[House Report 104-37]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



104th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 1st Session                                                     104-37
_______________________________________________________________________


 
                    PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT OF 1995

_______________________________________________________________________


 February 15, 1995.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______


  Mr. Clinger, from the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 830]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, to whom 
was referred the bill (H.R. 830) to amend chapter 35 of title 
44, United States Code, to further the goals of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act to have Federal agencies become more responsible 
and publicly accountable for reducing the burden of Federal 
paperwork on the public, and for other purposes, having 
considered the same, report favorably thereon with amendments 
and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
    The amendments (stated in terms of the introduced bill) are 
as follows:
    On page 12, line 14, strike ``and'' the second place it 
appears and insert in lieu thereof ``,''.
    On page 12, line 15, insert ``, and payment'' after 
``acquisition''.
    In the proposed section 3505 (page 19, line 9), strike 
``five'' and insert ``10''.
    In the proposed section 3514 (page 51, line 3), strike 
``5'' and insert ``10''.
    In the proposed section 3518 strike subsection (f).

                              Bill Summary

    In brief, H.R. 830, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is 
intended to:
          (1) Reauthorize appropriations for the Office of 
        Management and Budget's (OMB) Office of Information and 
        Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for an indefinite period of 
        time, to carry out the provisions of the Paperwork 
        Reduction Act of 1980, as amended;
          (2) Strengthen OIRA and agency responsibilities for 
        the reduction of paperwork burdens on the public, 
        particularly through the inclusion of all Federally 
        sponsored collections of information in a clearance 
        process involving public notice and comment, public 
        protection, and OIRA review;
          (3) Establish policies to promote the dissemination 
        of public information on a timely and equitable basis, 
        and in useful forms and formats;
          (4) Strengthen agency accountability for managing 
        information resources in support of efficient and 
        effective accomplishment of agency missions and 
        programs; and
          (5) Improve OIRA and other central management agency 
        oversight of agency information resources management 
        (IRM) policies and practices.
    The legislation is premised on the Committee's continuing 
belief in the principles and requirements of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1980. All of the legislation's amendments to 
the 1980 Act, as amended in 1986, are intended to further its 
original purposes--to strengthen OMB and agency paperwork 
reduction efforts, to improve OMB and agency information 
resources management, including in specific functional areas 
such as information dissemination, and to encourage and provide 
for more meaningful public participation in paperwork reduction 
and broader information resources management decisions.
    The legislation is drafted in the form of a revision of the 
Act due to the number of amendments. These amendments include 
word changes made for reasons of clarity and consistency, the 
deletion of obsolete provisions (e.g., out-dated deadlines), 
the reorganization of sections, and substantive changes to 
update and strengthen the original purposes of the Act. To the 
extent the legislation is a restatement of the 1980 Act, as 
amended in 1986, the scope, underlying purposes, basic 
requirements, and legislative history of the law are unchanged. 
To the extent legislation modifies provisions in current law, 
the amendments are made strictly for the purposes described in 
this report, and in order to further the purposes of the 
original law.
    With the regard to the reduction of information collection 
burdens, the legislation increases the Act's 1986 goal of an 
annual five percent reduction in public paperwork burdens to 
ten percent. OMB is required to include in its annual report to 
Congress recommendations to revise statutory paperwork burdens 
if this ten percent reduction goal is not reached. The 
legislation includes third-party disclosure requirements in the 
definition of collection of information to overturn the Supreme 
Courts decision, Dole v. United Steelworkers of America (494 
U.S. 26 (1990)). This will ensure that collection and 
disclosure requirements are covered by the OMB paperwork 
clearance process. The Act is also amended to require 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 collection upon public request. In combination with more 
general requirements, such as encouraging data sharing between 
the Federal Government and State, local, and tribal 
governments, the legislation strives to further the Act's goals 
of minimizing Government information collection burdens, while 
maximizing the utility of Government information.
    The legislation also adds further detail to strengthen 
other functional areas, such as statical policy and information 
dissemination. The dissemination provisions, for example, 
delineate clear policies that were not articulated in the Act's 
previous references to dissemination. The provisions require 
OMB to develop governmentwide policies and guidelines for 
information dissemination and to promote public access to 
information maintained by Federal agencies. In turn, the 
agencies are to: ensure that the public has timely and 
equitable access to public information; solicit public input on 
their information dissemination activities; and not establish 
restrictions on dissemination or redissemination. Emphasis is 
placed on efficient and effective use of new technology and a 
reliance on a diversity of public private sources of 
information to promote dissemination of Government information, 
particularly in electronic formats.
    With regard to over-arching information resources 
management (IRM) policies, the legislation charges agency heads 
with the responsibility to carry out agency IRM activities to 
improve agency productivity, efficiency, and effectiveness. It 
makes program officials responsible and accountable for those 
information resources supporting their program. The IRM mandate 
is strengthened by focusing on managing information resources 
in order to improve program performance, including the delivery 
of services to the public and the reduction of information 
collection burdens on the public.
    To improve accountability for agency IRM responsibilities, 
as well as responsibilities for paperwork reduction, the agency 
responsibilities provided in the Act are amended to complement 
and more directly parallel OMB's functional responsibilities. 
Further, to prompt agencies to reform their management 
practices, the bill requires each agency head to establish an 
IRM steering committee, develop an IRM strategic planning 
process, and develop IRM performance measures linked to program 
performance. In these various pursuits, the goal is to 
integrate the management of information resources with program 
management and assure the use of the resources to achieve 
agency missions, 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. The reduction of 
information collection burdens on the public and maximizing the 
utility of Government information will not otherwise occur.

