Congressional Record, Volume 141 Issue 42 (Tuesday, March 7, 1995)

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 42 (Tuesday, March 7, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3547-S3555]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT OF 1995

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
resume consideration of S. 244, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 244) 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 Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Michigan will offer an amendment on which there will be 10 minutes
equally divided.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair.

Amendment No. 319

(Purpose: To provide for the elimination and modification of reports by
Federal departments and agencies to the Congress, and for other
purposes)

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for himself and Mr.
Cohen, proposes an amendment numbered 319.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment appears in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer today in behalf of
Senator Cohen and myself the Federal Reports Elimination and
Modification Act of 1995 as an amendment to the pending bill.
Our amendment will eliminate over 200 outdated and unnecessary
reporting requirements. These are reporting requirements which have
been placed into the law over many, many years that are now useless.
These are over 200 reports that are not needed or used by congressional
committees. They require up to $10 million of cost in their
preparation. We have gone through each of the reports mandated by law.
We have talked to each of the agencies. We have consulted with each of
the congressional committees. This is the list of those reports which
are totally dispensable which for the most part no one even uses
anymore. But they just stay in the law, filed every year or every 6
months by agencies at great cost.
My subcommittee, the oversight subcommittee of governmental affairs,
which Senator Cohen now chairs and which I am now the ranking member
of, has gone through all of the reporting requirements. We have again
made this assessment as to those reports. Each committee having
proposed what their needs are, these reports are the ones that are no
longer needed.
[[Page S3548]] This legislation is designed to improve the
efficiency of agency operations by eliminating unnecessary paperwork
and staff time by consolidating the amount of information that flows
from the agencies to Congress.
So this amendment is the product of a coordinated and a thorough and
aggressive effort to identify the congressionally mandated agency
reporting requirements that have outlived their usefulness and now
serve only as an unnecessary drain on agency resources,
resources that could be devoted to more important program use. In
fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that enactment of this
legislation could result in savings of up to $5 to $10 million.

This is the second wave of reports elimination from the Subcommittee
on Oversight of Government Management which Senator Cohen chairs and on
which I now serve as the ranking Democrat. We passed a similar bill
that eliminated or modified other reporting requirements in 1985.
Since it had been over 8 years since that effort, I decided it was
time once again to take a look at agency reporting requirements that
we, in Congress, have enacted and take those reports that have outlived
their usefulness off our books. That is much easier said than done.
There are literally thousands of different congressionally mandated
reporting requirements. Each of those reporting requirements was
enacted for a reason. To make a responsible choice about whether or not
a particular reporting requirement should be eliminated, that reason
must be identified and evaluated as to whether it remains valid. That
is time-consuming, painstaking work; however, it is necessary work.
For example, by the time the 1985 legislation was enacted into law,
the number of report eliminations contained in the bill had dropped
from over 100 on introduction to just 23. The General Accounting Office
[GAO] did a review of the 1985 reports elimination effort to see why
the number of reports in the bill dropped so drastically. GAO uncovered
certain weaknesses in that effort; primarily that the agencies did not
consult with Congress when making their recommendations for
eliminations or modifications and that the agency recommendations were
not accompanied by adequate justifications.
We took heed of GAO's findings in developing this legislation. The
1985 legislation was based on a list of agency recommendations
generated by the Office of Management and Budget. This time around,
there was no such list available, so we had to generate our own. In
1993, Senator Cohen and I wrote to all 89 executive and independent
agencies and asked that they identify reports required by law that they
believe are no longer necessary or useful and, therefore, that could be
eliminated or modified. In our request letter, we stressed the
importance of a clear and substantiated justification for each
recommendation made.
We received responses from about 80 percent of the agencies. For the
most part, the agencies made a serious effort to review and recommend a
respectable number of reporting requirements for elimination, but given
the opportunity our effort presented, some were surprisingly less
aggressive. Certain agencies already had report elimination projects
underway. For example, the Department of Defense, at the request of
Senator McCain, conducted an internal review of the congressionally
mandated reporting requirements for all of its services. Numerous
reporting requirements were then eliminated and modified in the fiscal
year 1995 defense authorization bill and were not included, therefore,
in this legislation.
After receiving the agency responses, a member of the
subcommittee staff generated a master list of all the agency
recommendations. At the same time we sent to the chairman and ranking
member of each of the relevant Senate committees, for their review and
comment, the recommendations made by the agencies under their
respective jurisdictions. Feedback from the committees of jurisdiction
is necessary to ensure that this effort eliminates as many reporting
requirements as possible without losing needed information. We also
asked that the committees provide us with any additional
recommendations for eliminations or modifications they might have.

Many of the committees responded to the request for comments. Those
responses were generally supportive of the subcommittee's efforts and
most contained only a few changes to the agency recommendations. Those
changes were primarily requests by committees to retain reports under
their jurisdiction because the information contained in the report is
of use to the committee or, in some cases, of use to outside
organizations. We adjusted the master list of eliminations and
modifications based on those committee comments. Subcommittee staff
then worked with the Senate legislative counsel's office to check
statutory references to make sure we are addressing the correct
provisions in law.
Senator Cohen and I introduced S. 2156 on May 25, 1994. As
introduced, the bill contained nearly 300 recommendations for
eliminations or modifications. Senators Glenn, Roth, Stevens, and
McCain cosponsored that bill.
Shortly after the introduction of S. 2156, Senator Cohen and I again
wrote to all the committees and asked for comments on the bill as
introduced. This was a continuation of our effort to avoid the problems
of the 1985 effort by including the committees of jurisdiction in each
step of the development of S. 2156. Certain committees have responded
to that second request and generally they have asked for few changes to
the bill.
While most of the recommendations we received from the agencies and
included in the bill concern targeted, agency-specific reporting
requirements, we did receive several recommendations regarding
governmentwide reporting requirements. Again, we turned to the
committees of jurisdiction for guidance on how or whether to enact
these governmentwide agency recommendations. A number of these
recommendations concerned reporting requirements that fall under
various financial management statutes such as the Chief Financial
Officers Act. Our bill does not address these particular
recommendations due to the proposal contained in H.R. 3400 and other
legislation to allow the administration to set up a pilot program aimed
at streamlining the reporting and other requirements contained in these
laws.
We are in the process of reviewing other governmentwide reporting
requirements to see if some changes can be made. For
instance, there were several recommendations to change inspector
general [IG] reports from semiannual to annual. From our initial
discussions with the IG community and the relevant committee staff it
seems that it might be possible to make this shift without jeopardizing
the oversight responsibilities of the IG's. We will continue to discuss
this recommendation to see if we can't achieve some change. Another
issue that we will be looking at is creating thresholds for
governmentwide reporting requirements. We received several
recommendations from smaller agencies that talked of the burden of
complying with certain governmentwide reporting requirements that have
no relevance to their small agency.

