[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 41 (Monday, March 6, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3504-S3510]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT OF 1995
The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 244, the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995. This legislation was, this year as last year,
reported out unanimously from the Committee on Governmental Affairs,
reflecting the bipartisan efforts of Senators Nunn, Glenn, and myself.
The legislation reaffirms the fundamental purpose of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1980--to reduce the paperwork burden imposed on the
public by the Federal Government. But it does much more. It increases
the scope of the act by 50 percent in overturning the Supreme Court's
decision in Dole v. United Steelworkers of America. In that case the
Supreme Court surprised many of us who had worked on fashioning this
legislation by limiting OMB's authority to review Government
collections of information only to those instances where the paperwork
flowed from a private party to the Government and thus excluded
instances where the Government requires information to be provided to
another party.
By overturning the Dole case, all paperwork falls under the act and
is thereby subject to review by the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs.
Under the act, each agency--and the act covers all agencies, even
independent agencies--must analyze each information collection for its
need and its practical utility. All such information collections, even
those of independent agencies, must be approved by OIRA before they
become effective.
The legislation also authorizes appropriations for OIRA for 5 more
years at $8 million each year. OIRA is not only the hub of the wheel in
enforcing this act but has come to play a significant role in executing
executive orders on the subject of regulatory review. As we work in
committee to draft comprehensive regulatory reform legislation, it is
clear that OIRA will have even a greater role. This authorization of
greater appropriations is a very important provision.
The paperwork burden produced by Government's enormous appetite for
information is an ever increasing problem. The fact that the problem is
growing does not mean that the efforts under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1980 have not been worthwhile. The problem would have been even
worse without such efforts. The mechanism for reducing burdens cannot
be faulted because Congress passes more laws that generate more
paperwork.
Now, the legislation before us recognizes that an information
collection may be problematic not only because the collection has no
public utility but also because the collector may already have access
to the information and need not bother our citizenry with a request for
the same information. I applaud the efforts of GAO to underscore this
simple truth by highlighting the
[[Page S3505]] benefits of information resources management. This
legislation effectuates the principle that information resources
management and reduction of paperwork burden are two sides of the same
coin. While some may view the two aspects as competing for scarce OIRA
resources, that view is mistaken. The two aspects are inextricably
linked.
This legislation enjoys widespread support among the business
community, both big and small, as well as among State and local
governments and the people, all who bear the burden of Federal
Government paperwork collections. They all will be pleased to see that
this legislation strengthens the paperwork reduction aspects of the act
and that, in particular, it retains the direction of OIRA that it
manage the paperwork burden on the public to achieve a 5-percent annual
reduction.
Paperwork burdens, like other regulatory burdens, are a hidden tax on
the American people--a tax without measure, a tax unrestricted by
budgetary or constitutional limitations, but a tax no less real.
Government paperwork collections are a burden on the public. The
legislation indicates an increased sensitivity to that fact by
requiring each agency to develop a 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 information
collection upon public request. In combination with more general
requirements, such as encouraging data sharing between the Federal
Government and State and local and tribal governments, this legislation
strives to further the goals of the act of minimizing government
information collection burdens while maximizing the utility of
government information.
With regard to the act's over-arching information resources
management--IRM--policies, the legislation charges agency heads with
the responsibility to carry out agency IRM activities to improve 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.
With the Federal Government spending approximately $25 billion a year
on information technology, the stakes are too high not to press for the
most efficient and effective management of information resources. With
such improvements in information resources management, the reduction of
information collection burdens on the public and maximizing the utility
of government information will not otherwise occur.
This legislation is not the final word on the very important subject
of information technology. The committee will be fashioning legislation
later this session to restructure and redesign the Federal Government
for the 21st century. One essential aspect of a modern Federal
Government is the effective use of information technology to better
accomplish public missions at lower costs. We will be back.
Finally, I want to underscore a point to which Senators Glenn, Nunn,
and I gave considerable attention. This legislation is a rewrite of the
1980 act. Its form is necessitated by the number of technical and other
changes made. This form is in no way intended to start a new
legislative history with the 1995 act. Rather, this legislation is only
a pro tanto modification intended to carry on the legislative history
of the 1980 act. The report, at page 3, makes this very same point.
This is an important point. It should be noted by anyone interested in
the legislative history that guides the interpretation of the Paperwork
Reduction Act.
In closing, I wish to commend my colleagues, Senator Glenn and
Senator Nunn, for their cooperation and patience in fashioning
legislation on a very, very complex subject. This legislation, in my
opinion, merits the full support of every Member.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, today, the Senate turns to consideration of
S. 244, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. As the Senator from
Delaware, my good friend, Senator Roth, has already explained, this
bill reauthorizes appropriations for the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs [OIRA] and it strengthens the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1980. This represents years of hard work which began in the
100th Congress.