                       Scope of Committee Review

    H.R. 830, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, was 
introduced on February 6, 1995, by Government Reform and 
Oversight Committee Chairman William F. Clinger, Jr., for 
himself, Congressmen Norman Sisisky, David McIntosh, Chairman 
of the Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural 
Resources, and Regulatory Affairs, and other Members of 
Congress.
    After introduction, H.R. 830 was referred to the Committee 
on Government Reform and Oversight. On February 6, 1995, 
Chairman Clinger referred the bill to the Subcommittee on 
National Economic Growth, Natural Resources, and Regulatory 
Affairs for consideration. On February 7, 1995, the 
Subcommittee, under the direction of Chairman McIntosh, held a 
hearing to consider reauthorization of appropriations for the 
Paperwork Reduction Act, OIRA's implementation of the Act, and 
OIRA's conduct of regulatory review under presidential 
executive order. Testimony included comment and discussion of 
H.R. 830.
    Witnesses at the February 8, 1995 hearing were: The 
Honorable Sally Katzen, Administrator, Office of Information 
and Regulatory Affairs; Mr. James McIntyre, former Director of 
the Office of Management and Budget and currently an attorney; 
Mr. James Miller, former Director of the Office of Management 
and Budget and current Chairman of the Citizens for a Sound 
Economy; Mr. Gene Dodaro, Assistant Comptroller General, 
General Accounting Office accompanied by Mr. Chris Hoenig, also 
of GAO; Mr. Robert Coakley, Executive Director, Council on 
Regulatory and Information Management; Jack Sheehan, 
Legislative Director, United Steelworkers of America; and Bob 
Stolmeier, President, KLC Corporation.
    At the hearing, Clinton Administration witness Sally Katzen 
testified squarely in support of H.R. 830.

          It is truly gratifying to be here today in what I 
        hope is the last phase of improving and strengthening 
        the Paperwork Reduction Act. For more than two years 
        Congress has had legislative proposals to update and 
        expand the Paperwork Reduction Act consistent with and 
        building upon its original purposes. My commendations 
        to the congressional staff who have worked 
        professionally and constructively to develop a 
        consensus, a bipartisan approach, which is contained in 
        H.R. 830 and in the Senate, 244, which the Senate 
        Governmental Affairs Committee reported out on February 
        1. We are pleased to report that the administration 
        supports those efforts. (Emphasis added.)

    After taking into consideration the testimony of the 
witnesses at the February 7 hearing, and after further 
consultation with the staff of the House Small Business 
Committee, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and 
with staff of the General Accounting Office and Office of 
Management and Budget, the Subcommittee held a mark-up of H.R. 
830 on February 8, 1995. The full Committee held its markup on 
February 10, 1995 and voted, 40 in favor and 4 against, to 
report H.R. 830, as amended, favorably to the full House.
    The Paperwork Reduction Act was also considered during a 
January 27, 1995 hearing of the Committee on Small Business. 
Their findings, transmitted in a letter to Committee Chairman 
Clinger, are found under ``Chapter X, Oversight Findings.''