Every reporting requirement takes away resources that could be used
elsewhere in the agency. Sometimes the burden is slight--as low as a
few hundred dollars. Sometimes the burden is great--as high as a few
million dollars. Enactment of this legislation will save time and
money.
This legislation gets at those reports that no one uses. These are
the reports that come into our offices and sit in staff in-boxes for
weeks, maybe months, until they are either rerouted to someone else or
filed in that popular circular file drawer. On several occasions in the
process of drafting this legislation, agencies told us that, for
whatever reason, they hadn't been doing or had never done the reporting
requirement they were now seeking to eliminate. Apparently no one had
noticed the agency's failure to report or, if they did, no one
complained. We have taken care to be aggressive in identifying reports,
but deferential to the committees with substantive responsibility that
may use these reports.
This amendment, which is the same as S. 2156 with a few changes, is a
bipartisan effort. It was unanimously reported out of the Governmental
Affairs Committee by voice vote on August 2, 1994. We tried to get it
to the floor last
[[Page S3549]] year, but were unable to do so. I am pleased that the
Senate will act on this legislation today to move the Federal Report
Elminiation and Modification Act of 1995 one step closer to becoming
law. In today's day and age, we need all the resources we can get. The
longer the reporting requirements contained in this bill stay on the
books, the more resources are unnecessarily spent to comply. I thank
Senator Cohen and his staff for their assistance in developing and
moving this bill through the legislative process. I also want to take
this opportunity to thank Tony Coe of the Senate legislative counsel's
office for his fine work in drafting this legislation. I also want to
thank Kay Dekuiper who was a member of the Oversight Subcommittee staff
when this legislation was being developed and who did the bulk of the
hard, tedious work putting this legislation together. She has since
left the Senate to pursue her career elsewhere, but our appreciation
for her efforts while she was here remain undiminished.
Mr. President, I believe this amendment has been cleared on the other
side. I spoke to Senator Roth about this last night. He, again, was a
supporter of this in the last Congress.
This matter came up quite quickly last night, so we did not even have
an opportunity to list him as a cosponsor. I am quite confident,
however, from his quick comments to me last night on the floor, that he
does support this amendment.
Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, on behalf of the manager of this
legislation, my understanding is that this is not a controversial
amendment. I am basing that, at least partially, on the assurances of
the distinguished Senator from Michigan. I also understand from the
staff that this amendment is acceptable.
So, at this juncture, there will be no objection to this amendment.
Mr. LEVIN. Again I thank the manager of the bill for his support.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 319) was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was agreed to.
Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.

Amendment No. 320

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes an
amendment numbered 320.

The amendment is as follows:

At the appropriate place, add the following new section:

SEC. . SENSE OF CONGRESS.

It is the sense of Congress that Congress should not enact
or adopt any legislation that will increase the number of
children who are hungry or homeless.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me start out with a definition for
my colleagues. The definition of hunger. This amendment talks about
hunger among children.

The mental and physical condition that comes from not
eating enough food due to insufficient economic, family or
community resources.

Mr. President, the way in which this is measured would be if there
was a ``yes'' on at least five of the following eight questions.

Does your household ever run out of money to buy food to
make a meal?
Do you or other adult members of your household ever eat
less than you feel you should because there is not enough
money to buy food?
Do you or other adult members of your household ever cut
the size of meals or skip meals because there is not enough
money for food?
Do your children ever eat less than you feel they should
because there is not enough money for food?
Do you ever cut the size of your children's meals or do
they ever skip meals because there is not enough money for
food?
Do your children ever say they are hungry because there is
not enough food in the house?
Do you ever rely on a limited number of foods to feed your
children because you are running out of money to buy food for
a meal?
Do any of your children ever go to bed hungry because there
is not enough money to buy food?

Mr. President, the Food Research Action Council Community Childhood
Hunger Identification Project, estimated in 1991 that there are 5.5
million children under 12 years of age who are hungry in the United
States. Let me repeat that. There are 5.5 million children today, with
existing programs of support, who are hungry in the United States of
America.
Mr. President, the U.S. Council of Mayors Status Report on Hunger and
Homelessness in American Cities in 1994 found that 64 percent of the
persons receiving food assistance were from families with children.
I could go on with other definitions and would be pleased to do so as
we move forward with this amendment.
Homelessness. The U.S. Council of Mayors Status Report on Hunger and
Homelessness in American Cities estimated that 26 percent of the
requests at the emergency shelters were for children, homeless
children.
In 1988, the National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine,
estimated that there were 100,000 children who are homeless each day--
100,000 children, Mr. President, homeless in the United States of
America.
Mr. President, on the very first day or the second day of this
session, going back to the Congressional Accountability Act, I brought
this amendment to the floor. I said that I feared that what was going
to happen in the 104th Congress would go way beyond the goodness of
people and that part of the safety net would be eviscerated, in
particular, support for children in America. That was voted down. I
could not get the Senate to go on record.
Then, Mr. President, with the unfunded mandates bill, I came out and
said, ``Why don't we at least do a child impact statement so we know
what we are doing with these cuts, be they rescissions or proposed cuts
in the budget and reconciliation bill?'' That was voted down.
Then I brought a motion to refer which was a direction back to the
Budget Committee as a part of the balanced budget amendment. At that
time, I held up some headlines, and I said, ``I have been told by
colleagues, `Senator Wellstone, there is no reason for you to come out
here with scare tactics because we are not going to cut nutrition
programs for children. We are not going to do anything that could lead
to more hunger or homelessness among children.'''
I came out here just last week with several headlines, one from
February 23, ``House Panel Votes Social Funding Cuts, Republicans Trim
Nutrition and Housing.'' Another one, ``House Panel Moves to Cut
Federal Child Care, School Lunch Fund.''
Mr. President, today, just by way of background, what is the headline
in the Washington Post, Tuesday, March 7? It is a front-page story
about a school in Fayette, MS. The headline is ``School Fearful That
Johnny Can't Eat''--not ``School Fearful That `Johnny Can't Read'''--
``School Fearful That `Johnny Can't Eat.'''
The Congress' school lunch debate worries some in rural Mississippi.