S. 244 is substantially identical to S. 560, the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1994, which was approved by the Senate, not once but twice in
the closing days of the last Congress. It passed the Senate by
unanimous voice vote on October 6, 1994. the following day, the text of
S. 560 was attached to a House-passed measure, H.R. 2561, and returned
to the House. Unfortunately, it was not cleared for action before the
adjournment of the 103d Congress. The House of Representatives did not
act on it.
Like S. 560 in the last Congress, S. 244 enjoys strong bipartisan
support. Chairman Roth and Senator Glenn are both original cosponsors.
Both have worked long and hard on this needed legislation to strengthen
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 and to reauthorize appropriations
for OIRA. The crafting of a consensus bill in the last Congress was
made possible by the skill and leadership of my friend from Ohio, Mr.
Glenn, and my friend from Delaware, Mr. Roth.
Leading cosponsors of S. 244 also include the new chairman of the
Committee on Small Business, Senator Kit Bond, and the committee's
ranking Democratic member, Senator Bumpers. Former Chairman Bumpers and
successive ranking Republican members of the Committee on Small
Business, including Senators Boschwitz, Kasten, and Pressler, have been
original cosponsors of the predecessor legislation in the 101st and
102d Congress. The Committee on Small Business, of which I am a member
as well as the Governmental Affairs Committee, has played a crucial
supporting role in sustaining the effort to enact legislation to
strengthen the 1980 act. Such support is not surprising since relief
from paperwork and regulatory burdens is vital to the small business
community. It has become a focus of activity for the Committee on Small
Business, the Committee on Governmental Affairs, and several other
committees in the Senate as well as their counterparts in the House of
Representatives.
This year we are being joined by colleagues from both sides of the
aisle, many of whom are present or former members of the Committee on
Small Business as well as the Committee on Governmental Affairs. When
introduced, S. 244 had 21 bipartisan cosponsors. My friend from
Mississippi, Mr. Lott, as inadvertently omitted from the list. He
should have been on the list when it was originally introduced.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Lott be added to
list of original cosponsors to the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. NUNN. Further, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
following Senators be added as additional cosponsors--Senator Stevens,
Senator Akaka, Senator Grassley, Senator Thomas, Senator Cohen, Senator
Thompson, Senator Rockefeller, and Senator D'Amato.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. NUNN. In this Congress, the House of Representatives is decidedly
more receptive to this legislation. A modified version of S. 560 was
included in H.R. 9, the Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act of 1995,
which includes many of the regulatory and paperwork relief provisions
of the Republican Contract With America. Representatives Bill Clinger,
the new chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight, the new name for the Committee on Government Operations, was
the principal Republican cosponsor to H.R. 2995, the House companion to
S. 560 in the last Congress. So he has been working on this a long
time. In this Congress, he introduced H.R. 830, the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, with Representatives Norm Sisisky as the principal
Democratic cosponsor.
[[Page S3506]]
I might add Representative Sisisky has worked on this legislation for
several years with me, including trying last year to get this
legislation through the House in the last couple of weeks of the
session. On February 22, the House passed H.R. 830 by a rollcall vote
of 418-0.
Like the reported version of S. 560 in the last Congress, S. 244 has
the support of the Clinton administration. During testimony before the
House Small Business Committee on Friday, January 27, Sally Katzen,
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
stated the administration's support for S. 244.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 enjoys strong support from the
business community, especially the small business committee. It has the
support of a broad Paperwork Reduction Act coalition, representing
virtually every segment of the business community. Participating in the
coalition are the major national small business associations--the
National Federation of Independent Business [NFIB], the Small Business
Legislative Council [SBLC], and National Small Business United [NSBU],
as well as the many specialized national small business association,
like the American Subcontractors Association, that comprise the
membership of SBLC or NSBU. Other participants represent manufacturers,
aerospace and electronics firms, construction firms, providers of
professional and technical services, retailers of various products and
services, and the wholesalers and distributors who support them.
Leadership for the coalition is being provided by the Council on
Regulatory and Information Management, known as C-RIM and by the U.S
Chamber of Commerce. C-RIM is the new name for the Business Council on
the Reduction of Paperwork, which has dedicated itself to paperwork
reduction and regulatory reform issues for more than a half century.
While he was C-RIM's executive director, Bob Coakley worked tirelessly
on advancing this legislation. Bob came to C-RIM after many years of
service to the Committee on Governmental Affairs, especially for our
former colleague, Lawton Chiles, the father of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1980, when he was in the Senate. Of course he is now Governor of
Florida.