                               Discussion

                              a. overview

    For the American public, Government information often seems 
to serve either of two quite different purposes. It can be the 
means by which the dedicated public servant uncovers problems, 
reaches decisions, enforces laws, delivers services, and 
informs the public. But it also can be the means by which the 
faceless bureaucrat asks time-consuming or intrusive questions, 
forces seemingly arbitrary changes in business practices or 
personal behavior, and imposes significant costs on the 
economy.
    These two views of Government information have led to far 
different perspectives on how the Government should manage its 
information activities. The Paperwork Reduction Act reflects 
both the tensions between these perspectives and the 
legislative effort to create a comprehensive management 
framework equal to the task of managing both sides of the 
seemingly divergent nature of Government information (which 
includes information collected, maintained, or disclosed by or 
for the Government).
    The Paperwork Reduction Act arose from the recommendations 
of the 1977 Federal Paperwork Commission. In the Commission's 
October 3, 1977, ``Final Summary Report to the President,'' 
Commission Chairman Frank Horton stated,

          Many people feel, and the Commission agrees, that a 
        multibillion dollar wall of paperwork has been erected 
        between the Government and the people. Countless 
        reporting and recordkeeping requirements and other 
        heavy-handed investigation and monitoring schemes have 
        been instituted based on what we view as a faulty 
        premise that people will not obey the laws and rules 
        unless they are checked, monitored, and rechecked.
          This situation and this assumption must be reversed 
        if we are to restore efficiency within Government and 
        confidence in Government by the people and if we are to 
        realize the potential for cooperative attainment of our 
        goals as a Nation.

    The Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, nearly 20 
years later, agrees and believes that more must be done to 
restore the American people's faith in their Government. The 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, being the first step towards 
that goal, combined a revitalized paperwork clearance process 
(that had originated in the Federal Reports Act of 1942) with 
government-wide requirements for ``information resources 
management'' (IRM). Key to the success of the Act were its 
mandates for OMB leadership, agency management, and meaningful 
public participation in the development and implementation of 
IRM policy.
    Fifteen years after the original Act's enactment, the 
Committee not only continues to believe very strongly in the 
Act's purposes and requirements, but also believes that 
additional steps can be taken both to further paperwork 
reduction and to strengthen IRM. Again, the key to success 
involves creating a constant level of OMB leadership, 
strengthening agency management, and encouraging more effective 
public participation.
    Despite widespread support for the Act, the Committee 
recognizes that it has not been totally successful. Federal 
information collection burdens continue to mount. According to 
the January, 1995 edition of Government Executive magazine, the 
number of pages of rules printed in the Federal Register 
climbed from an annual average of 50,618 during President 
Reagan's eight years in office to an average of 53,596 during 
the Bush Administration. In 1993 and 1994, the annual page 
count has averaged over 61,000. The increase of Federal 
Register pages during the Clinton Administration is 15 percent 
from the Bush Administration and 22 percent from the Reagan 
Administration. Although the number of pages in the Register is 
a crude means to measure regulatory and paperwork burdens, 
increases this substantial cannot be ignored. Not only OMB, but 
agencies too, must do more to reduce these regulatory and 
paperwork burdens.
    A major purpose of the 1995 legislation, therefore, is to 
strengthen the Act's paperwork control requirements by:
          (1) Clarifying the scope of OMB review;
          (2) Expanding public notice and comment, and public 
        protection provisions;
          (3) Specifying agency paperwork reduction 
        responsibilities; and
          (4) Looking for innovations in information technology 
        to reduce paperwork burdens.
    Additional steps can be taken, but fall outside the scope 
of this specific Act. The Committee and Congress, for example, 
will consider various other reforms to the regulatory process. 
These include the imposition of a cost/benefit analysis to all 
regulations, a regulatory moratorium to allow Congress to 
review proposed regulations, and established criteria for risk 
assessment. With these much needed changes, the Committee 
believes greater progress can be made in reducing Government 
paperwork burdens on the public.
    The reduction of public paperwork burdens will also be 
served by the legislation's other management focus. The still 
widening gap between possibilities for improved Governmental 
operations through the use of information technology, and the 
Government's apparent inability to take advantage of this 
technology, demonstrates that the Act's IRM mandates have not 
been sufficiently realized. Today's information systems offer 
the Government unprecedented opportunities to provide services 
of a higher quality tailored to the public's changing needs, 
delivered more effectively, faster, at lower cost, and with 
reduced burdens on the public. Unfortunately, Federal agencies 
have not kept pace with evolving management practices and 
skills necessary to: (1) precisely define critical information 
needs; and (2) select, apply, and manage changing information 
technologies. The result, in many cases, has been wasted 
resources, a frustrated public unable to get quality service, 
and a Government ill-prepared to measure and manage its affairs 
in a acceptable, businesslike manner. Despite spending more 
than $200 billion on information management and systems in the 
past 12 years, the Government has too little evidence of 
meaningful returns. The consequences--poor service quality, 
high costs, low productivity, unnecessary risks and burdens, 
and unexploited opportunities for improvement--cannot be 
tolerated.
    Thus, another important purpose of the 1995 legislation is 
to revise the Act's IRM requirements to refocus the attention 
of Federal managers on the pressing need to make information 
technology support programs efficient and effective. The 
Federal Government's annual expenditure of approximately $25 
billion on information technology is seriously compromised by 
inadequate and irresponsible systems planning, design, 
acquisition, and management. These amendments are intended to 
fight waste, reduce burdens, and strengthen accountability 
through greater and more clearly delineated OMB and Federal 
agency IRM responsibilities.
    A third important issue that requires legislation is the 
matter of information dissemination. The advent of the 
electronic information age presents new opportunities and 
obligations for the Federal Government as it strives to fulfill 
its continuing responsibility to make Government information 
accessible to the American public. The legislation meets this 
need by providing for improved dissemination of Government 
information to the public, particularly in electronic formats. 
The bill establishes basic dissemination policies and 
principles, mandates the development of an effective 
information locator system and integrates access and 
dissemination planning into the management of Government 
information.