I got a little boy come in here every morning and eats
everybody's food. Just licks the plate. And you know he's not
the only one,'' said Jeanette Reeves, eagle-eyed and dressed
in starched white, a cafeteria manager who doesn't have to
tell the children twice to eat all their lima beans. ``Many
of these children get their only meals right here at school.
Lord, it'll be cruel to change that.

That, Mr. President, is a front-page story from the Washington Post.
Now we are moving to the point where we are not worried about whether
``Johnny can't read.'' We are worried about whether or not ``Johnny
can't eat''--cuts in School Lunch Programs and School Breakfast
Programs and Child Nutrition Programs.
Mr. President, the same Washington Post piece, page A-4, headline:
``House Panel Votes to Curtail Program for Disabled Children.''
[[Page S3550]] Mr. President, I think we have just plain run out of
excuses here on the Senate side.
Let me just give a little bit more context. Last week we had charts
out on the importance of the debt and the annual budget deficits. I
have brought some charts out about the importance of children in
America.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
an article by Bob Herbert, ``Inflicting Pain on Children,'' in a New
York Times op-ed piece, Saturday, February 25.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the New York Times, Feb. 25, 1995]

Inflicting Pain on Children

(By Bob Herbert)

the helpless are taking the brunt of the Republicans' attack on our
social system

The Republican jihad against the poor, the young and the
helpless rolls on. So far no legislative assault has been too
cruel, no budget cut too loathsome for the party that took
control of Congress at the beginning of the year and has
spent all its time since then stomping on the last dying
embers of idealism and compassion in government.
This week Republicans in the House began approving measures
that would take food off the trays of hungry school children
and out of the mouths of needy infants. With reckless
disregard for the human toll that is sure to follow, they
have also aimed their newly powerful budget-reducing weapons
at programs that provide aid to handicapped youngsters, that
support foster care and adoption,that fight drug abuse in
schools and that provide summer jobs for needy youths.
They have also targeted programs that provide fuel oil to
the poor and assistance to homeless veterans. And they have
given the back of their hand to President Clinton's national
service corps.
The United States has entered a nightmare period in which
the overwhelming might of the Federal Government is being
used to deliberately inflict harm on the least powerful
people in the nation. The attacks on children have been the
worst. If the anti-child legislation that is moving with such
dispatch through the House actually becomes law, ``the
results will be cataclysmic,'' according to James Weill,
general counsel to the Children's Defense Fund.
Mr. Weill said: ``The Republican leadership has targeted
children for almost all of the pain. They've cut, I think, $7
billion out of the child nutrition programs, and that's not
even counting food stamps, which they haven't done yet.
``Foster care and adoption have been cut by $4 billion over
five years. They've cut Aid to Families with Dependent
Children, and they're eliminating most of the entitlements as
they go along. They're just smashing their way through all of
the children's programs. To me, this so-called revolution is
more like a massacre of the innocents.''
President Clinton denounced the cuts and accused the G.O.P.
majority in Congress of ``making war on children.'' At a
press conference yesterday in Ottawa, Canada, Mr. Clinton
said: ``What they want to do is make war on the kids of this
country to pay for the capital gains tax cut. That's what's
going on.''
There is a breathless, frenzied quality to the Republican
assault, as if the party leaders recognize that they must get
their work done fast--while the Democrats are still in a
post-election stupor, and before the public at large becomes
aware of the extremes of suffering and social devastation
that are in the works.
``This agenda is too harsh,'' said Senator Paul Wellstone,
a Democrat from Minnesota. ``I realize that the Republicans
won the election, but these measures are too extreme, too
mean-spirited. They go beyond what the goodness of the people
in this country would permit. Most Americans do not want to
see vulnerable people hurt, especially children.''
Mr. Wellstone has irritated some of his Republican
colleagues by frequently offering a legislative amendment
that says the Senate ``will not enact any legislation that
will increase the number of children who are hungry or
homeless.'' Each time it is offered, the amendment is
defeated.
The Senate majority leader, Bob Dole, dismissed the
Wellstone amendment as an ``extraneous'' measure designed
solely to make Republicans ``look heartless and cold.'' No
doubt. But Senator Wellstone is right on target when he says
that the Republican legislative strategy was carefully
designed to hurt the people ``who aren't the big players, who
aren't the heavy hitters, who don't make big contributions,
who don't have lobbyists, who don't have clout.''
If anything is funny in this dismal period, it's that the
Republicans are touchy about being called heartless and cold.
That's a riot. Has anyone listened to Newt Gingrich lately?
To Dick Armey? To Phil Gramm? This is the coldest crew to
come down the pike since the Ice Age.
An indication of just how cold and heartless the
Republicans have become is the startling fact that Mr. Dole,
of all people, is starting to look a little warm and fuzzy.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I quote from that article:

Mr. President, 1 day in the life of American children: 636 babies are
born to women who had late or no prenatal care. One day in the life of
American children: 801 babies are born at low birthweight; by the way,
to many women who never had any proper nutrition, and we now have
proposed cuts in the Women, Infants, and Children Program. One day in
the life of American children: 1,234 children run away from their
homes. One day in the life of American children: 2,255 teenagers drop
out of school each school day. One day in the life of American
children: 2,868 babies are born into poverty. One day in the life of
American children: 7,945 children are reported abused or neglected. One
day in the life of American children: 100,000 children are homeless.
One day in the life of American children: Three children die from child
abuse. One day in the life of American children: 9 children are
murdered; 13 children die from guns; 27 children--a classroomful--die
from poverty; 63 babies die before they are 1 month old--63 babies die
before they are 1 month old; and 101 babies die before their 1st
birthday.
Mr. President, it is just time for the U.S. Senate to go on record.
Let me just make it clear again what this amendment does. This
amendment on the paperwork reduction bill is just a sense-of-the-Senate
amendment. We are not going to do anything that creates more hunger or
homelessness among children. There is no excuse not to go on record.
The U.S. Senate needs to take this position.
Mr. President, a little bit more in context, I have a report:
``Unshared Sacrifice; The House of Representatives' Shameful Assault on
America's Children,'' March 1995, the Children's Defense Fund, that I
ask be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the report was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

[From the Children's Defense Fund, March 1995]

Unshared Sacrifice--The House of Representatives' Shameful Assault on
America's Children

introduction

In a ``revolution'' that so far has spared just about
everyone else, the House leadership and key committee
majorities have targeted America's children for the earliest,
broadest, and by far the deepest pain in budget cuts, program
restructuring, and rescissions. In less than two weeks key
committees and subcommittees have voted to cut $40 billion
from crucial child survival programs, and to end the federal
safety net for children and their families. This is a wholly
unshared sacrifice: the House seems to be postponing for a
later day, if ever, any contemplation of major cuts for other
constituencies. Savings from savage cuts in programs for
needy and helpless children would be used to fund a new and
unnecessary defense build-up; to pay for a capital gains tax
cut of which 71 percent goes to the richest 1 percent of
Americans; and to reduce a tax on the richest 13 percent of
the elderly by $56 billion (over 10 years) when that tax goes
to pay part of Medicare's cost.
While the House majority's welfare plan has gotten most
media attention, that plan's unprecedented savaging of
children is merely symptomatic of a broad-gauged assault on
hungry children's nutrition programs, disabled children's
disability assistance, preschool children's child care and
child development centers, unemployed youths' summer jobs,
sick children's medical care, and abused children's foster
care and hope for adoptive families. Block grants,
rescissions, and consolidations are being used in a multi-
front attack on children's services. Not even proven money-
saving programs like Head Start have been spared. And in the
midst of this series of brutal reductions, the most severe
have been reserved for the most vulnerable children--those
who are disabled or in foster care.
Based on data from the Congressional Budget Office, the
Department of Health and
[[Page S3551]] Human Services and the Department of
Agriculture, and analysis of congressional numbers by the
Children's Defense Fund, $40 billion in core safety net
program cuts were adopted in the past two weeks that would
force out of these programs millions of the children eligible
under current rules (see chart, next page).
These numbers assume that states would reduce spending by
the amount of federal reductions, and do so by eliminating
eligible children from the program rather than reducing
benefits across-the-board. In some programs like AFDC and
SSI, the strategy of dropping children is virtually dictated
by the proposed legislation. In others, it is possible for
states to spread out the cuts and reduce benefits for more
children, but completely deny benefits to fewer. In that
case, many more children would be hurt, but the damage to
each would be a bit less. In either instance, the pain will
be massive.
The numbers in this report actually understate the real
depth of the cuts, since they assume there is no recession
driving up the number of children needing help; assume there
are no transfers from the new block grants to other programs
(as is allowed with some of the funds); assume that there are
not larger cuts in state funds by states that would be freed
from any matching requirements; and do not account for how
cuts in one area (such as AFDC) will drive up the need in
other areas (such as foster care). Moreover, the AFDC losses
in 2000 disguise the full impact of the House welfare plan: 3
million to 5 million children could lose AFDC when that plan
is fully phased in.

