
       ``(1) in consultation with the Director of the National 
     Institute of Standards and Technology and the Administrator 
     of General Services--
       ``(A) develop and oversee the implementation of policies, 
     principles, standards, and guidelines for information 
     technology functions and activities of the Federal 
     Government, including periodic evaluations of major 
     information systems; and
       ``(B) oversee the development and implementation of 
     standards under section 111(d) of the Federal Property and 
     Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 759(d));
       ``(2) monitor the effectiveness of, and compliance with, 
     directives issued under sections 110 and 111 of the Federal 
     Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 
     757 and 759);
       ``(3) coordinate the development and review by the Office 
     of Information and Regulatory Affairs of policy associated 
     with Federal procurement and acquisition of information 
     technology with the Office of Federal Procurement Policy;
       ``(4) ensure, through the review of agency budget 
     proposals, information resources management plans and other 
     means--
       ``(A) agency integration of information resources 
     management plans, program plans and budgets for acquisition 
     and use of information technology; and
       ``(B) the efficiency and effectiveness of inter-agency 
     information technology initiatives to improve agency 
     performance and the accomplishment of agency missions; and
       ``(5) promote the use of information technology by the 
     Federal Government to improve the productivity, efficiency, 
     and effectiveness of Federal programs, including through 
     dissemination of public information and the reduction of 
     information collection burdens on the public.

     ``Sec. 3505. Assignment of tasks and deadlines

       ``(a) In carrying out the functions under this chapter, the 
     Director shall--
       ``(1) in consultation with agency heads, set an annual 
     Governmentwide goal for the reduction of information 
     collection burdens by at least five percent, and set annual 
     agency goals to--
       ``(A) reduce information collection burdens imposed on the 
     public that--
       ``(i) represent the maximum practicable opportunity in each 
     agency; and
       ``(ii) are consistent with improving agency management of 
     the process for the review of collections of information 
     established under section 3506(c); and
       ``(B) improve information resources management in ways that 
     increase the productivity, efficiency and effectiveness of 
     Federal programs, including service delivery to the public;
       ``(2) with selected agencies and non-Federal entities on a 
     voluntary basis, initiate and conduct pilot projects to test 
     alternative policies, practices, regulations, and procedures 
     to fulfill the purposes of this chapter, particularly with 
     regard to minimizing the Federal information collection 
     burden; and
       ``(3) in consultation with the Administrator of General 
     Services, the Director of the National Institute of Standards 
     and Technology, the Archivist of the United States, and the 
     Director of the Office of Personnel Management, develop and 
     maintain a Governmentwide strategic plan for information 
     resources management, that shall include--
       ``(A) a description of the objectives and the means by 
     which the Federal Government shall apply information 
     resources to improve agency and program performance;
       ``(B) plans for--
       ``(i) reducing information burdens on the public, including 
     reducing such burdens through the elimination of duplication 
     and meeting shared data needs with shared resources;
       ``(ii) enhancing public access to and dissemination of, 
     information, using electronic and other formats; and
       ``(iii) meeting the information technology needs of the 
     Federal Government in accordance with the purposes of this 
     chapter; and
       ``(C) a description of progress in applying information 
     resources management to improve agency performance and the 
     accomplishment of missions.
       ``(b) For purposes of any pilot project conducted under 
     subsection (a)(2), the Director may waive the application of 
     any regulation or administrative directive issued by an 
     agency with which the project is conducted, including any 
     regulation or directive requiring a collection of 
     information, after giving timely notice to the public and the 
     Congress regarding the need for such waiver.

     ``Sec. 3506. Federal agency responsibilities

       ``(a)(1) The head of each agency shall be responsible for--
       ``(A) carrying out the agency's information resources 
     management activities to improve agency productivity, 
     efficiency, and effectiveness; and
       ``(B) complying with the requirements of this chapter and 
     related policies established by the Director.
       ``(2)(A) Except as provided under subparagraph (B), the 
     head of each agency shall designate a senior official who 
     shall report directly to such agency head to carry out the 
     responsibilities of the agency under this chapter.
       ``(B) The Secretary of the Department of Defense and the 
     Secretary of each military department may each designate a 
     senior official who shall report directly to such Secretary 
     to carry out the responsibilities of the department under 
     this chapter. If more than one official is designated for the 
     military departments, the respective duties of the officials 
     shall be clearly delineated.
       ``(3) The senior official designated under paragraph (2) 
     shall head an office responsible for ensuring agency 
     compliance with and prompt, efficient, and effective 
     implementation of the information policies and information 
     resources management responsibilities established under this 
     chapter, including the reduction of information collection 
     burdens on the public. The senior official and employees of 
     such office shall be selected with special attention to the 
     professional qualifications required to administer the 
     functions described under this chapter.
       ``(4) Each agency program official shall be responsible and 
     accountable for information resources assigned to and 
     supporting the programs under such official. In consultation 
     with the senior official designated under paragraph (2) and 
     the agency Chief Financial Officer (or comparable official), 
     each agency program official shall define program information 
     needs and develop strategies, systems, and capabilities to 
     meet those needs.
       ``(b) With respect to general information resources 
     management, each agency shall--
       ``(1) manage information resources to--
       ``(A) reduce information collection burdens on the public;
       ``(B) increase program efficiency and effectiveness; and
       ``(C) improve the integrity, quality, and utility of 
     information to all users within and outside the agency, 
     including capabilities for ensuring dissemination of public 
     information, public access to government information, and 
     protections for privacy and security;
       ``(2) in accordance with guidance by the Director, develop 
     and maintain a strategic information resources management 
     plan that shall describe how information resources management 
     activities help accomplish agency missions;
       ``(3) develop and maintain an ongoing process to--
       ``(A) ensure that information resources management 
     operations and decisions are integrated with organizational 
     planning, budget, financial management, human resources 
     management, and program decisions;
       ``(B) in cooperation with the agency Chief Financial 
     Officer (or comparable official), develop a full and accurate 
     accounting of information technology expenditures, related 
     expenses, and results; and
       ``(C) establish goals for improving information resources 
     management's contribution to program productivity, 
     efficiency, and effectiveness, methods for measuring progress 
     towards those goals, and clear roles and responsibilities for 
     achieving those goals;
       ``(4) in consultation with the Director, the Administrator 
     of General Services, and the Archivist of the United States, 
     maintain a current and complete inventory of the agency's 
     information resources, including directories necessary to 
     fulfill the requirements of section 3511 of this chapter; and
       ``(5) in consultation with the Director and the Director of 
     the Office of Personnel Management, conduct formal training 
     programs to educate agency program and management officials 
     about information resources management.
       ``(c) With respect to the collection of information and the 
     control of paperwork, each agency shall--
       ``(1) establish a process within the office headed by the 
     official designated under subsection (a), that is 
     sufficiently independent of program responsibility to 
     evaluate fairly whether proposed collections of information 
     should be approved under this chapter, to--
       ``(A) review each collection of information before 
     submission to the Director for review under this chapter, 
     including--
       ``(i) an evaluation of the need for the collection of 
     information;
       ``(ii) a functional description of the information to be 
     collected;
       ``(iii) a plan for the collection of the information;
       ``(iv) a specific, objectively supported estimate of 
     burden;
       ``(v) a test of the collection of information through a 
     pilot program, if appropriate; and
     [[Page H2018]]   ``(vi) a plan for the efficient and 
     effective management and use of the information to be 
     collected, including necessary resources;
       ``(B) ensure that each information collection--
       ``(i) is inventoried, displays a control number and, if 
     appropriate, an expiration date;
       ``(ii) indicates the collection is in accordance with the 
     clearance requirements of section 3507; and
       ``(iii) contains a statement to inform the person receiving 
     the collection of information--

       ``(I) the reasons the information is being collected;
       ``(II) the way such information is to be used;
       ``(III) an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the 
     burden of the collection; and
       ``(IV) whether responses to the collection of information 
     are voluntary, required to obtain a benefit, or mandatory; 
     and