The coalition also includes a number of professional associations and
public interest groups that support strengthening the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1980. These include the Association of Records
Managers and Administrators [ARMA] and Citizens for a Sound Economy
[CSE], to name but two very active coalition members.
Given the regulatory and paperwork burdens faced by State and local
governments, legislation to strengthen the Paperwork Reduction Act is
high on the agenda of the associations representing elected officials.
As Governor of Florida, Lawton Chiles, has worked hard on this issue
within the National Governors Association. During its 1994 annual
meeting, the National Governors Association adopted a resolution in
support of legislation to strengthen the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1980.
The principal purpose of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is to
reaffirm and provide additional tools by which to attain the
fundamental objective of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980--to
minimize the Federal paperwork burdens imposed on individuals,
businesses, especially small businesses, educational and nonprofit
institutions, and State and local governments.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 provides a 5-year reauthorization
of appropriations for the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
[OIRA]. Created by the 1980 act, OIRA serves as the focal point at OMB
for the Act' implementation. OIRA is also the
focal point for the regulatory review process, which is exercised
under an Executive order. As the Congress undertakes its fundamental
changes to the Government processes for the formulation of regulations,
OIRA's role and its broad authorities under the Paperwork Reduction Act
will be become even more obvious.
I would like to highlight just a few of the provisions of the bill.
It reemphasizes the fundamental responsibilities of each Federal agency
to minimize new paperwork burdens by thoroughly reviewing each proposed
collection of information for need and practical utility, the act's
fundamental standards--need and practical utility. The bill makes
explicit the responsibility of each Federal agency to conduct this
review itself, before submitting the proposed collection of information
for public comment and clearance by OIRA in the Office of Management
and Budget.
The bill before us reflects the provisions of S. 560 that further
enhance public participation in the review of paperwork burdens, when
they are first being proposed or when an agency is seeking to obtain
approval to continue to use an existing paperwork requirement.
Strengthening public participation is at the core of the 1980 act and
is strengthened even further in this act.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 maintains the 1980 act's
Governmentwide 5-percent goal for the reduction of paperwork burdens on
the public. Given past experience, some question the effectiveness of
such goals in producing net reductions in Governmentwide paperwork
burdens. The Coalition believe that the bill should reflect individual
agency goals as well. If seriously implemented, the proponents argue
that such agency goals can become an effective restraint on the
cumulative growth of Government-sponsored paperwork burdens. Although
this provision is not in the bill before the committee today, I am
hopeful that it will be strengthened in this manner before becoming
law.
The bill includes amendments to the 1980 act which further empower
members of the public to help police Federal agency compliance with the
act. I would like to describe two of these provisions.
One provision would enable a member of the public to obtain a written
determination from the OIRA Administrator regarding whether a federally
sponsored paperwork requirement is in compliance with the act. If the
agency paperwork requirement is found to be noncompliant, the
Administrator is charged with taking appropriate remedial action. This
provision is based upon a similar process added to the Office of
Federal Procurement Policy Act in 1988.
The second provision encourages members of the public to identify
paperwork requirements that have not been submitted for review and
approval pursuant to the act's requirements. Although the act's public
protection provisions explicitly shield the public from the imposition
of any formal agency penalty for failing to comply with such an
unapproved, or bootleg, paperwork requirement, individuals often feel
compelled to comply. This is especially true when the individual has an
ongoing relationship with the agency and that relationship accords the
agency substantial discretion that could be used to redefine their
future dealings. In other words, leverage. Under S. 244, a member of
the public can blow the whistle on such a bootleg paperwork requirement
and be accorded the protection of anonymity.
Next, I would like to emphasize that the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 clarifies the 1980 act to make explicit that it applies to
Government-sponsored third-party paperwork burdens. These are
recordkeeping, disclosure, or other paperwork burdens that one private
party imposes on another private party at the direction of a Federal
agency. In 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that such Government-
sponsored third-party paperwork burdens were not subject to the
Paperwork Reduction Act.
That was contrary to the authors' original intent as has been often
stated by the Governor of Florida, then-Senator Lawton Chiles.
The Court's decision in Dole versus United Steelworkers of America
created a potentially vast loophole. The public could be denied the
act's protections on the basis of the manner in which a Federal agency
chose to impose a paperwork burden, indirectly rather than directly. It
is worthy of note that Lawton Chiles went to the trouble and expense of
filing an amicus brief to the Supreme Court arguing that no such
exemption for third-party paperwork burdens was intended. Given the
plain works of the statute, the Court decided otherwise. The bill makes
explicit the act's coverage of all Government-sponsored paperwork
burdens. Once this bill is enacted, we can feel confident that this
major loophole
[[Page S3507]] will be closed. But given more than a decade of
experience under the act, it is prudent to remain vigilant to
additional efforts to restrict the act's reach and public protections.