                 b. the paperwork reduction act of 1980

    Enactment of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 originated 
from an effort to modernize the Federal Reports Act of 1942. 
The Reports Act authorized the Bureau of the Budget (OMB's 
predecessor) ``to coordinate Federal reporting services, to 
eliminate duplication and reduce the cost of such services, and 
to minimize the burdens of furnishing information to Federal 
agencies.'' The core of the current law's concern for reducing 
information collection burdens and improving the management of 
Federal information resources is found in this 52-year-old 
statutory mandate.
    In the mid-1970s, growing public complaints about 
Government ``red tape'' led Congress to create the Commission 
on Federal Paperwork. The Commission reported in 1977 that the 
annual cost of Federal paperwork was $100 billion and that 
there were serious ``structural and procedural flaws'' in the 
Reports Act clearance process that ``preclude it from ever 
being fully successful in controlling the total paperwork 
burden on the American public.''
    The Commission did not, however, simply recommend 
improvements in the paperwork clearance process. It saw that 
the red tape problem was part of a much larger problem--
fragmented, inefficient, and ineffective management of 
information in the emerging electronic age. As the Commission 
noted in its September 9, 1977 report titled, ``Information 
Resources Management: A Report of the Committee on Federal 
Paperwork'':

          A simple bureaucratic reorganization of traditional 
        records and paperwork management disciplines to meet 
        the challenges of the information revolution would 
        simply be overwhelmed in attempting to control the mass 
        of complexity presented by modern computer/
        telecommunications technologies.

    The Commission concluded that a new, broader information 
management framework was needed to control the Federal 
information appetite and help agencies more efficiently and 
effectively perform their information functions:

          It is time to view the problems of paperwork and red 
        tape, not as documents to be managed, but rather as 
        information content to be treated as a valuable 
        resource. By applying the principles of management to 
        this valuable national resource we not only get at the 
        root cause of paperwork and red tape, but cause a 
        rippling effect in the application throughout 
        Government: the design of programs is improved; 
        Government becomes more sensitive to the burdens it 
        imposes on the public, becomes more understandable, and 
        develops clearer goals and objectives. In the end, 
        Government improves the delivery of services to people 
        as well as fulfills its other functions of regulation, 
        defense, enforcement and revenue collection more 
        effectively.
          Information resources management is not the only 
        solution to insensitive, complex and unresponsive 
        Government. It can, however, make a significant impact 
        in reducing the economic burdens of paperwork on the 
        public by reducing duplication, clearly justifying 
        information needs, improving reporting forms and 
        collection processes, and effectively and efficiently 
        utilizing modern information handling techniques and 
        technologies.