       ``(C) assess the information collection burden of proposed 
     legislation affecting the agency;
       ``(2)(A) except for good cause or as provided under 
     subparagraph (B), provide 60-day notice in the Federal 
     Register, and otherwise consult with members of the public 
     and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of 
     information, to solicit comment to--
       ``(i) evaluate whether the proposed collection of 
     information is necessary for the proper performance of the 
     functions of the agency, including whether the information 
     shall have practical utility;
       ``(ii) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of 
     the burden of the proposed collection of information;
       ``(iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the 
     information to be collected; and
       ``(iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information 
     on those who are to respond, including through the use of 
     automated collection techniques or other forms of information 
     technology; and
       ``(B) for any proposed collection of information contained 
     in a proposed rule (to be reviewed by the Director under 
     section 3507(d)), provide notice and comment through the 
     notice of proposed rulemaking for the proposed rule and such 
     notice shall have the same purposes specified under 
     subparagraph (A) (i) through (iv); and
       ``(3) certify (and provide a record supporting such 
     certification, including public comments received by the 
     agency) that each collection of information submitted to the 
     Director for review under section 3507--
       ``(A) is necessary for the proper performance of the 
     functions of the agency, including that the information has 
     practical utility;
       ``(B) is not unnecessarily duplicative of information 
     otherwise reasonably accessible to the agency;
       ``(C) reduces to the extent practicable and appropriate the 
     burden on persons who shall provide information to or for the 
     agency, including with respect to small entities, as defined 
     under section 601(6) of title 5, the use of such techniques 
     as--
       ``(i) establishing differing compliance or reporting 
     requirements or timetables that take into account the 
     resources available to those who are to respond;
       ``(ii) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification 
     of compliance and reporting requirements; or
       ``(iii) an exemption from coverage of the collection of 
     information, or any part thereof;
       ``(D) is written using plain, coherent, and unambiguous 
     terminology and is understandable to those who are to 
     respond;
       ``(E) is to be implemented in ways consistent and 
     compatible, to the maximum extent practicable, with the 
     existing reporting and recordkeeping practices of those who 
     are to respond;
       ``(F) contains the statement required under paragraph 
     (1)(B)(iii);
       ``(G) has been developed by an office that has planned and 
     allocated resources for the efficient and effective 
     management and use of the information to be collected, 
     including the processing of the information in a manner which 
     shall enhance, where appropriate, the utility of the 
     information to agencies and the public;
       ``(H) uses effective and efficient statistical survey 
     methodology appropriate to the purpose for which the 
     information is to be collected; and
       ``(I) to the maximum extent practicable, uses information 
     technology to reduce burden and improve data quality, agency 
     efficiency and responsiveness to the public.
       ``(d) With respect to information dissemination, each 
     agency shall--
       ``(1) ensure that the public has timely, equal, and 
     equitable access to the agency's public information, 
     including ensuring such access through--
       ``(A) encouraging a diversity of public and private sources 
     for information based on government public information,
       ``(B) in cases in which the agency provides public 
     information maintained in electronic format, providing 
     timely, equal, and equitable access to the underlying data 
     (in whole or in part); and
       ``(C) agency dissemination of public information in an 
     efficient, effective, and economical manner;
       ``(2) regularly solicit and consider public input on the 
     agency's information dissemination activities;
       ``(3) provide adequate notice when initiating, 
     substantially modifying, or terminating significant 
     information dissemination products; and
       ``(4) not, except where specifically authorized by 
     statute--
       ``(A) establish an exclusive, restricted, or other 
     distribution arrangement that interferes with timely and 
     equitable availability of public information to the public;
       ``(B) restrict or regulate the use, resale, or 
     redissemination of public information by the public;
       ``(C) charge fees or royalties for resale or 
     redissemination of public information; or
       ``(D) establish user fees for public information that 
     exceed the cost of dissemination, except that the Director 
     may waive the application of this subparagraph to an agency, 
     if--
       ``(i) the head of the agency submits a written request to 
     the Director, publishes a notice of the request in the 
     Federal Register, and provides a copy of the request to the 
     public upon request;
       ``(ii) the Director sets forth in writing a statement of 
     the scope, conditions, and duration of the waiver and the 
     reasons for granting it, and makes such statement available 
     to the public upon request; and
       ``(iii) the granting of the waiver would not materially 
     impair the timely and equitable availability of public 
     information to the public.
       ``(e) With respect to statistical policy and coordination, 
     each agency shall--
       ``(1) ensure the relevance, accuracy, timeliness, 
     integrity, and objectivity of information collected or 
     created for statistical purposes;
       ``(2) inform respondents fully and accurately about the 
     sponsors, purposes, and uses of statistical surveys and 
     studies;
       ``(3) protect respondents' privacy and ensure that 
     disclosure policies fully honor pledges of confidentiality;
       ``(4) observe Federal standards and practices for data 
     collection, analysis, documentation, sharing, and 
     dissemination of information;
       ``(5) ensure the timely publication of the results of 
     statistical surveys and studies, including information about 
     the quality and limitations of the surveys and studies; and
       ``(6) make data available to statistical agencies and 
     readily accessible to the public.
       ``(f) With respect to records management, each agency shall 
     implement and enforce applicable policies and procedures, 
     including requirements for archiving information maintained 
     in electronic format, particularly in the planning, design 
     and operation of information systems.
       ``(g) With respect to privacy and security, each agency 
     shall--
       ``(1) implement and enforce applicable policies, 
     procedures, standards, and guidelines on privacy, 
     confidentiality, security, disclosure and sharing of 
     information collected or maintained by or for the agency;
       ``(2) assume responsibility and accountability for 
     compliance with and coordinated management of sections 552 
     and 552a of title 5, the Computer Security Act of 1987 (40 
     U.S.C. 759 note), and related information management laws; 
     and
       ``(3) consistent with the Computer Security Act of 1987 (40 
     U.S.C. 759 note), identify and afford security protections 
     commensurate with the risk and magnitude of the harm 
     resulting from the loss, misuse, or unauthorized access to or 
     modification of information collected or maintained by or on 
     behalf of an agency.
       ``(h) With respect to Federal information technology, each 
     agency shall--
       ``(1) implement and enforce applicable Governmentwide and 
     agency information technology management policies, 
     principles, standards, and guidelines;
       ``(2) assume responsibility and accountability for 
     information technology investments;
       ``(3) promote the use of information technology by the 
     agency to improve the productivity, efficiency, and 
     effectiveness of agency programs, including the reduction of 
     information collection burdens on the public and improved 
     dissemination of public information;
       ``(4) propose changes in legislation, regulations, and 
     agency procedures to improve information technology 
     practices, including changes that improve the ability of the 
     agency to use technology to reduce burden; and
       ``(5) assume responsibility for maximizing the value and 
     assessing and managing the risks of major information systems 
     initiatives through a process that is--
       ``(A) integrated with budget, financial, and program 
     management decisions; and
       ``(B) used to select, control, and evaluate the results of 
     major information systems initiatives.

     ``Sec. 3507. Public information collection activities; 
       submission to Director; approval and delegation

       ``(a) An agency shall not conduct or sponsor the collection 
     of information unless in advance of the adoption or revision 
     of the collection of information--
       ``(1) the agency has--
       ``(A) conducted the review established under section 
     3506(c)(1);
       ``(B) evaluated the public comments received under section 
     3506(c)(2);
       ``(C) submitted to the Director the certification required 
     under section 3506(c)(3), the proposed collection of 
     information, copies of pertinent statutory authority, 
     regulations, 
     [[Page H2019]]  and other related materials as the Director 
     may specify; and
       ``(D) published a notice in the Federal Register--
       ``(i) stating that the agency has made such submission; and
       ``(ii) setting forth--

       ``(I) a title for the collection of information;
       ``(II) a summary of the collection of information;
       ``(III) a brief description of the need for the information 
     and the proposed use of the information;
       ``(IV) a description of the likely respondents and proposed 
     frequency of response to the collection of information;
       ``(V) an estimate of the burden that shall result from the 
     collection of information; and
       ``(VI) notice that comments may be submitted to the agency 
     and Director;