The smart use of information by the Government, and its potential to
minimize the burdens placed on the public, is a core concept of the
1980 act. The information resources management [IRM] provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 build upon the foundation laid more
than a decade ago by our former colleague from Florida. These
provisions of S. 244 are the major contribution of my friend from Ohio,
who has emphasized the potential of improved IRM policies to make
Government more effective in serving the Public.
Mr. President, I would like to recognize the contributions of several
staff members. First, David Plocher, counsel for Senator Glenn, who
along with Tony Coe, an associate counsel in the Office of Senate
Legislative Counsel, did much of the drafting. Next, I would like to
recognize Frank Polk, the committee's Republican staff director, who
assisted Senator Roth over the many years of effort that have gotten us
to this point,
and also on my staff Rocky Rief and Matthew Sikes, who have been
diligent in working on this legislation; and, finally, certainly not
least and probably more than any other individual person, Bill
Montalto, who has provided assistance to me as well as Chairman Bumpers
and the ranking Republican members of the Small Business Committee. In
this and many other efforts Bill has served well many Members of the
Senate, the Committee on Small Business, and indeed the entire small
business community. For 13 years, Bill Montalto has served the Small
Business Committee. Six years prior to that he was in the service of
the U.S. Army. He was there a lawyer and counsel and a logistics
specialist.
I have had an opportunity to work with this remarkable public servant
for all of those 13 years as he served the Small Business Committee. We
have worked on a number of legislative initiatives, such as the mentor-
protege program which is now functioning. On the Federal Acquisition
Streamlining Act, Bill brought his expertise in the small business
arena to bear in that legislation which was passed by the Armed
Services Committee and the Governmental Affairs Committee, and helped
initiate and further small business development centers that are
operating all over the country. Bill was invaluable in his creation of
the concept of developing that legislation. The SBA 504 program, no one
knows more about that program than Bill, and the SBA Preferred Surety
Bond Program and numerous others which have helped our small business
community.
Bill will be leaving the Small Business Committee on the Senate side,
and my understanding is that he will be going to a key position on the
Small Business Committee on the House side. So we will continue,
hopefully, to benefit from his advice and his expertise and his
dedication in all of these areas.
So to Bill Montalto I owe a special debt of gratitude today, and I am
sure Senator Bumpers, who was chairman of the Small Business Committee,
now ranking Democrat, and others who have worked with him would echo my
sentiments expressed here today. I am sure Senator Bond and others who
have worked on this legislation, also, would certainly know that Bill
has done a wonderful job here.
Mr. President, with those comments, I urge my colleagues to pass this
legislation. I hope we can pass it today or certainly tomorrow. And I
hope that we will be able to have a meeting of the minds with the House
and send this bill to the President. It is long overdue. I think it
will help begin to alleviate some of the crushing burden of paperwork
for so much of our business community.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I rise in
support of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, S. 244. As an original
cosponsor, I see this legislation playing a critical role in the
broader initiative to minimize Government regulatory and paperwork
burdens imposed at the Federal level.
I want to say a very special thanks to Chairman Roth for moving this
bill through his committee. We have given his committee the great
blessing of about two-thirds of the urgent legislation to be brought
before the Senate. We thank him for moving this bill forward.
In addition, a very special thanks to the Senator from Georgia [Mr.
Nunn] who has long been a champion of paperwork reduction who has
worked long and hard. With his leadership we passed this several times
in the Senate. As he indicated in his opening remarks, it now looks
like we have a receptive majority in the House. I am hopeful that the
good work that those two friends, as well as the distinguished Senator
from Ohio, Senator Glenn, have put in, along with Senator Bumpers, my
predecessor, will bear fruit.
Small businesses are especially hard hit by excessive regulatory and
paperwork burdens imposed by the Federal bureaucracy. Each time I
return home to my State of Missouri, small business owners come up to
me and say how the unnecessary burdens of Federal regulations are
really crushing them. The Federal requirements too often force these
hard-working men and women and small business owners to divert time,
energy, and their resources away from productive activities, reducing
the competitiveness of the business and impeding their growth.
As chairman of the Small Business Committee, I have had the
opportunity to hear a lot from people around the country in the last
few months. They are the ones who seem to be crying ``enough'' during
last November's election. They have told us they are fed up with
Government that is inefficient and wasteful. They want that to change.
They are unhappy with the Government's failure to meet their
expectations in carrying out its responsibility.
People want Government to work well. Basic governmental functions to
insure we have clean water to drink, safe medicines to take, and safe
food to eat are sought by all Americans. But they look at our
Government today and see an institution that must be brought under
control.