THE UNSHARED SACRIFICE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of
all eligible
Dollars cut over Dollars cut in Children losing children who
5 years the fifth year benefits in the would lose
(2000) year 2000 benefits in
the year 2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFDC...................................... $12.8 billion... $3.7 billion.... 1.7 million (3-5 18.1
million in
later years).
SSI for children.......................... $12.1 billion... $5.5 billion.... 516,000......... 67.0
Foster Care and Adoption Assistance....... $5.5 billion.... $1.7 billion.... 111,000......... 26.0
School Lunches............................ $2 billion...... $510 million.... 2.22 million.... 8.8
Child Care................................ $2.5 billion.... $612 million.... 378,000......... 24.0
Child and Adult Care Food Program......... $4.6 billion.... $1.1 billion.... 1,048,000....... 50.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This assault on America's children is also an assault on
America's future. The millions of infants and toddlers who
would be denied food necessary for their physical and
intellectual development in the years ahead are the ones
America will want to be computer programmers in 2017. The
millions of five-year-olds who would be denied any cash aid
for housing, food, or clothing are the ones we will want to
be learning in college or apprenticing in industry in 2010.
The thousands of battered 10-year-olds denied counseling and
foster care and adoptive homes are the ones we will want not
to be violent 16-year-olds in 2001. By ravaging the
childhoods of millions of American children, the House
simultaneously will be pillaging America's economic and
democratic future.
The assault on children is unique in its size and severity.
No other group, except for legal aliens, has been touched by
more than a small fraction of the cuts aimed at children. No
massively subsidized corporation has yet to see a dime
threatened. (In fact, a handful of big
businesses got a $1 billion gift from higher prices on
infant formula--and less formula purchased--when the House
Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities voted
down competitive bidding in the WIC program, a step USDA
says will cause ``increased malnutrition, growth stunting,
and iron deficiency anemia.'') No farmer has had his crop
subsidies cut. No military or civil service retiree--or
member of Congress--has seen his pay or health insurance
or retirement benefits cut. Defense contractors have been
given a gift of new and higher spending. Programs for poor
families have faced extra cuts in order to spare
traditional ``pork'' like visitors' centers or NRA-
sponsored efforts to teach school children to shoot guns.
The House majority has put almost all its cost-cutting
effort into slashing and burning its way through programs for
children and the parents, grandparents, foster parents, and
others who are struggling to care for them.
This is not what America voted for last November. This is
not what Americans want. This is not what America needs.
Nevertheless, in just 10 days in February, House committees
voted to slash these basic supports:
Food for children. The House Economic and Educational
Opportunities Committee voted to take away the guarantee that
low-income children can get free or reduced-price school
lunches and breakfasts. The plan indiscriminately lumps these
school-based programs together and cuts them by $2 billion
over five years. In a separate block grant, the committee
ended the guarantee of food for children in Head Start and
child care centers through the Child and Adult Care Food
Program and lumped this with the WIC program of food for poor
pregnant women and infants, the summer food program, and food
for the homeless, and cut the package by $5 billion over five
years. Cutting fat? Hardly. Experts estimate that hundreds of
millions fewer meals would be served to needy children in the
year 2000, thanks to the cut. And 60,000 Head Start
placements are likely to end because programs will have to
spend the Head Start money on food to replace the child care
food program cut for hundreds of thousands of children.
Sharing the pain? Hardly. No other food program has yet been
cut, whether the cafeteria for members of the House of
Representatives or the programs that feed the elderly. House
Speaker Gingrich has promised, as well as he should, not to
cut food programs for the elderly. But it is perverse to
treat food for seniors as deserving of protection but food
for children as a waste of national resources. We can afford
to feed both.
Income support for children. The House Ways and Means
Committee's Human Resources subcommittee voted to take away
the guarantee that poor children can get AFDC; voted to order
states to deny throughout childhood any aid to children born
out of wedlock to young mothers (even though the mother may
eventually requalify for aid); and voted to limit to five
years the receipt of welfare for children who might still
qualify despite the other rule changes. In the year 2000,
$3.7 billion will be taken away from poor children. Is this
aimed at parents and personal responsibility? Not really. The
plan cuts off children even when parents can get benefits,
cuts off families even when they have been working and
complying with all rules, and tells a child who has been
living with his low-income, elderly grandparents since birth
that she'll get no help after the age of five. Cutting fat?
No! In the year 2000, 1.7 million children who by definition
do not have enough for food or shelter are projected to lose
AFDC. Even more will lose help if states cut back further or
divert state and federal AFDC funds to other purposes.
Sharing the pain? Hardly.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will just read a couple of operative paragraphs.

Mr. President, when I go to gatherings of senior citizens, they list
children and their grandchildren right at the top of their concerns. We
talk about their concerns about block granting congregate dining and
Meals on Wheels, which older Americans made sure did not happen in the
House. The first thing they say to me is, ``Senator, we also want to
make sure that the school lunch program is not eliminated or cut back.
We want to make sure that there are not cuts in childhood nutrition
programs.''
Mr. President, I say to my colleagues that we do not have, in this
Contract With America, we have not seen in any of these rescissions, we
have not seen in any of the action on the House side, one word about
oil company subsidies being cut, one word about coal company subsidies
being cut, one word about pharmaceutical company subsidies being cut,
one word about the privileged, about the powerful, about Pentagon
contractors having to sacrifice at all.
Instead, those citizens who are being asked to sacrifice and tighten
their belts are the very citizens who cannot--the children in this
country. I suggest today that there is a reason for that. They are the
citizens who are not the heavy hitters. They are the citizens who are
not the well connected. They are the citizens who do not have all the
[[Page S3552]] lobbyists. They are the citizens with the least amount
of political power. I do not think we should be making decisions on
that basis.
How interesting it is, Mr. President, that we are willing to cut free
lunches for children, but we are not willing to ban gifts and cut free
lunches for Senators and Representatives. Let me repeat that once
again: How interesting it is that in the U.S. Congress, on the House
side, there is a willingness to cut free lunches for hungry children,
but no commitment to have a gift ban and end free lunches for
Representatives and Senators. That small example tells a large story
about what is going on here right now in the U.S. Congress.
Mr. President, people voted for change. But it always begged the
question, What kind of change? With these cuts in nutrition programs,
now we have to have fear, in the schools of Ohio, Minnesota,
Mississippi, and all across the land, not that Johnny cannot read, but
that Johnny cannot eat. These cuts go beyond the goodness of people in
this country.
This is not what people voted for. And when we see the rescissions
coming over, and some of these block grants and mean-spirited cutbacks
in child nutrition programs, and mean-spirited cuts in other children's
programs that will lead to more homeless, all I ask my colleagues in
the U.S. Senate to do today is to go on record with a mild sense-of-
the-Senate resolution that we will not do anything that will increase
more hunger or homelessness among children.
Now, Mr. President, I say to my colleagues--because I have had this
amendment on the floor over and over again--that I do not think they
can hide any longer. First, at the beginning of the session, it was all
about prerogative, not on the Congressional Accountability Act.
I also heard about this type of rationale and even read in the New
York Times Magazine about this the other day in relation to gift ban.
No, we do not want to do that because we want to show that we are in
control. Or we do not want to give a Senator ink. I did not think we
made decisions on that basis, but the gift ban amendment was voted
down. This amendment was voted down also. Then I brought it up again on
unfunded mandates--it was voted down. Then I brought it up as just a
motion to refer to the Budget Committee, not as an amendment to the
constitutional amendment to balance the budget. Senator Hatch was on
the floor, a Senator whom I deeply respect, and he said, ``Look,
Senator Wellstone, I really think that this is based upon your
opposition to the balanced budget amendment, and these amendments are
not going to be amendments we will accept.'' Fine.
But now we have a bill that is sailing through the Senate. There is
tremendous support for it. I support it. And all I am doing, since this
bill is out here, is asking for a sense of the Senate. We see the front
page stories; we hear it on the radio; we see it on television.
Sometimes, I think, Mr. President, if I had time, I would retrace the
hunger tour that Senator Robert Kennedy took. I really would. I almost
feel as though Senators need to see it themselves.
All I am saying is, the writing is on the wall. We see where the deep
cuts are. We see what its effects on children are going to be.
Everybody agrees that these programs are harsh, that these programs
will have a very serious impact on children, the most vulnerable of our
citizens, the poor children of America.
I am saying, because all eyes are on the Senate to put a stop to
this, today is the day. Let Members go on record. We can do this on a
nonpartisan basis. We should have Democrats and Republicans in a
resounding vote go on record that we will not do anything to create
more hunger or homelessness among children. Let Members agree on that.
Let Members agree when it comes to deficit reduction, there will be a
standard of fairness. Let Members agree we will represent children in
America and we will represent them well. Let Members agree this is a
part of the priorities of what we stand for. Let Members put to rest
the fears that so many people have in this country that what is
happening right now in the Congress is a juggernaut that is mean
spirited, that will hurt so many children in the country.
We, today, can go on record saying we are not going to do that. That
is what I ask my colleagues to do.
Mr. President, I do not really understand. One of the things that has
been interesting to me is the silence on the other side of the aisle.
We know rescissions are coming over here. We know the kind of cuts that
have already taken place in committee and on the floor in the House of
Representatives. So there is not one Senator who can look me in the eye
and say any longer, ``Senator Wellstone, you're crying Chicken
Little.'' That is what some of my colleagues had to say to me at the
beginning of the session.
But now the evidence is irrefutable and irreducible. We know the
proposed cuts. We know what is coming over here. I do not think there
is one Senator who can come out on the floor and say to me today ``You
are wrong, we don't need to go on record with this statement, because
no one will do this to children in America.'' The evidence is clear it
is being done. Nor are there any excuses any longer about it being the
beginning of the session or about it being the constitutional amendment
to balance the budget. It is all very clear.
One more time, Mr. President:

It is the sense of the Congress that Congress should not
enact or adopt any legislation that will increase the number
of children who are hungry or homeless.

Is that too much to ask of my colleagues?
Moments in America for children, a Children's Defense Fund study last
year:
Every 5 seconds of the school day a student drops out of public
school;
Every 30 seconds a baby is born into poverty;
Every 2 minutes a baby is born at low birthweight;
Every 2 minutes a baby is born to a mother who had late or no
prenatal care;
Every 4 minutes a child is arrested for an alcohol-related crime;
Every 7 minutes a child is arrested for a drug crime;
Every 2 hours a child is murdered;
Every 4 hours a child commits suicide.
Mr. President, we cannot savage children in America today. It is
unconscionable, as I look at what the House of Representatives is doing
right now, that we in the U.S. Congress seem to be willing to cut free
lunches for poor children in America, but we have not yet passed a gift
ban that would end free lunches for Representatives and Senators. Today
I ask the U.S. Senate, Democrats and Republicans alike, to go on
record, ``It is the sense of Congress that Congress should not enact or
adopt any legislation that would increase the number of children who
are hungry or homeless.''
How much time do I have left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). The Senator from Minnesota has
23 minutes 15 seconds.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time
Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we have no request for time on this side. We
are prepared to yield our time back if the Senator from Minnesota is
ready to conclude the debate.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, before I do, and while my colleague is
on the floor, I would like to get his attention just for a moment. I
will be pleased to do so, and I understand the votes will all take
place after our caucus meetings this afternoon.
I have a lot of respect for the whip. I think we have a good
friendship, agree or disagree, on all issues. But I want my colleague
to know why I continue to bring this amendment to the floor. It
certainly is not for ink because there has not been a lot of coverage
for this amendment.
I said at the beginning I was going to do it, and every day as I read
the papers and hear what is happening on the House side, I realize that
it is really going to be up to the Senate, Republicans and Democrats
alike, in a careful nonpartisan way to take certain action that I think
90 percent of the people in the country want us to take.
Part of that action is to certainly not, for example, cut nutrition
programs for children. I refer the Senator from Mississippi to this
article today regarding Fayette, MS, and there were
[[Page S3553]] two parts to this. There are wonderful interviews with
some of the parents and some of the women who work at the cafeteria and
teachers who work with children about the tremendous fear.
The headline is ``School Fearful That `Johnny Can't Eat','' not
``Johnny Can't Read.''
Congress' school lunch debate worries some in rural Mississippi. The
Senator may have been off the floor. It starts out with this quote. I
find this quote to be, at a personal level--it moves me and really
worries me.

``I got a little boy come in here every morning and eats
everybody's food. Just licks the plate. And you know he's not
the only one,'' said Jeanette Reeves, eagle-eyed and dressed
in starched white, a cafeteria manager who doesn't have to
tell the children twice to eat all their lima beans. ``Many
of these children get their only meals right here at school.
Lord, it'll be cruel to change that.''

And then there are some teachers, I say to my colleague from
Mississippi. This is in Fayette, MS, and they say, ``Listen, these
children just cannot learn, if they are not going to have at least one
good meal a day, they can't learn, they can't do well in school.''
Mr. President, we all say we are for the children in America. As I
have said on the floor before, I think that includes all God's
children, not just our children, and that includes the children that
are poor and, unfortunately, a sizable percentage of children in
America are poor.
I say to my colleague from Mississippi, if there is no further
debate, I would be pleased to yield back the remainder of my time, but
I am hoping that in the absence of debate today that finally the Senate
is willing to go on record:

It is the sense of Congress that Congress should not enact
or adopt any legislation that will increase the number of
children who are hungry or homeless.