       ``(2) the Director has approved the proposed collection of 
     information or approval has been inferred, under the 
     provisions of this section; and
       ``(3) the agency has obtained from the Director a control 
     number to be displayed upon the collection of information.
       ``(b) The Director shall provide at least 30 days for 
     public comment prior to making a decision under subsection 
     (c), (d), or (h), except for good cause or as provided under 
     subsection (j).
       ``(c)(1) For any proposed collection of information not 
     contained in a proposed rule, the Director shall notify the 
     agency involved of the decision to approve or disapprove the 
     proposed collection of information.
       ``(2) The Director shall provide the notification under 
     paragraph (1), within 60 days after receipt or publication of 
     the notice under subsection (a)(1)(D), whichever is later.
       ``(3) If the Director does not notify the agency of a 
     denial or approval within the 60-day period described under 
     paragraph (2)--
       ``(A) the approval may be inferred;
       ``(B) a control number shall be assigned without further 
     delay; and
       ``(C) the agency may collect the information for not more 
     than 1 year.
       ``(d)(1) For any proposed collection of information 
     contained in a proposed rule--
       ``(A) as soon as practicable, but no later than the date of 
     publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal 
     Register, each agency shall forward to the Director a copy of 
     any proposed rule which contains a collection of information 
     and any information requested by the Director necessary to 
     make the determination required under this subsection; and
       ``(B) within 60 days after the notice of proposed 
     rulemaking is published in the Federal Register, the Director 
     may file public comments pursuant to the standards set forth 
     in section 3508 on the collection of information contained in 
     the proposed rule;
       ``(2) When a final rule is published in the Federal 
     Register, the agency shall explain--
       ``(A) how any collection of information contained in the 
     final rule responds to the comments, if any, filed by the 
     Director or the public; or
       ``(B) the reasons such comments were rejected.
       ``(3) If the Director has received notice and failed to 
     comment on an agency rule within 60 days after the notice of 
     proposed rulemaking, the Director may not disapprove any 
     collection of information specifically contained in an agency 
     rule.
       ``(4) No provision in this section shall be construed to 
     prevent the Director, in the Director's discretion--
       ``(A) from disapproving any collection of information which 
     was not specifically required by an agency rule;
       ``(B) from disapproving any collection of information 
     contained in an agency rule, if the agency failed to comply 
     with the requirements of paragraph (1) of this subsection;
       ``(C) from disapproving any collection of information 
     contained in a final agency rule, if the Director finds 
     within 60 days after the publication of the final rule, and 
     after considering the agency's response to the Director's 
     comments filed under paragraph (2), that the collection of 
     information cannot be approved under the standards set forth 
     in section 3508; or
       ``(D) from disapproving any collection of information 
     contained in a final rule, if--
       ``(i) the Director determines that the agency has 
     substantially modified in the final rule the collection of 
     information contained in the proposed rule; and
       ``(ii) the agency has not given the Director the 
     information required under paragraph (1) with respect to the 
     modified collection of information, at least 60 days before 
     the issuance of the final rule.
       ``(5) This subsection shall apply only when an agency 
     publishes a notice of proposed rulemaking and requests public 
     comments.
       ``(6) The decision by the Director to approve or not act 
     upon a collection of information contained in an agency rule 
     shall not be subject to judicial review.
       ``(e)(1) Any decision by the Director under subsection (c), 
     (d), (h), or (j) to disapprove a collection of information, 
     or to instruct the agency to make substantive or material 
     change to a collection of information, shall be publicly 
     available and include an explanation of the reasons for such 
     decision.
       ``(2) Any written communication between the Administrator 
     of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, or any 
     employee of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 
     and an agency or person not employed by the Federal 
     Government concerning a proposed collection of information 
     shall be made available to the public.
       ``(3) This subsection shall not require the disclosure of--
       ``(A) any information which is protected at all times by 
     procedures established for information which has been 
     specifically authorized under criteria established by an 
     Executive order or an Act of Congress to be kept secret in 
     the interest of national defense or foreign policy; or
       ``(B) any communication relating to a collection of 
     information, the disclosure of which could lead to 
     retaliation or discrimination against the communicator.
       ``(f)(1) An independent regulatory agency which is 
     administered by 2 or more members of a commission, board, or 
     similar body, may by majority vote void--
       ``(A) any disapproval by the Director, in whole or in part, 
     of a proposed collection of information that agency; or
       ``(B) an exercise of authority under subsection (d) of 
     section 3507 concerning that agency.
       ``(2) The agency shall certify each vote to void such 
     disapproval or exercise to the Director, and explain the 
     reasons for such vote. The Director shall without further 
     delay assign a control number to such collection of 
     information, and such vote to void the disapproval or 
     exercise shall be valid for a period of 3 years.
       ``(g) The Director may not approve a collection of 
     information for a period in excess of 3 years.
       ``(h)(1) If an agency decides to seek extension of the 
     Director's approval granted for a currently approved 
     collection of information, the agency shall--
       ``(A) conduct the review established under section 3506(c), 
     including the seeking of comment from the public on the 
     continued need for, and burden imposed by the collection of 
     information; and
       ``(B) after having made a reasonable effort to seek public 
     comment, but no later than 60 days before the expiration date 
     of the control number assigned by the Director for the 
     currently approved collection of information, submit the 
     collection of information for review and approval under this 
     section, which shall include an explanation of how the agency 
     has used the information that it has collected.
       ``(2) If under the provisions of this section, the Director 
     disapproves a collection of information contained in an 
     existing rule, or recommends or instructs the agency to make 
     a substantive or material change to a collection of 
     information contained in an existing rule, the Director 
     shall--
       ``(A) publish an explanation thereof in the Federal 
     Register; and
       ``(B) instruct the agency to undertake a rulemaking within 
     a reasonable time limited to consideration of changes to the 
     collection of information contained in the rule and 
     thereafter to submit the collection of information for 
     approval or disapproval under this chapter.
       ``(3) An agency may not make a substantive or material 
     modification to a collection of information after such 
     collection has been approved by the Director, unless the 
     modification has been submitted to the Director for review 
     and approval under this chapter.
       ``(i)(1) If the Director finds that a senior official of an 
     agency designated under section 3506(a) is sufficiently 
     independent of program responsibility to evaluate fairly 
     whether proposed collections of information should be 
     approved and has sufficient resources to carry out this 
     responsibility effectively, the Director may, by rule in 
     accordance with the notice and comment provisions of chapter 
     5 of title 5, United States Code, delegate to such official 
     the authority to approve proposed collections of information 
     in specific program areas, for specific purposes, or for all 
     agency purposes.
       ``(2) A delegation by the Director under this section shall 
     not preclude the Director from reviewing individual 
     collections of information if the Director determines that 
     circumstances warrant such a review. The Director shall 
     retain authority to revoke such delegations, both in general 
     and with regard to any specific matter. In acting for the 
     Director, any official to whom approval authority has been 
     delegated under this section shall comply fully with the 
     rules and regulations promulgated by the Director.
       ``(j)(1) The agency head may request the Director to 
     authorize collection of information prior to expiration of 
     time periods established under this chapter, if an agency 
     head determines that--
       ``(A) a collection of information--
       ``(i) is needed prior to the expiration of such time 
     periods; and
       ``(ii) is essential to the mission of the agency; and
       ``(B) the agency cannot reasonably comply with the 
     provisions of this chapter within such time periods because--
       ``(i) public harm is reasonably likely to result if normal 
     clearance procedures are followed; or
       ``(ii) an unanticipated event has occurred and the use of 
     normal clearance procedures is reasonably likely to prevent 
     or disrupt the collection of information related to the event 
     or is reasonably likely to cause a statutory or court-ordered 
     deadline to be missed.
       ``(2) The Director shall approve or disapprove any such 
     authorization request 
     [[Page H2020]]  within the time requested by the agency head 
     and, if approved, shall assign the collection of information 
     a control number. Any collection of information conducted 
     under this subsection may be conducted without compliance 
     with the provisions of this chapter for a maximum of 90 days 
     after the date on which the Director received the request to 
     authorize such collection.

     ``Sec. 3508. Determination of necessity for information; 
       hearing

       ``Before approving a proposed collection of information, 
     the Director shall determine whether the collection of 
     information by the agency is necessary for the proper 
     performance of the functions of the agency, including whether 
     the information shall have practical utility. Before making a 
     determination the Director may give the agency and other 
     interested persons an opportunity to be heard or to submit 
     statements in writing. To the extent, if any, that the 
     Director determines that the collection of information by an 
     agency is unnecessary for any reason, the agency may not 
     engage in the collection of information.
     ``Sec. 3509. Designation of central collection agency

       ``The Director may designate a central collection agency to 
     obtain information for two or more agencies if the Director 
     determines that the needs of such agencies for information 
     will be adequately served by a single collection agency, and 
     such sharing of data is not inconsistent with applicable law. 
     In such cases the Director shall prescribe (with reference to 
     the collection of information) the duties and functions of 
     the collection agency so designated and of the agencies for 
     which it is to act as agent (including reimbursement for 
     costs). While the designation is in effect, an agency covered 
     by the designation may not obtain for itself information for 
     the agency which is the duty of the collection agency to 
     obtain. The Director may modify the designation from time to 
     time as circumstances require. The authority to designate 
     under this section is subject to the provisions of section 
     3507(f) of this chapter.

     ``Sec. 3510. Cooperation of agencies in making information 
       available

       ``(a) The Director may direct an agency to make available 
     to another agency, or an agency may make available to another 
     agency, information obtained by a collection of information 
     if the disclosure is not inconsistent with applicable law.
       ``(b)(1) If information obtained by an agency is released 
     by that agency to another agency, all the provisions of law 
     (including penalties which relate to the unlawful disclosure 
     of information) apply to the officers and employees of the 
     agency to which information is released to the same extent 
     and in the same manner as the provisions apply to the 
     officers and employees of the agency which originally 
     obtained the information.
       ``(2) The officers and employees of the agency to which the 
     information is released, in addition, shall be subject to the 
     same provisions of law, including penalties, relating to the 
     unlawful disclosure of information as if the information had 
     been collected directly by that agency.
     ``Sec. 3511. Establishment and operation of Government 
       Information Locator Service

       ``In order to assist agencies and the public in locating 
     information and to promote information sharing and equitable 
     access by the public, the Director shall--
       ``(1) cause to be established and maintained a distributed 
     agency-based electronic Government Information Locator 
     Service (hereafter in this section referred to as the 
     `Service'), which shall identify the major information 
     systems, holdings, and dissemination products of each agency;
       ``(2) require each agency to establish and maintain an 
     agency information locator service as a component of, and to 
     support the establishment and operation of the Service;
       ``(3) in cooperation with the Archivist of the United 
     States, the Administrator of General Services, the Public 
     Printer, and the Librarian of Congress, establish an 
     interagency committee to advise the Secretary of Commerce on 
     the development of technical standards for the Service to 
     ensure compatibility, promote information sharing, and 
     uniform access by the public;
       ``(4) consider public access and other user needs in the 
     establishment and operation of the Service;
       ``(5) ensure the security and integrity of the Service, 
     including measures to ensure that only information which is 
     intended to be disclosed to the public is disclosed through 
     the Service; and
       ``(6) periodically review the development and effectiveness 
     of the Service and make recommendations for improvement, 
     including other mechanisms for improving public access to 
     Federal agency public information.

     ``Sec. 3512. Public protection

       ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person 
     shall be subject to any penalty for failing to maintain, 
     provide, or disclose information to or for any agency or 
     person if the applicable collection of information--
       ``(1) does not display a valid control number assigned by 
     the Director; and
       ``(2) fails to state that the person who is to respond to 
     the collection of information is not required to comply 
     unless such collection displays a valid control number.
     ``Sec. 3513. Director review of agency activities; reporting; 
       agency response

       ``(a) In consultation with the Administrator of General 
     Services, the Archivist of the United States, the Director of 
     the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the 
     Director of the Office of Personnel Management, the Director 
     shall periodically review selected agency information 
     resources management activities to ascertain the efficiency 
     and effectiveness of such activities to improve agency 
     performance and the accomplishment of agency missions.
       ``(b) Each agency having an activity reviewed under 
     subsection (a) shall, within 60 days after receipt of a 
     report on the review, provide a written plan to the Director 
     describing steps (including milestones) to--
       ``(1) be taken to address information resources management 
     problems identified in the report; and
       ``(2) improve agency performance and the accomplishment of 
     agency missions.