And it is not hard to understand their frustration. The paperwork
burden imposed on Americans in 1993 totaled 6.6 billion hours. Small
businesses alone spend 1 billion hours simply filling out Government
paperwork at an annual cost of $100 billion. Furthermore, Government
regulation costs individuals and businesses more than $500 billion
annually or about $5,000 per family. Just imagine the potential benefit
to our economy if some of this valuable time could have been spent on
product development or sales.
First, let me assure my colleagues that the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 will not impose new regulatory burdens on individuals and
businesses. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, we expect more from the
agencies, not from the public. Whenever an agency imposes a paperwork
requirement, it must estimate the total amount of time needed to
fulfill the requirement. The burden is not merely how long it takes to
complete the Government form, report or survey. A greater burden is
likely to be the time necessary to understand the requirement, identify
the information needed to respond, compile the data, and then submit it
in the required format. It is likely the Government format is vastly
different from how the small business owner maintains the data.
The Council on Regulation and Information Management [C-RIM], a group
which has sought since 1942 to rationalize and minimize the Federal
regulatory and paperwork reduction processes, believes that Federal
agencies underestimate the total time burden imposed by their paperwork
by nearly one-third. C-RIM believes the actual burden is closer to 10
billion hours, not the 6.6 billion claimed by Federal agencies. If you
estimate compliance cost at $50 per hour, the annual cost of federally
imposed paperwork burdens totals $500 billion.
As a nation, we cannot afford to continue to heap new paperwork and
regulatory burdens on individuals and businesses. While recognizing
that the total Federal paperwork burden has continued to grow, the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 has brought some successes. First, the
1980 act assures that the public will have an opportunity to comment
upon proposed Federal paperwork burdens and to suggest
[[Page S3508]] ways to collect necessary information in a less
burdensome way. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 strengthens
participation by the public. Small businesses will have an opportunity
earlier in the process to shed light on the practical business reality
on a proposed paperwork requirement. In this bill, we are giving them
opportunities to point out when nearly identical information is being
collected by another Federal agency. In addition, small businesses will
be able to comment on the timing of the submission of the data as well
as the format.
Recently, the House of Representatives passed its version of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. It is very appropriate that we in the
Senate act on this important legislation today. This act is part of a
broad down payment on the regulatory relief program we must pass if
we expect Americans to maintain trust and respect in their Government.
Another bill I hope we will consider soon is S. 350, the Regulatory
Flexibility Amendments Act of 1995. Earlier this year, I introduced
this bill to remove the prohibition against judicial review of agency
compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The purpose of the Reg
Flex Act is very simple. It rejects the notion that one size fits all
under Government regulations. Under this act, Federal regulators must
take into account the needs of small business in drafting new
regulations.
The SBA Chief Counsel for Advocacy is charged with monitoring Federal
agency compliance with the Reg Flex Act. Unfortunately, too often
regulators in some Federal agencies give mere lipservice to the Reg
Flex Act requirements, because the Reg Flex Act specifically prohibits
judicial enforcement of the law's requirements. As a result, too many
Federal regulators have ignored their responsibilities under the act,
even when the Chief Counsel for Advocacy notifies the agencies of their
failure to comply.
My bill is intended to encourage Federal agencies to comply with
their reg flex obligations by permitting small businesses to go into
Federal court to enforce compliance by an agency. The judge also will
have the freedom to stay implementation of a regulation until the
agency comes into compliance. On March 8, I will chair a hearing before
the Senate Committee on Small Business to receive testimony from public
and private witnesses on how to implement better the Reg Flex Act. It
is my intention to review other administrative remedies to enforce the
Reg Flex Act so new regulations are written correctly in the first
place, so the need to challenge agencies in Federal court might be
minimized.
Mr. President, when I first elected to the U.S. Senate, I did not
realize so much of my time would be devoted to getting the Government
off the backs of individuals and small businesses. As the co-chair of
the Senate Regulatory Relief Task Force, we have targeted for reform
the 10 worst regulatory burdens. This move will help small businesses,
who are the hardest hit by many of these burdensome regulations. We
need to reinforce the notion that our Government should be a friend of
small business. Government should not be an enemy of growth and new
jobs. Unfortunately, today we find a regulatory environment that
creates too many roadblocks that impede the growth of small business.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is an important step toward
bringing our Government under control. For our Government to demand
paperwork requiring 10 billion hours per year to fill out is a sign
that much work needs to be done to reach this goal. This bill will help
move us in the right direction, and I urge to support its passage.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, today we begin consideration of S. 244, the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This is a badly needed piece of
legislation, and enjoys broad bipartisan support. Americans are
drowning in paperwork and need relief now.