I do not think there should be one Senator who should have a problem
voting for this. I think it is time we go on record as an institution.
If there is no debate, I take that silence as consent, and I yield back
the remainder of my time.
Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I will be happy to yield back the remainder
of time, but first, since my State has been referred to several times--
that is normal, if you want to make a case, it has been the practice
around here for 20 years to attack Mississippi.
Frankly, we do not appreciate that. But also I just want to
emphasize, there is a lot of misinformation out here. What we would
like to do is to take nutrition programs, a lot of other programs,
reform them, get the fraud out of them where it exists--and it may not
be the case in the nutrition program--cut back on administration costs
because there is a lot of waste and money going to the administration
of these programs instead of getting to children, food for children,
nutrition for children.
One of the points that people in Washington seem to miss is----
Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield? Can I ask the Senator before
he moves to table if I could have a couple minutes to respond?
Mr. LOTT. I am sure we can work that out.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator.
Mr. LOTT. I just ask the Senators here, is there anybody among us who
would not like to see us find some savings in programs, maybe actually
get more money to the children? What I understand is being proposed in
the House of Representatives actually with the block grants is that you
would get more money actually going for food to the children by cutting
out the bureaucracy and the redtape.
It seems to me like that is a good idea: More flexibility for the
States, a better way, perhaps, being found to administer these
programs. The Governors believe that can happen--the Governor of my
State, the Governor of Michigan.
So what we are talking about is a better program, a better deal that
will help more children. What we have been doing is we are feeding
bureaucrats. How about if we feed the children instead?
What everybody is saying is we cannot change anything. ``Oh, no,
don't touch this one, don't touch that one.'' For 40 years this stuff
has been building up. It is a bureaucratic nightmare, with all kinds of
waste. It is time that we find a way to improve some of these programs.
We believe we can do that. That is all we are seeking with these
nutrition programs. There is a tremendous amount of misinformation out
there on this and other programs.
Last week we had debate on the balanced budget amendment. They said,
``Oh, we don't need this. Let's just go and find a way to reduce the
deficit.'' And then the list begins: ``Oh, but, you can't touch this
program, you can't even improve it, you can't limit the rate of
increase in spending on programs.''
That is all we are talking about. Most of these programs we are not
talking about cutting a nickel; we are talking about controlling the
rate of growth. So here they come, the same crowd we heard in the
eighties: ``Oh, don't cut this one, don't cut that one, don't cut the
Low Income Energy Assistance Program,'' that gives $19 million for air
conditioning in the State of Florida, and I am sure a lot of money for
air conditioning in my State.
We all have our little program and say, ``Don't touch this one.'' You
cannot have it both ways. You cannot find ways to begin to control
spending and reduce the deficit without looking at every program, every
agency, every department and seeing if we cannot do a better job. If we
say do not touch any program, we will never get anything done.
I did not want to start a full debate here, but I had to at least get
that on the record. I think what we are talking about is better
programs, less bureaucracy, and more funds for people who really need
the help.
Does the Senator wish to use additional time?
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if I might just ask for 5 minutes.
Mr. LOTT. Since the Senator yielded back his time, I will yield back
5 minutes from our time.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Mississippi.
Let me just be really clear about, first of all, what this vote is
on. I do take exception to some of what my colleague had to say. But I
am not even debating today whether or not some of what has been
proposed in block grants will work better or not. I take what the
Senator has said to be said in good faith.
What this amendment says is the Senate goes on record that we will
not enact or adopt any legislation which will increase the number of
children hungry or homeless.
So the Senator from Mississippi would agree with me on that. He has
not proposed that we do make cuts that would increase hunger and
homelessness.
This does not cast judgment on any particular proposal. Given what is
moving through and given some of the discussion, let us go on record
that we are not going to do anything that would do that. I should think
the Senator would agree. That is my first point. To vote for this means
that Senators are willing to go on record saying certainly one thing
that is important to us is not to increase any hunger or homelessness
among children. That is all this says. That is point one.
Point two--and I say this with some sense of sadness to my
colleague--actually there is a considerable amount of empirical data
about the cuts. I have before me a Department of Agriculture study, and
actually there are many other studies that are now coming out about the
cuts that are being proposed, cuts I say to my colleague, in child
nutrition programs State by State. Alabama, school-age children, fiscal
year 1996, $1,972,000; preschool children, $15,098,000; Mississippi--
but I will get to Minnesota so you do not think it is just
Mississippi--$2,421,000 for school-age children and $14 million cuts
for preschool children in nutrition programs. In my State of Minnesota,
cuts of $1,627,000 for school-age children and $15,189,000 for
preschool children.
That is why I am worried about this, I say to my colleague from
Mississippi. So, first, there is no one any longer who is really
arguing we are not facing deep cuts that will have a harmful effect on
children. But, even if I was to agree with what my colleague just said,
that is not what this amendment is about. We should together vote for
[[Page S3554]] this because then we make it clear that regardless of
our disagreement about specific policies, one thing we are in agreement
on is that the Senate as an institution certainly is not going to take
any action that would increase hunger or homelessness among children. I
do not know how my colleagues can continue to vote against this.
Finally, I would like to say this by way of an apology because I
agree with my colleague from Mississippi about this. I think this is a
powerful story, but in no way, shape or form did I intend to pick on
Mississippi. I believe that one of the things we do over and over again
is that we look everywhere but home. It is so easy for those of us in
Pennsylvania or Minnesota to focus on Mississippi, and I fully
understand the sentiment of my colleague from Mississippi.
Unfortunately, Mr. President, I say to my colleague, I can point to
children that are struggling in Minnesota. I am sure that the Presiding
Officer can in Pennsylvania. The kind of issues that concern me are all
across the United States of America, not just in the State of
Mississippi, which, indeed, is a wonderful State. But this is a
wonderful story because it puts faces, it puts real people, it puts
real children behind all the statistics, and that is why I use this as
an example.
Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Mississippi. I really hope I
will have support from colleagues on this.
Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. LOTT. I yield back the remainder of our time, and I move to table
the amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to
be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, does the Chair have business pending?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] is recognized to offer an amendment on which
there shall be 90 minutes equally divided.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, yesterday, I had reserved time for
another slot and had considered an amendment, which is the gift ban
amendment, and again the connection I make over and over again today,
it just strikes me as being more than ironic; I think it is
unconscionable that, apparently, as I look at what the House of
Representatives is doing right now, we are willing to cut free lunches
for children but we are not willing to pass a gift ban that ends free
lunches for Senators and Representatives.
However, Mr. President, while I think there has to be action on this,
I look forward to working with my colleagues, Senator Levin from
Michigan, Senator Feingold, Senator Lautenberg, and certainly the
majority leader, who has gone on record in favor of this. So this
amendment will be in the Chamber, though not today, and we will have a
vote on it. I will not propose this amendment today.
Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. LOTT. I would like to say to the Senator from Minnesota and
remind all of our colleagues that the majority leader, Senator Dole,
has indicated this issue will be addressed. He is working on
legislation in the gift ban area, and I do expect that we will have a
vote in this area in the not too distant future. So rest assured, we
are going to take up this issue.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Mississippi,
and I would just say I appreciate that. Rest assured, I will be out in
the Chamber with other colleagues with this amendment and keep pushing
this, and hopefully we will all do this together.
Mr. LOTT. 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. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, at this time I had the right to offer an
amendment. I do not intend to offer the amendment at this time and
withdraw that right.