     ``Sec. 3514. Responsiveness to Congress

       ``(a)(1) The Director shall--
       ``(A) keep the Congress and congressional committees fully 
     and currently informed of the major activities under this 
     chapter; and
       ``(B) submit a report on such activities to the President 
     of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives 
     annually and at such other times as the Director determines 
     necessary.
       ``(2) The Director shall include in any such report a 
     description of the extent to which agencies have--
       ``(A) reduced information collection burdens on the public, 
     including--
       ``(i) a summary of accomplishments and planned initiatives 
     to reduce collection of information burdens;
       ``(ii) a list of all violations of this chapter and of any 
     rules, guidelines, policies, and procedures issued pursuant 
     to this chapter;
       ``(iii) a list of any increase in the collection of 
     information burden, including the authority for each such 
     collection; and
       ``(iv) a list of agencies that in the preceding year did 
     not reduce information collection burdens by at least 5 
     percent pursuant to section 3505, a list of the programs and 
     statutory responsibilities of those agencies that precluded 
     that reduction, and recommendations to assist those agencies 
     to reduce information collection burdens in accordance with 
     that section;
       ``(B) improved the quality and utility of statistical 
     information;
       ``(C) improved public access to Government information; and
       ``(D) improved program performance and the accomplishment 
     of agency missions through information resources management.
       ``(b) The preparation of any report required by this 
     section shall be based on performance results reported by the 
     agencies and shall not increase the collection of information 
     burden on persons outside the Federal Government.

     ``Sec. 3515. Administrative powers

       ``Upon the request of the Director, each agency (other than 
     an independent regulatory agency) shall, to the extent 
     practicable, make its services, personnel, and facilities 
     available to the Director for the performance of functions 
     under this chapter.

     ``Sec. 3516. Rules and regulations

       ``The Director shall promulgate rules, regulations, or 
     procedures necessary to exercise the authority provided by 
     this chapter.

     ``Sec. 3517. Consultation with other agencies and the public

       ``(a) In developing information resources management 
     policies, plans, rules, regulations, procedures, and 
     guidelines and in reviewing collections of information, the 
     Director shall provide interested agencies and persons early 
     and meaningful opportunity to comment.
       ``(b) Any person may request the Director to review any 
     collection of information conducted by or for an agency to 
     determine, if, under this chapter, the person shall maintain, 
     provide, or disclose the information to or for the agency. 
     Unless the request is frivolous, the Director shall, in 
     coordination with the agency responsible for the collection 
     of information--
       ``(1) respond to the request within 60 days after receiving 
     the request, unless such period is extended by the Director 
     to a specified date and the person making the request is 
     given notice of such extension; and
       ``(2) take appropriate remedial action, if necessary.

     ``Sec. 3518. Effect on existing laws and regulations

       ``(a) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, the 
     authority of an agency under any other law to prescribe 
     policies, rules, regulations, and procedures for Federal 
     information resources management activities is subject to the 
     authority of the Director under this chapter.
       ``(b) Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to affect or 
     reduce the authority of the Secretary of Commerce or the 
     Director of the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to 
     Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1977 (as amended) and Executive 
     order, relating to telecommunications and information policy, 
     procurement and management of telecommunications and 
     information systems, spectrum use, and related matters.
       ``(c)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), this chapter 
     shall not apply to obtaining, causing to be obtained, 
     soliciting, or requiring the disclosure to third parties or 
     the public, of facts or opinions--
     [[Page H2021]]   ``(A) during the conduct of a Federal 
     criminal investigation or prosecution, or during the 
     disposition of a particular criminal matter;
       ``(B) during the conduct of--
       ``(i) a civil action to which the United States or any 
     official or agency thereof is a party; or
       ``(ii) an administrative action or investigation involving 
     an agency against specific individuals or entities;
       ``(C) by compulsory process pursuant to the Antitrust Civil 
     Process Act and section 13 of the Federal Trade Commission 
     Improvements Act of 1980; or
       ``(D) during the conduct of intelligence activities as 
     defined in section 4-206 of Executive Order No. 12036, issued 
     January 24, 1978, or successor orders, or during the conduct 
     of cryptologic activities that are communications security 
     activities.
       ``(2) This chapter applies to obtaining, causing to be 
     obtained, soliciting, or requiring the disclosure to third 
     parties or the public, of facts or opinions during the 
     conduct of general investigations (other than information 
     collected in an antitrust investigation to the extent 
     provided in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1)) undertaken 
     with reference to a category of individuals or entities such 
     as a class of licensees or an entire industry.
       ``(d) Nothing in this chapter shall be interpreted as 
     increasing or decreasing the authority conferred by Public 
     Law 89-306 on the Administrator of the General Services 
     Administration, the Secretary of Commerce, or the Director of 
     the Office of Management and Budget.
       ``(e) 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.
       ``(f) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter 
     or any other law--
       ``(1) any public information that an agency discloses, 
     disseminates, or makes available to the public may be used by 
     any person for profit or nonprofit activities; and
       ``(2) if any person adds value to the public information, 
     the Federal Government shall not have any right to obtain, 
     collect, acquire, disseminate, use, or convert--
       ``(A) the resulting data, database, or other information 
     product, or
       ``(B) any method used by the person to identify such 
     resulting data, database, or information product,
     except under terms that are expressly agreed to by such 
     person.
     ``Sec. 3519. Access to information

       ``Under the conditions and procedures prescribed in section 
     716 of title 31, the Director and personnel in the Office of 
     Information and Regulatory Affairs shall furnish such 
     information as the Comptroller General may require for the 
     discharge of the responsibilities of the Comptroller General. 
     For the purpose of obtaining such information, the 
     Comptroller General or representatives thereof shall have 
     access to all books, documents, papers and records, 
     regardless of form or format, of the Office.

     ``Sec. 3520. Authorization of appropriations

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated to the Office of 
     Information and Regulatory Affairs to carry out the 
     provisions of this chapter such sums as may be necessary.''.
     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this Act shall take effect October 
     1, 1995.
                          committee amendments

  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the first committee amendment.
  The text of the first committee amendment is as follows:

       On page 12, line 21, strike ``and'' the second place it 
     appears and insert in lieu thereof ``,''.

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the first committee amendment.
  The first committee amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining 
committee amendments be considered en bloc.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to 
object, and I will not object, it is correct that this en bloc 
amendment is solely in compliance with the amendments adopted in 
committee?
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Further reserving the right to object, I 
yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, that is correct. This just incorporates 
those amendments which were adopted in the committee.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of 
objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the remaining committee 
amendments.
  The text of the remaining committee amendments is as follows:

       Committee amendments: On page 12, line 22, insert ``, and 
     payment'' after ``acquisition''.
       In the proposed section 3505 (page 19, line 18), strike 
     ``five'' and insert ``10''.
       In the proposed section 3514 (page 51, line 14), strike 
     ``5'' and insert ``10''.
       In the proposed section 3518 strike subsection (f).

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the remaining committee amendments.
  The remaining committee amendment were agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?


             amendment offered by mrs. collins of illinois

  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Collins of Illinois: Page 6, 
     beginning at line 23, strike ``soliciting, or requiring the 
     disclosure to third parties or the public,'' and insert ``or 
     soliciting,''.
       Page 9, beginning at line 18, strike ``records,'' and all 
     that follows through page 10, line 2, and insert 
     ``records.''.
       Page 49, beginning at line 12, strike ``maintain, provide, 
     or disclose information to or for any agency or person'' and 
     insert ``maintain or provide information to or for any 
     agency''.
       Page 54, beginning at line 5, strike ``obtaining,'' and all 
     that follows through line 7 and insert ``the collection of 
     information--''.
       Page 55, beginning at line 3, strike ``obtaining,'' and all 
     that follows through ``opinions'' on line 5, and insert ``the 
     collection of information''.