This legislation is an important part of our package of reforms to
downsize Government; to get the Government off the backs of the
American people. Together with regulatory reform and unfunded mandates
legislation, paperwork reduction is an important step forward toward
improving the lives of ordinary Americans by injecting some common
sense into the requirements of the Federal Government on our citizens.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 strengthens the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1980 by setting a goal of reducing the paperwork
burdens imposed by the Federal Government by 5 percent; clarifying that
the act will apply to all Government-sponsored collections of
information; and strengthening and improving both information
technology management and information dissemination. These are reforms
and improvements that are long overdue.
Mr. President, I have had many people, particularly those with small
businesses, tell me that they would be willing to forgo some aspects of
a Federal program that might benefit them if only they could be
protected from unnecessary paperwork as well. As it is, the burdens
involved are nothing more than a tax: a tax on our productivity. This
costs America jobs. It deters those who would otherwise open businesses
from doing so; and it is often the difference between a successful and
a failing business.
The American people spoke clearly in last November's elections:
``rein in big government.'' They want and deserve a smaller and more
responsive Government. They also want and deserve a system of
Government that respects the intentions of the Founding Fathers as
reflected in the 10th amendment to the Constitution: Those powers not
delegated to the Federal Government are reserved to the people and to
the States.
The 10th amendment is not merely an abstract point of political
philosophy--it reflects the voice of experience by those who understood
that Government works best when it governs least and when decisions are
made at the level closest to the people. Decisions about what to
require in the way of forms, justifications, documentation and
recordkeeping made in Washington, DC, often lack this sense of the
practical limits on Government. Thus, what may seem perfectly
reasonable to a bureaucrat in Washington, DC--who only deals with his
or her specific program--is experienced by many Americans as an
exercise in frustration, and often of harassment. When you multiply
that one bureaucrat by the literally thousands of programs that seem
reasonable in a vacuum, it does not take long to see that we have the
recipe for disaster.
Mr. President, when everyone is in charge, no one is in charge. Thus,
we cannot absolve ourselves of the burdens caused by the executive
branch that is, after all, attempting to carry our what it believes to
the dictates of Congress. Congress has an important role--indeed, an
obligation--to exercise the kind of oversight that reins in the
excesses of Government. S. 244 is an important step forward, and I urge
my colleagues to support its passage.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I am very happy that we are today one
important step closer to reauthorization of the Paperwork Reduction
Act. This law is essential to reducing the burdens of Government
paperwork on the American people. The law is also key to improving the
management of Federal Government information systems--this is essential
because the Federal Government is now spending $25 billion a year on
information technology.
The bill we bring to the floor today is the product of several years
of bipartisan effort. In fact, this bill is virtually identical to the
bill passed by unanimous consent in October 1994. This year, I hope we
can quickly go all the way and get the bill signed into law.
Our bill makes important improvements to the 1980 Paperwork Reduction
Act. It strengthens the paperwork clearance process and information
resources management--both in OMB and the agencies:
We reauthorize the act for 5 years;
We overturn the Dole versus United Steelworkers Supreme Court
decision, so that information disclosure requirements are covered by
the OMB paperwork clearance process;
We require agencies to evaluate paperwork proposals and solicit
public comment on them before the proposals go to OMB for review;
We create additional opportunities for the public to participate in
paperwork clearance and other information management decisions;
[[Page S3509]] We strengthen agency and OMB information resources
management [IRM] requirements;
We establish information dissemination standards and require the
development of a Government Information Locator Service [GILS] to
ensure improved public access to Government information, especially
that maintained in electronic format; and
We make other improvements in the areas of Government statistics,
records management, computer security, and the management of
information technology.
These are important reforms and improvements to the act. We should
act on this legislation quickly.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of
support from the Paperwork Reduction Act Coalition and individual
member organizations may be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The Paperwork Reduction
Act Coalition,
March 2, 1995.
Hon. Sam Nunn,
U.S. Senate, Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Nunn: The organizations comprising the
steering committee of the Paperwork Reduction Act Coalition
wish to express our strong and enthusiastic support for S.
244, the ``Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.''
As you know, we have been steadfastly working for enactment
of this legislation since 1989. This commitment stems from
our belief that S. 244 will significantly strengthen the
ability of the federal government to reduce the regulatory
paperwork burden upon the private sector and the American
public. Time and again it has been demonstrated that
unnecessary regulatory costs hinder economic growth and
retard job creation and retention. With as much as nine
percent of the gross domestic product involved in meeting the
federal government's information needs, it is imperative that
a strengthened Paperwork Reduction Act be aggressively used
to improve productivity, eliminate waste, and reduce the
burdens upon businesses and taxpayers.
To illustrate the breadth of support for this legislation,
we have attached a partial list of the members of the
Paperwork Reduction Act Coalition. Their commitment to this
issue is every bit as sincere as ours.