    The result of this effort was the Paperwork Reduction Act 
(P.L. 96-511), which was signed into law in December 1980 by 
the outgoing President, Jimmy Carter, and endorsed by the 
incoming President, Ronald Reagan.
    The Act's broad purposes were to:
          Minimize the public burden of Federal paperwork;
          Minimize the Federal cost of collecting, maintaining, 
        using, and disseminating information;
          Maximize the usefulness of information collected by 
        the Federal Government;
          Coordinate Federal information policies and 
        practices;
          Ensure that information technology is acquired and 
        used to improve service delivery and program management 
        and reduce the information processing burden for the 
        Federal Government and those who provide information to 
        it; and
          Ensure that the collection, maintenance, use, and 
        dissemination of information is consistent with 
        applicable laws relating to privacy, security, and 
        confidentiality. These purposes remain valid to this 
        day.
    The Act strengthened the Federal Reports Act paperwork 
clearance process by: (1) consolidating paperwork control in 
OMB; (2) eliminating exemptions from review for several 
agencies (e.g., the Internal Revenue Service) and collections 
(e.g., recordkeeping requirements); (3) requiring agencies to 
eliminate duplication, minimize burden, and develop plans for 
using the information before they request OMB approval of 
proposed information collections; and (4) creating a ``public 
protection provision'' providing that no penalty may be imposed 
on a person who fails to respond to an unapproved paperwork 
requirement.
    The Act's other major initiative was, as recommended by the 
Federal Paperwork Commission, to integrate this revitalized 
paperwork control process within a broader IRM context to link 
all of the Act's purposes under a consolidated management 
``umbrella.'' Thus, the Act created a single management 
framework to govern Federal agency information activities, and 
consolidated governmental policy and oversight functions in a 
new OMB Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA).
    The scope of this consolidation is seen in the array of 
laws enacted over the preceding 50 years that were coordinated 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA):
          The Federal Reports Act (1942) created the BoB/OMB 
        paperwork clearance process--the PRA revised that 
        process;
          The Federal Property and Administrative Services Act 
        (1949) created the General Services Administration 
        (GSA) and the Federal Records Act (1950) gave GSA 
        records management and archiving functions--The PRA 
        gave OMB oversight of those GSA functions;
          The Budget and Accounting Procedures Act (1950) gave 
        BoB/OMB statistical policy oversight--The PRA 
        reestablished and expanded those responsibilities;
          The Act of October 23, 1962 (P.L. 87-847, amending 
        the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act) 
        established the Federal Telecommunications Fund to 
        finance procurement of Federal telecommunications 
        equipment and facilities--the PRA gave OMB oversight of 
        the Fund and related information technology functions;
          The Brooks Act (P.L. 89-306, amending the Federal 
        Property and Administrative Services Act, 1965) 
        established GSA supervision of automatic data 
        processing equipment (ADPE) procurement and Department 
        of Commerce responsibility for Federal information 
        processing/ADP standards--the PRA gave OMB oversight of 
        these functions with more detailed policy requirements; 
        and
          The Privacy Act (1974) established OMB oversight of 
        the management of Government records containing 
        personal information--the PRA linked this 
        responsibility with security and other related 
        functions.
    This range of policies and requirements consolidated under 
the umbrella of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 
demonstrates Congress' resolve to establish a comprehensive 
approach equal to the task of managing Government information 
in the emerging electronic information age. In its scope, the 
Act represented an historic effort to focus the attention of 
the entire Federal management apparatus on the twin tasks of 
reducing public information collection burdens and maximizing 
the utility of Government information to more efficiently and 
effectively perform Government functions.