  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would strike 
from the bill those provisions giving the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs authority to block regulations concerning so-called 
third-party communications. These regulations involve requirements for 
companies to provide notifications to third parties, for example, their 
workers, about matters such as safety problems in the workplace.
  Let me discuss the history of this issue and explain why it is so 
important. OSHA issued a rule in 1987 to private companies requiring 
that they post signs in the workplace to notify workers of the chemical 
hazards that they may face. After some companies complained to OMB, its 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, using the Paperwork 
Reduction Act as its authority, overturned the rule. OMB claimed that 
the signs posted for the workers were covered by the act, and thus were 
a paperwork burden.
  Mr. Chairman, we are talking about a small poster telling workers of 
the hazards in the workplace. Removing these warnings is not paperwork 
reduction, it is safety reduction. Yet OMB, in the name of paperwork 
reduction, said that employers do not have to warn workers about the 
hazards they face at work.
  The Steelworkers, on the other hand, believe workers have a right to 
that information, and challenged that authority in court. The Supreme 
Court in 1990 agreed in a decision known as Dole versus the United 
Steelworkers of America and found that OMB had no authority over these 
notifications. Now, this bill overturns that hard fought victory of the 
workers.
  Overturning Dole, as this bill does, says to workers that relieving 
the paperwork burden on business is more important than their health 
and safety on the job. Overturning Dole opens the door for political 
influence to prevail over scientific judgment within the corridors of 
the Office of Management and Budget. Overturning Dole opens the door 
for political favoritism over common sense.
  A number of justifications are given for overturning Dole, but each 
is a smoke screen to hide the fact that the back door has been opened 
for businesses to plead their case in private after losing before an 
agency. The issue in this case was not the paperwork, but 
[[Page H2022]]  the content of the sign. Plain and simple, business did 
not want to tell their employees about the hazards at the workplace.
  The content and context of the Dole case make most reasonable people 
worry about giving more power to OMB. If OMB will cancel requirements 
to post the presence of hazardous chemicals, what else will they do? 
Will this authority be used to cancel notification on the safety of 
children's toys? Will it be used to remove the hazard warnings from 
packs of cigarettes? If the safety of the work place is not beyond 
reach, then very little is.
  Of course, others greet this expanded authority with gusto. They have 
something to gain. If the government requires something of you, and you 
have the necessary political clout, you needn't worry. A brief visit to 
the proper officials by the appropriately connected lobbyists will 
relieve your burden. There will be no questions about scientific 
evidence. There will be no public forum in which the ideas must be 
defended. Instead there will be a quiet meeting in a room off to the 
side where deals are struck. No records will be kept, and there will be 
no paper trail. After all, we're reducing paperwork here.
  The pesticides and herbicides that farmers use are labeled to warn of 
the hazards of exposure to the skin or by breathing. Are we going to 
put farmers at risk in the name of paperwork reduction?
  Day-in and day-out the American worker is exposed to hazards at the 
work place. And as manufacturing gets more complicated those hazards 
increase. The process of refining petroleum, making plastic, etching 
silicon chips for computers each involve potentially toxic chemicals. 
The workers in these industries have a right to know what risks 
surround them.
  Let there be no mistake about it. Overturning the Dole decision 
creates the opportunity for OMB to keep workers in the dark about those 
dangers. My amendment merely preserves the current law on this issue. 
History has taught us that despite the many benefits of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act, it can be abused. There is no reason to overturn the 
Supreme Court decision that ensured workers the right to know about 
hazards at the workplace.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support for my amendment.
                              {time}  1650

  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, regrettably, I must oppose the gentlewoman's amendment.
  One of the really important accomplishments, I think, of H.R. 830 is 
that it overturns the Dole decision and includes third-party disclosure 
requirements within the provisions of the bill.
  The basic reasons, the fundamental reasons for insuring that third-
party disclosure requirements are clearly within the scope of the act 
are really three in nature.
  First, the whole character of Federal information collection has 
changed dramatically since 1980. Increasingly, Federal agencies across 
the board are using third-party disclosure requirements to meet their 
program needs. Instead of directly collecting, processing, and 
disseminating the information itself, they have increasingly turned to 
require third parties to collect that information and transmit it. 
Third-party disclosure has increased partly because agencies which have 
had limited resources to collect and analyze information--and I think 
that capability clearly is going to be even less in the future; they 
will have even more limited resources to collect and analyze 
information--these agencies have discovered that their program 
objectives can be met by requiring private parties to provide 
information directly to the intended beneficiary or to the enforcer, 
which, in effect, totally eliminates the Federal middle man in this 
operation. It becomes a federally directed, unfunded mandate by saying, 
``We don't have the resources to collect this information and transmit 
it, so we are going to impose that requirement on you to collect it and 
transmit it because we don't have to be concerned where you get the 
resources to do this with.''
  So in order to decrease the direct cost of government services, 
agencies may also adopt third-party disclosure in the form of self-
certification and recordkeeping by private entities to replace 
extensive information collections.
  And the third reason, Mr. Chairman, why I think this reversal of the 
Dole decision is important to be included in this legislation is that 
the Federal Government has dramatically increased the use of third-
party disclosure by having private institutions and individuals report 
to State and local governments, again totally leaving the Federal 
Government out of the loop.
  States, for example, are often charged with the responsibility for 
implementing and enforcing Federal program requirements with extensive 
information collection. In such situations, the Federal agency may not 
actually receive the information that is collected, but require the 
States to retain the reports and the public for possible State or 
Federal inspection or having States send the Federal agency only a 
summary of the information reported to them.
  So, we have really gotten this whole process fairly far distantly 
removed from the actual Federal involvement, processing, evaluating of 
the information that is being collected.
  So, Mr. Chairman, Federal paperwork burdens, as we all agree, are 
skyrocketing and the language contained in this bill is designed to 
close a very, very wide loophole, one that, as I say, we have not 
reauthorized this whole bill since 1989. This is an opportunity to do 
that.
  It is also an opportunity to make clear that where third-party 
reporting is required, paperwork reduction requirements will apply to 
those as well as paperwork that is collected directly by the Federal 
Government itself.
  For those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I must oppose the gentlewoman's 
amendment and urge a vote against the amendment.
  Mr. MASCARA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the required number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this important amendment 
offered by the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins].
  As I mentioned during committee consideration of this amendment, I 
know first-hand the importance of enforcing health and safety laws 
which protect workers from dangers on the job.
  My father was a steel worker who died as a result of a work-related 
injury. And I represent thousands of workers who toil daily in the 
steel industry and mining industries.
  These are dangerous jobs and these workers face many hazards. They 
deserve laws that protect, not the provisions contained in H.R. 830 
which would deny them their right to know and be informed about safety 
and health hazards in the workplace.
  The language contained in H.R. 830 would in a few lines overturn an 
important worker-safety decision handed down by the Supreme Court in 
1990 in Dole vs. The United Steelworkers of America.
  After 9 years of struggle, the steelworkers urged and got the top 
Court in this land to agree that companies had to provide so-called 
third party notices to their workers to make them aware of potential 
exposure to chemical and safety hazards in the workplace.
  I find it amazing that in an effort to ensure that every last 
collection and disclosure requirement is covered by the Office of 
Management and Budget, the committee's bill so blatantly throws out 
this important protection for workers.
  Most of the notifications involved here, Mr. Chairman, are simple 
notices posted on worker bulletin boards. We are not talking about any 
great or burdensome requirements. We are simply telling workers 
``beware.''
  In his opinion on Dole, Justice Brennan wrote, ``Disclosure rules 
protect by providing access to information about what dangers exist and 
how they can be avoided.''
  Let us not take this important protection away from workers. I urge 
those who say they care about working men and women to support the 
Collins amendment.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  [[Page H2023]] I think it is very important that the bill go forward 
as it was originally passed from committee and that we retain in there 
the language that would reverse that Supreme Court case.
  Let me make it very clear that these type disclosures could indeed go 
forward. All that our legislation would now require is that they be 
reviewed by OMB to make sure that we do not have unnecessary and 
burdensome disclosures to third parties.
  I received a letter from the National Federation of Independent 
Businesses, who have indicated that they strongly oppose this 
amendment. They believe that the requirements for unchecked disclosure 
and paperwork fall disproportionately upon small businesses in this 
country and that on behalf of their 600 members they are urging Members 
of Congress to vote against this amendment and have indeed indicated 
that they would have it as a key vote in their ratings of how Congress 
Members vote in support of small businesses.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge us to vote against this amendment and retain the 
bill in its full form.
  Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the 
gentlelady from Illinois. This amendment will remove from the bill the 
provision which would overturn the 1990 Supreme Court decision in the 
Dole versus United Steelworkers case.
  The Paperwork Reduction Act can be an appropriate response to the 
problem of excess government forms, surveys, and paperwork collected by 
government for its own use. I support the ability of OMB to develop 
uniform information policies for government agencies in order to 
reconcile unnecessary and redundant information requests. However, the 
dissemination of vital information from private entities to the public 
is a completely different matter.
  Without this amendment we will be expanding the powers of the federal 
government, specifically OMB, to regulate non-governmental third 
parties. Prior to the Dole decision, OMB was able to function as a 
``super regulator''--utilizing ideologically-driven actions to override 
the scientific and technical determinations of regulatory agencies. In 
one case, OMB sought to diminish the worker safety requirements of the 
Hazard Communications Standard which had been promulgated by OSHA. The 
Hazard Communications Standard required that companies compile 
``material safety data sheets'' to disclose what hazardous materials 
are present in the workplace.
  It was because of the MSDS requirement that employees of a small 
metals processor were able to correct a dangerous situation in their 
workplace. This company used a variety of chemicals, including 
potassium cyanide, which was stored in close proximity to acidic 
cleaning solutions. When cyanide is mixed with acid, the result is a 
release of deadly hydrogen cyanide gas. Using a MSDS, the union was 
able to work with the company to identify the products with acids and 
isolate them from cyanide, so that a spill would not lead to a major 
accident.
  Overturning Dole will do nothing to make government more responsive 
or less wasteful. Instead, it would reestablish OMB as a federal 
``superagency'', able to indiscriminantly use nonscientific political 
or economic judgments with little or no accountability. I support real 
regulatory reform, but giving OMB arbitrary power over all regulatory 
agencies is not my idea of reform.
                              {time}  1700

  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  (Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I voted for this bill in 
committee, and this amendment corrects one of the oversights that I 
noticed in the bill that we lost on it in committee. I support the 
amendment offered by my distinguished ranking member, the gentlewoman 
from Illinois [Mrs. Collins].
  As currently written, the bill will overturn a 1990 Supreme Court 
decision that assures workers of their right to know about hazards in 
the workplace.
  In the Dole versus U.S. Steelworkers case the Supreme Court said that 
the OMB had no authority to block another agency's decision that 
businesses disclose information on health and safety to their employees 
or the public.
  The specific matter in the Dole case was an OSHA regulation that 
required employers to make sure that their employees were told of 
potential hazards posed by chemicals in the workplace.
  Justice William Brennan wrote:

       Because Congress expressed concern only for the burden 
     imposed by requirements to provide information to a federal 
     agency, and not for any burden imposed by requirements to 
     provide information to a third party, OMB review of 
     disclosure rules would not further this congressional aim.