We came so close last Congress with passage of S. 560. Now
that the House has passed its companion legislation, we have
the opportunity to successfully bring this debate to a close.
We look forward to helping you achieve that goal.
Sincerely,
Chamber of Commerce of the United States; Citizens for a
Sound Economy, Council on Regulatory and Information
Management; National Association of Manufacturers; National
Federation of Independent Business; National Small Business
United; Small Business Legislative Council; Aerospace
Industries Association of America; Air Transport Association
of America; Alliance of American Insurers; American
Consulting Engineers Council; American Institute of Merchant
Shipping; American Iron and Steel Institute; American
Petroleum Institute.
American Subcontractors Association; American Telephone and
Telegraph; Associated Builders and Contractors; Associated
Credit Bureaus; Associated General Contractors of America;
Association of Manufacturing Technology; Association of
Records Managers and Administrators; Automotive Parts and
Accessories Association; Biscuit and Cracker Manufacturers'
Association; Bristol Myers; Chamber of Commerce of the United
States; Chemical Manufacturers Association; Chemical
Specialties Manufacturers Association; Citizens Against
Government Waste.
Citizens for a Sound Economy; Computer and Business
Equipment Manufacturers Association; Contract Services
Association of America; Copper and Brass Fabricators Council;
Council on Regulatory and Information Management; Dairy and
Food Industries Supply Association; Direct Selling
Association; Eastman Kodak Company; Electronic Industries
Association; Financial Executive Institute; Food Marketing
Institute; Gadsby & Hannan; Gas Appliance Manufacturers
Association; General Electric; Glaxo, Inc.; Greater
Washington Board of Trade; Hardwood Plywood and Veneer
Association.
Independent Bankers Association of America; International
Business Machines; International Communication Industries
Association; International Mass Retail Association; Kitchen
Cabinet Manufacturers Association; Mail Advertising Service
Association International; McDermott, Will & Emery; Motorola
Government Electronics Group; National Association of Home
Builders of the United States; National Association of
Manufacturers; National Association of Plumbing-Heating-
Cooling Contractors; National Association of the Remodeling
Industry; National Association of Wholesalers-Distributors.
National Federation of Independent Business; National Food
Brokers Association; National Food Processors Association;
National Foundation for Consumer Credit; National Glass
Association; National Restaurant Association; National
Roofing Contractors Association; National Security Industrial
Association; National Small Business United; National Society
of Professional Engineers; National Society of Public
Accountants; National Tooling and Machining Association;
Northrop Corporation; Packaging Machinery Manufacturers
Institute; Painting and Decorating Contractors of America.
Printing Industries of America; Professional Services
Council; Shipbuilders Council of America; Small Business
Legislative Council; Society for Marketing Professional
Services; Sun Company, Inc.; Sunstrand Corporation; Texaco;
United Technologies; Wholesale Florists and Florists Supplies
of America.
____
Members of the Small Business Legislative Council.
Air Conditioning Contractors of America.
Alliance for Affordable Health Care.
Alliance of Independent Store Owners and Professionals.
American Animal Hospital Association.
American Association of Nurserymen.
American Bus Association.
American Consulting Engineers Council.
American Council of Independent Laboratories.
American Floorcovering Association.
American Gear Manufacturers Association.
American Machine Tool Distributors Association.
American Road & Transportation Builders Association.
American Society of Travel Agents, Inc.
American Sod Producers Association.
American Subcontractors Association.
American Textile Machinery Association.
American Trucking Associations, Inc.
American Warehouse Association.
American Wholesale Marketers Association.
AMT--The Association of Manufacturing Technology.
Apparel Retailers of America.
Architectural Precast Association.
Associated Builders & Contractors.
Associated Equipment Distributors.
Associated Landscape Contractors of America.
Association of Small Business Development Centers.
Automotive Service Association.
Automotive Recyclers Association.
Bowling Proprietors Association of America.
Building Service Contractors Association International.
Business Advertising Council.
Christian Booksellers Association.
Council of Fleet Specialists.
Council of Growing Companies.
Direct Selling Association.
Electronics Representatives Association.
Florists' Transworld Delivery Association.
Health Industry Representatives Association.
Helicopter Association International.
Independent Bakers Association.
Independent Bankers Association of America.
Independent Medical Distributors Association.
International Association of Refrigerated Warehouses.
International Communications Industries Association.
International Formalwear Association.
International Television Association.
Machinery Dealers National Association.
Manufacturers Agents National Association.
Manufacturers Representatives of America, Inc.
Mechanical Contractors Association of America, Inc.
National Association for the Self-Employed.
National Association of Catalog Showroom Merchandisers.
National Association of Home Builders.