the oregon option

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, recently, the State of Oregon and
several Federal agencies signed a memorandum of understanding to create
a new partnership which will test unique methods of delivering
Government services in a better and more efficient manner. When this
revolutionary partnership, called the Oregon option, is fully
implemented, Federal grants or transfers to State and local governments
in Oregon will be based on results rather than compliance with
procedures.
I believe that this project has the potential to vastly improve
intergovernmental service delivery in my State and may well prove to be
a national model for future governmental partnerships. For this reason,
I am pleased the managers of the pending legislation, the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, have included in their bill my sense-of-the-
Senate resolution urging the Federal Government to continue to be an
active partner in this effort.
Mr. President, I would specifically like to thank Senators Roth and
Glenn for their assistance and would also like to thank Senator Nunn
for his help in including my amendment.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, as a cosponsor of this important
legislation, I am pleased that the Senate will soon pass the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995. I am a longtime supporter of the Paperwork
Reduction Act which seeks to reduce the Federal paperwork burdens
imposed on the public.
I have been particularly concerned about the effects of the Federal
regulatory burden on small businesses throughout my years in Congress.
Americans spend billions of hours a year filling out forms, surveys,
questionnaires, and other information requests for the Federal
Government at a cost of several hundred billions dollars. Increasing
paperwork burdens force small businesses to redirect scarce resources
away from activities that might otherwise allow them to provide better
services to their customers or provide additional jobs. America's small
businesses are the backbone of our economy and, as such we need to
ensure that they are not crippled by regulatory burdens that hinder
their ability to compete in the increasingly competitive global
marketplace.
I am also pleased to cosponsor an amendment offered by Senator Levin
to eliminate or modify over 200 statutory reporting requirements that
have outlived their usefulness. This is an issue that Senator Levin and
I have worked on for a number of years in our capacity as chairman and
ranking minority member of the Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on
Oversight of Government Management. The Levin amendment is consistent
with efforts by the administration and the Congress to reinvent
Government and make it more efficient. It is based on a bill Senator
Levin and I introduced last Congress which CBO estimated would reduce
agencies' reporting costs by $5 to $10 million annually. The
legislation was the product of more than a year's worth of discussions
with Government agencies and congressional committees.
Examples of the types of reports that the amendment will eliminate or
modify include a provision to eliminate an annual Department of Energy
reporting requirement on naval petroleum and oil shale reserves
production. The same data included in this report is included in the
naval petroleum reserves annual report. Another provision would modify
the Department of Labor's annual report to include the Department's
audited financial statements and, thereby, eliminate the need for a
separate annual report for all money received and disbursed by the
Department.
The Levin amendment is consistent with the goals of the Paperwork
Reduction Act. It is intended to reduce the paperwork burdens placed on
Federal agencies and streamline the information that flows from these
agencies to the Congress.
Mr. President, I would now like to make a few statements about the
overall legislation. The bill before us contains provisions to maximize
the use of information collected by the Federal Government and keep in
place the 1980 act's goal of reducing the paperwork burdens imposed on
the public through
[[Page S3555]] an annual governmentwide paperwork reduction goal of 5
percent.
It reauthorizes the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
[OIRA], within the Office of Management and Budget [OMB], which
implements the act and requires each Federal agency to thoroughly
review proposed paperwork requirements to make sure they are truly
needed and have a practical utility. It also enhances public
participation in reviewing paperwork requirements.
The bill clarifies that the act applies to all Government-sponsored
paperwork, eliminating any confusion over the coverage of so-called
third party burdens--those imposed by one private party on another due
to a Federal regulation--caused by the U.S. Supreme Court's 1989
decision in Dole versus United Steelworkers of America. This decision
created a loophole for agencies to avoid public comment and OMB review.
Florida Gov. Lawton Chiles, who authorized the Paperwork Reduction Act
when he was in the Senate, filed on amicus brief with the Supreme Court
arguing that no such exemption for third party paperwork burdens where
intended when the act was created. Unfortunately, the Court held that
the plain meaning of the statute could not support such a finding.
Finally, I am pleased that the Governmental Affairs Committee
accepted an amendment I offered in committee to make changes to the
information technology provisions of the bill and allow the opportunity
for information technology reform later this Congress. This is an
important issue that warrants separate legislative consideration. In
closing, I want to commend Senators Roth, Glenn, and Nunn for their
work in this area. The bill enjoys broad bipartisan support and I hope
my colleagues will move expeditiously to vote on final passage.

____________________