  By a 7-2 margin the Court upheld the agency's right of action in this 
case. Among those supporting the decision were Justices Scalia, 
O'Connor, and Kennedy.
  Supporters of this provision will argue that the existence of 
questionable regulations prove that the right-to-know is an outmoded 
concept. I do not believe that protecting the safety of workers in the 
refineries in my district is an outmoded concept.
  I do not believe that protecting the safety of the workers and the 
retirees in my district is an outmoded concept. These employees and 
these workers have a right to know, and I would hope that in--to 
sacrifice them in this bill in the reduction of paperwork that we could 
really have both ways. We can protect those workers with the right to 
know and still have the effect to reduce paperwork.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 170, 
noes 254, not voting 10, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 155]

                               AYES--170

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                FLOOR PROCEDURE IN THE 104TH CONGRESS--Continued1Bill No.Doylee1Resolution No.1Process used for floor consideration1Amendments in order
l No.Doylee1Resolution No.1Process used for floor consideration1Amendments in order
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--254

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     [[Page H2024]] Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Browder
     Dickey
     Ehlers
     Fattah
     Gonzalez
     Hall (OH)
     Meek
     Radanovich
     Rush
     Whitfield

                              {time}  1722

  Mr. WICKER and Ms. DANNER changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. NEY changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                      announcement by the chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair announces that future votes will be limited 
to 17 minutes.
  Are there further amendments to the bill?


               amendment offered by Mrs. Meyers of Kansas

  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Meyers of Kansas: Page 29, after 
     line 24, insert the following new subparagraph:
       ``(F) indicates for each recordkeeping requirement the 
     length of time persons are required to maintain the records 
     specified;
       Redesignate the subsequent subparagraphs of the proposed 
     section 3506(c)(3) accordingly.

  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Kansas?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak just very 
briefly about the importance of this bill to small business.
  (Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to be a 
cosponsor of this legislation. Much work has gone into this legislation 
during the past two Congresses by the Committee on Small Business and 
the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. This bill has been 
developed on a bipartisan basis and has received considerable 
bipartisan support.
  I would like to point out particularly the strong support within the 
small business community for this legislation. We have had several 
hearings on this legislation, and this bill has a broad base of support 
from the Paperwork Reduction Act Coalition, which includes some 75 
trade, professional, and citizen associations.
  Small business organizations, such as the National Federation of 
Independent Business, National Small Business United, the Small 
Business Legislative Council, U.S. Chamber, and the National 
Association of Manufacturers, all of whom are members of this 
coalition, have independently indicated they will highlight a vote for 
this bill as an important pro-business, pro-small business vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to propose an amendment today that I think 
will improve this legislation. The amendment that I propose regards 
recordkeeping requirements. Simply put, my amendment would require all 
recordkeeping requirements to indicate how long records must be kept. 
Section 3506(c) of the bill states what agencies must do to check the 
need and practical utility of a proposed collection of information by a 
Federal agency before the public is asked to maintain or provide 
information.
  What my amendment does is explicitly add the requirement that all 
recordkeeping requirements, which are elsewhere in the bill defined as 
a type of collection of information, contain how long the specified 
records are to be kept.
  This is a commonsense step. Witnesses before the Committee on Small 
Business have repeatedly recommended that the Paperwork Reduction Act 
be explicit on this point.
  Testimony on behalf of the Association of Record Managers and 
Administrators, a professional association specializing in the 
management of records, has suggested that this requirement will save 
taxpayers billions of dollars in wasted storage and maintenance costs.
  The failure to make clear how long records must be kept causes 
everyone to hold on to records way past their usefulness. This is 
particularly true of small businesses who often do not have the 
resources to hire accountants and lawyers or professional managers to 
determine how long their records must be kept and frequently they do 
not have the space to keep them.
  This amendment is supported by the Paperwork Reduction Act Coalition, 
a broad-based coalition of some 75 business, professional, and citizen 
associations. The coalition includes a number of small business groups, 
which I have previously named.
  I believe this amendment is noncontroversial. It will save taxpayers 
money. I understand the administration has no objection to it, and I 
urge my colleagues to adopt it.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment I propose regards recordkeeping 
requirements. Simply put, my amendment will require all recordkeeping 
requirements to indicate how long records must be kept.
  Section 3506(c) of the bill states what agencies must do to check the 
need and practical utility of a proposed collection of information by a 
Federal agency before the public is asked to maintain or provide 
information. What my amendment does is explicitly add the requirements 
that all recordkeeping requirements, which are elsewhere in the bill 
defined as a type of collection of information, contain how long the 
specified records are to be kept.
  This is a commonsense step. Witnesses before the Small Business 
Committee have repeatedly recommended that the Paperwork Reduction Act 
be explicit on this point. Testimony on behalf of the Association of 
Records Managers and Administrators, a professional association 
specializing in the management of records, has suggested that this 
requirement will save taxpayers billions of dollars in wasted storage 
and maintenance costs. The failure to make clear how long records must 
be kept causes everyone to hold on to records way past their 
usefulness. This is particularly true of small businesses who often do 
not have the resources to hire accountants, lawyers, or professional 
managers to determine how long their records must be kept.

                           *   *   *   *   *

  I believe H.R. 830 will reverse the erosion that has occurred in 
recent years. It will strengthen the small business community's ability 
to reduce unnecessary regulations.
  Let me point to the strong support within the small business 
community for this legislation. This bill has a broad base of support 
from a 
[[Page H2025]]  Paperwork Reduction Act Coalition, which includes some 
75 trade, professional, and citizen associations. Small business 
organizations such as National Federation of Independent Businesses, 
National Small Business United, the Small Business Legislative Counsel, 
the U.S. Chamber and the National Association of Manufacturers, who are 
members of the Coalition, have independently indicated they will 
highlight a vote for this bill as an important pro-small business vote.
  I want to again commend the work of Chairman Clinger on this 
legislation. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of H.R. 830.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentlewoman for this 
amendment. We have had a chance to review the amendment. I think it 
makes a valuable addition to the measure.
  As the gentlewoman indicated, the administration has no objection and 
actually would support this. I know that the gentlewoman held hearings 
and this amendment was fashioned out of the hearings that were held on 
this matter. So we would be pleased to accept the amendment of the 
gentlewoman.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, the minority has reviewed 
the amendment. We have no objection, and we support the amendment. We 
think it is a good amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there any further debate on the amendment?
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
Kansas [Mrs. Meyers].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    amendment offered by mr. sanders

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Sanders: On page 13, after line 9, 
     add:
       (6) Place an emphasis on minimizing the burden on small 
     businesses with 50 or fewer employees.
       On page 30, after line 16, add:
       (4) Place an emphasis on minimizing the burden on small 
     businesses with 50 or fewer employees.

  Mr. SANDERS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Vermont?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment was brought up at the 
committee level. I believe it now has the support of the majority.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is entirely consistent with the overall 
purpose of updating and revising the Paper Work Reduction Act. It is 
time for us to revisit and strike a new balance between the collection 
of vital information and the increased costs of doing business in the 
global marketplace.
  At the same time, I think we need to focus the attention and the 
limited resources of OMB and other Federal agencies on reducing 
burdensome paperwork on those it is hurting the most--the smallest 
businesses that can least afford the time, personnel, and additional 
costs associated with meeting all of the Federal Government's 
regulatory and reporting requirements.
  My amendment does just that. It requires the Director of the Office 
of Information and Regulatory Affairs within OMB to make it a priority 
to first consider the adverse effects on the smallest of small 
businesses--those employing 50 or fewer employees--when directing and 
overseeing efforts to cut Federal paperwork and information reporting. 
Currently, the Small Business Administration typically defines a small 
business as one that employs 500 or fewer employees.
  This amendment also makes helping the smallest of small businesses a 
priority for voluntary pilot projects when OMB, other Federal agencies 
and non-Federal entities test alternative policies, practices, 
regulations, and procedures to reduce the Federal paperwork burden.
  A few weeks ago I met with small business leaders from all across 
Vermont where most businesses have 10 or fewer employees. Repeatedly 
they expressed two overriding concerns: First, SBA and other Federal 
agencies don't appreciate the different problems and comparative risks 
confronting different-sized small businesses, and second, Uncle Sam 
does not pay his bills on time, thus making it very hard for small 
businesses with limited cashflow to sell goods and services to the 
Federal Government.
  With this amendment and other provisions in this bill we can tackle 
both of these problems.
  In conclusion, we live in a time when the Federal Government must 
learn to do more with less. Therefore, in setting out to cut Federal 
regulatory costs and paperwork for American businesses, we should first 
strive to help the truly vulnerable small enterprises who operate mush 
closer to the margin and whose survival is always in greater jeopardy.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SANDERS. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, indeed, I would confirm what the gentleman 
from Vermont said. I think it is a good amendment. It did arise during 
our hearing, during the markup. We have worked with the gentleman on 
crafting the language, which I think now is a valuable addition. We are 
pleased to accept the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the committee very 
much, and I thank his staff for their support as well.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?
                   amendment offered by Mrs. maloney

  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Maloney: At the end of the bill, 
     add the following new section:

     SEC.  . SUNSET.