National Association of Investment Companies.
National Association of Plumbing-Heating-Cooling
Contractors.
National Association of Private Enterprise.
National Association of Realtors.
National Association of Retail Druggists.
National Association of RV Parks and Campgrounds.
National Association of Small Business Investment
Companies.
National Association of the Remodeling Industry.
National Association of Truck Stop Operators.
National Association of Women Business Owners.
National Chimney Sweep Guild.
National Association of Catalog Showroom Merchandisers.
National Coffee Service Association.
National Electrical Contractors Association.
National Electrical Manufacturers Representatives
Association.
National Food Brokers Association.
National Independent Flag Dealers Association.
National Knitwear Sportswear Association.
National Lumber & Building Material Dealers Association.
National Moving and Storage Association.
National Ornamental & Miscellaneous Metals Association.
National Paperbox Association.
[[Page S3510]] National Shoe Retailers Association.
National Society of Public Accountants.
National Tire Dealers & Retreaders Association.
National Tooling and Machining Association.
National Tour Association.
National Venture Capital Association.
Opticians Association of America.
Organization for the Protection and Advancement of Small
Telephone Companies.
Passenger Vessel Association.
Petroleum Marketers Association of America.
Power Transmission Representatives Association.
Printing Industries of America, Inc.
Promotional Products Association International.
Retail Bakers of America.
Small Business Council of America, Inc.
Small Business Exporters Association.
SMC/Pennsylvania Small Business.
Society of American Florists.
____
National Federation of
Independent Business,
Washington, DC, March 1, 1995.
Cut Government Redtape and Excessive Paperwork--Support S. 244
Hon. Sam Nunn,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator: On behalf of the more than 600,000 small
business owners of NFIB, I am writing to express our strong
support for S. 244, legislation to strengthen the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA).
Small business is struggling to swim against the rising
tide of regulatory paperwork required by the federal
government. This flood of paperwork is overwhelming to small
business owners and threatens their ability to survive and
prosper. In fact, a recent NFIB Education Foundation survey
found that the burden of federal regulation and paperwork was
the fastest rising problem facing small business owners.
Strengthening the PRA is essential to the livelihood of small
business in America.
If you want entrepreneurs in your state to spend less time
filling out forms and more time creating jobs then vote YES
on S. 244. Final passage of S. 244 will be a Key Small
Business Vote for the 104th Congress.
Sincerely.
John J. Motley III,
Vice President,
Federal Governmental Relations.
____
Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America,
Washington, DC, March 2, 1995.
To Members of the United States Senate:
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce Federation of 215,000
businesses, 3,000 state and local chambers of commerce, 1,200
trade and professional associations, and 72 American Chambers
of Commerce abroad identified the need for federal paperwork
reduction as its number three issue of greatest significance
for the 104th Congress. Accordingly, I urge your strong
support for S. 244, the ``Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.''
Consider this:
Paperwork burdens carry a $510 billion price tag annually
for the American economy;
The American public spends 6.8 billion hours annually
complying with federal paperwork mandates;
Businesses pay at least twice as much in paperwork costs
than for corporate taxes;
Businesses (both small and large) carry more than 60
percent of the paperwork burden; and
The financial impact from paperwork burdens equals about
nine percent of the Gross Domestic Product annually.
Clearly, this problem has reached gargantuan proportions
and must be reversed. The ``Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995''
is essential to this goal. If enacted, S. 244 would provide
for a stronger Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
(OIRA) within the Office of Management and Budget to conduct
centralized reviews of proposed and existing paperwork
burdens. It also would provide for increased opportunities
for the public to comment on proposed paperwork mandates and
for realistic assessments of estimated reporting and
recordkeeping. Significantly, S. 244 would reverse the 1990
Supreme Court decision in Dole vs. United Steelworkers, which
had the effect of limiting OIRA's ability to oversee a
substantial amount of the federally imposed paperwork burden,
despite the intentions of the authors of the original
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980. Any information required to
be disclosed to third parties (i.e., where the data is not
provided directly to the government) would be subject to the
paperwork review process. Finally, this legislation would
prescribe specific goals for substantive reductions in the
amount of federally required information.
Because information is the key to meeting many of the needs
of society, we acknowledge the validity of appropriate
reporting requirements. The business community--and
particularly small businesses--do require, however, an
information-collection process that is rational and
reasonable, and that reflects the centrality of our role as
job creators.
Again, please vote ``YES'' on S. 244, the ``Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995.''
Sincerely,
R. Bruce Josten.
Senior Vice President,
Membership Policy Group.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, while we are waiting and working out,
hopefully, the managers' amendment, I would like to speak briefly on
another subject, with the stipulation that if someone comes in, I will
be glad to be interrupted.
____________________