       (a) Repeal of Chapter.--Chapter 35 of title 44, United 
     States Code, is repealed.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of chapters at the 
     beginning of title 44, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking the item relating to chapter 35.
       (c) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect 5 years 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.

  Mrs. MALONEY (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, the Paperwork Reduction Act provides for 
permanent authorization for the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs.
  My amendment will place a limit on this authorization, by sunsetting 
the agency after 5 years. This should not be a controversial amendment. 
Both Democrats and Republicans support the intent of this legislation: 
to reduce the unnecessary paperwork for businesses, citizens, and 
government.
  My amendment would force Congress to re-evaluate the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs by a date certain. After 5 years, 
Congress could decide if it, too, is creating unnecessary paperwork. We 
should force the agency to prove to Congress and the American taxpayer 
that it is actually meeting its objective, and based on our 
conclusions, we could reauthorize it, or decide that the agency has 
completed its mission and is no longer needed.
  Or decide that it is just another Federal bureaucracy in need of a 
mercy killing. This body should have the option to make those 
decisions. But if we give this agency a permanent authorization, we 
will make it more difficult to make those decisions.
  And if proponents of term limits have their way, many of us may not 
be here to participate in those decisions.
  If some of my colleagues support sunsetting a Member's elected 
service after 6 years, why wouldn't that person support sunsetting a 
Federal bureaucracy after 5 years?
  Mr. Chairman, sunsetting this agency will also allow Congress to take 
into account new technologies developed over the next 5 years. 
Information technology is moving very quickly. It's impossible for us 
to anticipate the new means by which data will be collected and made 
available to the public.
  Five years from now, the technology that we use today might be 
obsolete. It might even make paperwork obsolete. Consider how out-of-
date technology from 1990 appears today.
  [[Page H2026]] In 1990, very few people had even heard of something 
like the Internet or America Online, so we must be flexible.
  Mr. Chairman, just yesterday the Committee on Government Reform held 
a hearing on reinventing government--how to make it work better, 
smarter, and with less resources. We heard how hard it was to replace 
regulations and bureaucracies that have outlived their usefulness.
  The administration received bipartisan praise for trying to get rid 
of the useless redtape. On the House floor, my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle insist there is too much Government, and too many 
Government bureaucracies.
  So I ask my colleagues, why create yet another Federal agency with a 
permanent authorization?
  It just does not make sense.
  I'll give you an example: In the coming weeks and months, my 
Republican colleagues may promote legislation to abolish enormous 
Federal agencies, like the Department of Education. They might win. 
They might lose. But either way, they are going to have a titanic 
battle on their hands.
  All my amendment says is let us install a simple mechanism to make 
eliminating this new Federal agency much easier.
  If my Republican colleagues truly believe in reducing the Federal 
bureaucracy, they should welcome this amendment with open arms. I urge 
my colleagues--on both sides of the aisle--to support it.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I must rise in opposition to the amendment of the 
gentlewoman from New York. I think as a general proposition, Mr. 
Chairman, I do support limited authorizations, but I think for every 
rule there has to be an exception. I would submit that this is one of 
those times.
  The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, as we are hearing 
during this debate, performs a very, very vital service. Beyond 
implementing the Paperwork Reduction Act, which is a primary part of 
its responsibility, they also are charged with bringing a degree of 
sanity to the rulemaking process of the Federal Government. Basically, 
it is the nerve center of the regulatory control process in the Federal 
Government.
  Like its counterpart, the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, OIRA 
needs a permanent authorization, and I would say that when we had a 
hearing on this matter the director of OIRA testified in support of a 
permanent authorization for that agency. Those Members who support 
strong efforts to limit Government regulatory burdens I would suggest 
should vote no on this amendment.
  I also oppose the amendment due to the fact that, really, there has 
been a lack of comity that the House has shown in reauthorizing this 
important agency. Since the authorization expired, and it expired in 
1989. Until this year, 6 years, not a single hearing has been held on 
the reauthorization of OIRA.
  During the last Congress our colleagues in the other body passed a 
Paperwork Reduction Act very similar to the one that we are dealing 
with here today, which was supported by each and every Member of the 
Senate. It was unanimously passed by the other body.
  An identical bill was introduced in this House with over 120 
bipartisan cosponsors of that measure, and the gentleman from Virginia 
[Mr. Sisisky] who was a prime cosponsor of that measure, and I tried to 
move that piece of legislation through the House, and not a single 
hearing was held on the matter.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CLINGER. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, if I understand the distinguished 
gentleman's statement in support of not sunsetting this, it is that the 
head of the agency involved here does not think the agency should have 
temporary authorization?
  Mr. CLINGER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I recognize that the 
director of an agency would have a special interest, but I think she 
also does reflect why there is a need for a permanent authorization, 
because there needs to be some sort of continuity in the regulatory 
control process.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I was 
just curious as to whether the gentleman had ever met a head of an 
agency or Government bureau anywhere that did not think it should be 
permanent.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comment, but 
I would say that the director of the agency also, I think, is entitled 
to have her opinion considered as to why it is necessary that she have 
that permanent authorization.
  Mr. Chairman, if limited authorization means that the House can 
virtually ignore the subject of reauthorization, which I think is what 
we are dealing with here, then I must support permanent authority for 
this most important agency, and I would urge my colleagues to oppose 
this amendment.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I yield to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman].
  (Mr. COLEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the pending 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 830 carries the benign title of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act. In many respects, the legislation is crafted to achieve 
the important goal described by that title. It reauthorizes the 
paperwork review and approval activities of the Office of Information 
and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget. 
Furthermore, it amends the 1980 Paperwork Reduction Act in order to 
reduce further Federal paperwork requirements and enhance Federal 
information management. These are important goals, and have widespread 
support on both sides of the aisle. Taken alone, these measures could 
provide important relief from a frequently burdensome Federal paperwork 
requirement in both the public and private sector.
  Unfortunately, these important measures are offered in tandem with 
provisions that amend the Paperwork Reduction Act's definition of 
``collection of information'' to include ``disclosure to third parties 
or the public'' of information. This unreasonably expanded definition 
would have the practical result of overturning the 1990 Supreme Court 
Case Dole versus United Steelworkers of America, which prohibits the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs from reviewing proposed 
Federal regulations requiring businesses to disclose certain 
information to parties other than the Government agency collecting the 
information. Under the definition of ``collection of information'' 
proposed in H.R. 830, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 
would be allowed to review, and possibly reject, regulations that 
require businesses and Government agencies to disclose information to 
affected parties, including their own employees or the public.
  This portion of the bill may indeed serve to reduce the amount of 
paperwork that a business or local government has to do. But it also 
has the potential to expose workers and the public to untold dangers. 
Indeed, as the Dole case vividly illustrates, such instances have 
occurred in the past. H.R. 830 is supposed to be aimed at eliminating 
unnecessary paperwork. Unfortunately, this provision will result in the 
elimination of paperwork that is very necessary to the protection of 
employees and the pubic.
  Representative Collins has proposed an amendment that would strike 
provisions of the bill that extends the definition of the phrase 
``collection of information'' to subsume requirements for third party 
disclosures. Because the Collins amendment thereby eliminates the 
unnecessary dangers posed by certain provisions of H.R. 830, it 
deserves strong bipartisan support. If the bill passes without this 
amendment, H.R. 830 will jeopardize workers and the American public. 
Countless individuals will not be informed about dangerous working 
conditions or the safety threats posed by a product should such 
warnings be deemed burdensome paperwork requirements by the OIRA. 
Therefore, I urge support for the Collins amendment. Without that 
amendment, this bill is no longer a good idea; it is a dangerous one.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act. I think it is a good step forward, but I also rise in 
support of the gentlewoman's amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, as I listen to the distinguished chairman argue against 
the amendment, I heard not one argument that was any different than 
that that comes from any government bureaucrat in his commitment or her 
commitment to the permanence of the Government agency.
  There are some of us who think that just because a government 
bureaucrat thinks that a bureau should go on forever, that that is not 
reason enough. 
[[Page H2027]]  Certainly, the director's opinion should be considered. 
It ought to be considered when this agency comes up for sunset review 
to determine whether it should continue.

                              {time}  1740

  Just the fact that it is sunsetted does not mean that it is 
automatically abolished if it can make a good case for its 
continuation. It makes sense that when we have these new Government 
initiatives, whether they are good initiatives like this one or not so 
good initiatives, that we set up a process as the gentlewoman would do 
through her amendment to automatically review every one of these 
programs.
  There are unintended consequences of the best-intentioned government 
program. It is just the nature of life that events change, that 
consequences that were never anticipated occur, and sunset is a way to 
ensure that we address these matters.
  There are a couple of ways that we can handle this. The approach 
advanced, which is the traditional approach of this Congress against 
sunset, is that, ``Well, we'll put the burden on the people that are 
against a new government program to come in and convince us to abolish 
it.''
  Under sunset under the approach advocated by the gentlewoman, the 
approach shifts the burden where it should be. The burden to keep 
Government going forever ought to be on the people that want the 
Government, not the people that want less Government.
  Under the sunset amendment that is advanced here today, we would 
shift the burden to where it rightfully belongs. Sunset will build into 
the process a scheduled time at which the Congress will review this 
program and determine if it sounds as good then after we have seen it 
in practice as it sounds today.
  If the Government initiative fails, we will not be stuck with it 
forever, regardless of whichever bureaucrat is in charge of the agency 
thinks it is a good idea at that time or not. Sunset will compel this 
Congress to automatically review this program or it will expire.
  I find it not a little bit ironic, Mr. Chairman, that the only sunset 
initiatives that have been advanced in this Congress have been rejected 
by those who are today celebrating that they have a contract for a less 
burdensome, less intrusive, and more limited Government. What on this 
50th day of the Congress could be more consistent with that than the 
whole approach of sunset, that government bureaus ought not to last 
forever, that these new initiatives, no matter how well-intentioned, 
ought not to last forever and that we ought to put a fixed life after 
which they will be reviewed.
  We think of Government on this side of the aisle as not being in 
permanent terms but being limited and that is what the sunset process 
is all about. That is what this amendment will accomplish.
  I am all for reducing paperwork. Goodness knows, we have plenty of 
paperwork around here. The only thing that I know that has exceeded the 
paperwork has been the hyperbole and the rhetoric about all that was 
being done to get Government under control. Yet this most effective 
mechanism, the sunset mechanism, which we can now place on this 
Paperwork Reduction Act, would be the best way to apply it not only 
here but to set a precedent today in applying it to this act that every 
time we have new Government initiatives, every time we have new 
Government regulations, they will not go on forever, we will review 
them, we will concentrate on the laws we pass, not just on passing more 
laws.
  I urge a vote for the Paperwork Reduction Act but to improve it with 
the Maloney amendment. I congratulate the gentlewoman on the excellent 
work that she has done on this amendment.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, the Maloney amendment would place a 5-year 
authorization on OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, or 
IRA, which is the key agency charged with implementing the regulatory 
reduction goals of the Contract With America. Not a single hearing has 
been held on reauthorization of IRA since its current authority expired 
in 1989. We are making sure it does continue. Even the Clinton 
administration supports permanent authority for IRA.
  I appreciate the fine work of the gentlewoman from New York and what 
she has done in committee. But we need to ensure that the paperwork 
reduction reforms that we have here in this bill continue unimpeded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 17-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 156, 
noes 265, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 156]

                               AYES--156

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Yates

                               NOES--265

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     [[Page H2028]] Paxon
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Browder
     Coburn
     Collins (IL)
     Ehlers
     Fattah
     Gonzalez
     Kleczka
     Meek
     Payne (VA)
     Radanovich
     Rush
     Stenholm
     Waxman

                              {time}  1801

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mrs. Collins of Illinois for, with Mr. Radonovich against.

  Mr. SHAYS changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. SCHUMER changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, what I would like to do is engage in a colloquy with 
the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Clinger.]
  Mr. Chairman, I want to commend you for all of your fine work on H.R. 
830, the Paperwork Reduction Act. Your leadership on this issue is much 
appreciated especially by those of us on the committee where you have 
listened to all of the amendments and discussions.
  Mr. Chairman, again, to the chairman of the committee, we really are 
grateful for the courtesy extended to all of the members of the 
committee and the suggestions that he has responded to.
  I would like to engage in a colloquy about one section of the bill 
that has been brought to my attention by some of my constituents, 
section 3506(d)(4). As you know, Mr. Chairman, this section of the bill 
would permit the Office of Management and Budget to waive the cost of 
dissemination rule regarding information dissemination to the public. I 
know that you share my belief that the Federal Government should not be 
in the business of profiting from its information resources and that 
the report language in H.R. 830 reflects your convictions in this 
regard and, further, Mr. Chairman, I know that you are committed to 
refining the language in this section in the conference committee.
  The report language states very clearly that the user fee waiver 
provision exists in the bill only to provide some flexibility in the 
event of unforeseen rare instances where there is a compelling need for 
a user fee, a compelling need, and that compelling need, Mr. Chairman, 
is to be directly related to the information in question rather than to 
any fiscal motivation on the part of Federal agencies.
  Is that your understanding of the provision, Mr. Chairman?
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MORELLA. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman is absolutely correct.
  Mrs. MORELLA. And also, in other words, Mr. Chairman, the committee 
is in no way authorizing the Office of Management and Budget to 
routinely permit the levying of broad user fees aimed at earning 
revenues for the Federal Government and, on the contrary, the committee 
has specifically stated in its report that the granting of waivers will 
be rare and that the authorized terms and conditions will narrowly 
circumscribe any waivers? Is that correct?
  Mr. CLINGER. If the gentlewoman will yield further, that is 
absolutely correct. This is not a fundraising device. This is purely a 
very rare and probably exceptional kind of situation that might arise 
where an agency would be entitled to retain some of the funds, but it 
requires a very difficult procedure to get that approval and would be 
used in only exceptionally rare circumstances.
  Mrs. MORELLA. I appreciate the gentleman stating this for the record, 
and I know that you are committed to aggressively pursuing the intent 
of this bill with regard to this section and that the committee will 
act swiftly to curb any abuses of the provision.
  I thank the gentleman very much for this very important 
clarification.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?


                     amendment offered by mr. crapo

  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Crapo: Page 48, strike line 24 and 
     all that follows through line 8 on page 49, and insert the 
     following:
       ``(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person 
     shall be subject to any penalty for failing to maintain or 
     provide information to any agency if the collection of 
     information involved was made after December 31, 1981, and at 
     the time of the failure did not display a current control 
     number assigned by the Director, or fails to state that such 
     request is not subject to this chapter.
       ``(b) Actions taken by agencies which are not in compliance 
     with subsection (a) of this section shall give rise to a 
     complete defense or bar to such action by an agency, which 
     may be raised at any time during the agency decision making 
     process or judicial review of the agency decision under any 
     available process for judicial review.

  Mr. CRAPO (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Idaho?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman and Members of the House, we have heard a lot 
about the important need for the Paperwork Reduction Act in the 
legislation we are considering today. This amendment will give that 
legislation and that law some teeth to truly protect the private 
citizens in the United States.
  Currently section 3512 of the act requires that before a regulation 
involving the collection of information can be effective that it must 
be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget and receive an OMB 
control number. When Congress enacted this legislation in 1981, it 
specifically included this public protection provision to prevent the 
unauthorized regulatory requirements from being imposed on the public. 
It was bipartisan legislation.
  I would like to quote to you what its lead sponsors at that time said 
about it. Senator Danforth said if an information request goes out of 
Washington without being approved by the paperwork watchdog, the person 
who gets it does not have to answer it. Senator Chiles said a properly 
cleared form will have an Office of Management and Budget number in the 
right corner and if it is not there, it is going to be a bootleg form 
and everybody should be on notice that they can throw out that form, 
that they would not have to fill it out.
  Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to clarify that when 
an agency does not comply with the provisions of this act that its 
failure to comply is a complete defense to the enforcement of the 
regulations that violate the act.
  The National Federation of Independent Businesses has been strongly 
in support of this approach. We would like to have inserted a private 
cause of action, but since that was not relevant to the germaneness of 
this bill, we have created a defense or a bar to action by the agency.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CRAPO. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and 
would commend him on his effort. I think it does represent an 
improvement to the bill. It strengthens the bill. It recognizes that 
small business is particularly impacted by this overkill that we have 
on regulations and gives them some protection against this kind of 
activity.
  So we are pleased to accept the amendment on behalf of the majority.
  [[Page H2029]] Mr. CRAPO. I thank the gentleman.

                              {time}  1810

  Mr. CRAPO. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CRAPO. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, the minority has reviewed the amendment, and we have no 
objections.
  Mr. CRAPO. I thank the gentleman. I appreciate that.
  Mr. Chairman, if this amendment passes, then it will make it clear to 
the agencies, the regulators and the courts in this country, that we 
must start taking this act seriously.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill? If not, under 
the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Ney) having assumed the chair, Mr. Combest, Chairman of the Committee 
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 830) to amend 
chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code, to further the goals of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act to have Federal agencies become more 
responsible and publicly accountable for reducing the burden of Federal 
paperwork on the public, and for other purposes, pursuant to House 
Resolution 91, he reported the bill back to the House with sundry 
amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment adopted by the Committee 
of the Whole? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken, and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 418, 
noes 0, answered ``present'' 6, not voting 11, as follows:
                             [Roll No 157]

                               AYES--418

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--6

     Becerra
     Coleman
     Owens
     Roybal-Allard
     Velazquez
     Watt (NC)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Browder
     Collins (IL)
     Ehlers
     Fattah
     Gonzalez
     Meek
     Rush
     Stenholm
     Volkmer
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman

                              {time}  1833

  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Mr. WATT of North Carolina, and Ms. VELAZQUEZ 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``present.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  

                          ____________________