        C. implementation of the paperwork reduction act of 1980

    Despite the consensus evident in its origins, the 
implementation of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 has 
received criticism from some quarters. When the Act went into 
effect on April 1, 1981, the newly created Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) operated not only 
under the statute, but also under President Reagan's regulatory 
review order (Executive Order No. 12291, issued February 17, 
1981). This order created a process for OMB cost/benefit review 
of agency regulations, which OMB integrated with its statutory 
paperwork clearance process. These efforts were designed to 
slow the enormous growth in unjustified regulatory and 
paperwork burdens created during the 1970s.
    With OMB taking a ``unified'' approach to paperwork 
reduction and regulatory review, implementation of the Act 
became a major issue in the political debate about the 
Administration's regulatory policy--not just involving abstract 
questions of administrative accountability and separation of 
powers, but centering on concrete Government decisions 
affecting public health and safety and the environment. This 
ultimately decade-long controversy polarized congressional 
oversight of OMB; diverted attention from other significant 
problems in OMB's implementation of the Act; and frustrated 
attempts to reauthorize appropriations for the Act between 1983 
and 1986, and again between 1989 and 1994. Unfortunately, no 
constructive hearings were conducted in the late 1980s and 
early 1990s by the predecessor of this Committee, the 
Government Operations Committee, on the progress being made to 
reduce paperwork burdens.
    The 1980 Act assigned OMB a wide range of IRM tasks, 
including thirteen tasks with deadlines, for its implementation 
of the Act's paperwork control and other IRM functions. GAO, in 
reviewing OMB's implementation of the Act, identified 39 
discrete tasks covering the full range of OMB's 
responsibilities. While some were one-time actions, many were 
continual activities that OMB would administer as long as the 
Act was in place.
    Responding to the paperwork burden goals included in the 
Act, OMB reported success in the battle against red tape--a 32 
percent reduction by January 1984, which exceeded the Act's 
goal of a 25 percent reduction. In tracking OMB's 
implementation, GAO reported on several occasions that OMB was 
not meeting the full range of its statutory obligations. OMB 
did not issue policy guidance to agencies on information 
technology, statistical policy, records management, privacy, 
and information dissemination until December 1985 (OMB Circular 
N. A-130, December 12, 1985, 50 Federal Register 52730, 
December 24, 1985). The major reason, according to GAO, was 
OMB's concentration on paperwork clearance and the regulatory 
review process established by Executive Order No. 12291. GAO 
also found that the limited guidance was causing agencies 
problems in carrying out their IRM responsibilities, resulting 
in a serious lack of attention to a variety of information 
management problems. See, Hearing before the Subcomm. on 
Legislation and National Security, House Comm. on Government 
Operations, October 21, 1981; Hearing before the Subcomm. on 
Federal Expenditures, Research, and Rules, Senate Comm. on 
Governmental Affairs, April 14, 1982; ``Implementing the 
Paperwork Reduction Act: Some Progress, But Many Problems 
Remain,'' GAO/GGD-83-35, April 20, 1983; Hearing before the 
Subcomm. on Legislation and National Security, House Comm. on 
Government Operations, April 27, 1983; Hearing before the 
Subcomm. on Information Management and Regulatory Affairs, 
Senate Comm. on Governmental Affairs, May 6, 1983; Hearing 
before the Subcomm. on Information Management and Regulatory 
Affairs, Senate Comm. on Governmental Affairs, April 4, 1984; 
and ``The Office of Management and Budget's Actions Show 
Progress in Implementing the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980,'' 
GAO/IMTEC-84-24, September 7, 1984.
    The 1986 reauthorization legislation (P.L. 99-591 (44 
U.S.C. 3520(c)), 1986) contained provisions to address the 
paperwork versus regulatory review issue. The bill amended the 
1980 Act to require disclosure of written communications 
between OIRA and agencies or the public regarding paperwork 
proposals, and OIRA explanation of paperwork clearance 
decisions.
    Even while addressing these contentious issues, the 
Committee maintained its strong support for the Act's paperwork 
reduction provisions. The 1986 legislation established an 
annual five percent paperwork burden reduction goal, required 
agencies to provide the public with more information about 
paperwork proposals, required OIRA to identify initiatives to 
reduce paperwork burdens associated with Federal grant 
programs, and revised the definition of ``information 
collection request'' to include ``collection of information 
requirement.'' This definitional change ensured that regulatory 
paperwork would be governed by all aspects of the Act's 
paperwork clearance process.
    Finally, with regard to IRM and other information 
functions, the 1986 amendments required Senate confirmation of 
the OIRA Administrator; defined the term ``information 
resources management''; provided new requirements and deadlines 
for IRM plans and policies; required the appointment of a 
professional statistician to carry out a broadened array of 
OMB's statistical policy functions; revised the scope of the 
Act's information technology provisions; strengthened OMB 
responsibilities for information security and dissemination; 
and mandated steps to make Government information more 
accessible to the public.
    Notwithstanding the improvements made by the 1986 
legislation and the successful efforts of the Reagan 
Administration to reduce the growth rate of paperwork and 
regulatory burdens, criticisms continued about the use of 
paperwork clearance as an adjunct to regulatory review, about 
OMB's still-lagging progress in implementing the IRM provisions 
of the Act, and about OMB's failure to stem the still-growing 
tide of paperwork. Expiration of the Act's second authorization 
for appropriations in 1989, and the Committee's consideration 
of reauthorization legislation provided the forum once again 
for this debate.

                       D. third party disclosure

    In 1990, the paperwork/regulatory issues, particularly, 
took on more urgency when the Supreme Court ruled in Dole v. 
United Steelworkers of America, 49 U.S. 26 (1990), on the scope 
of the paperwork clearance process.
    Dole involed an OIRA paperwork clearance disapproval of 
several provisions in the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard, 
which requires employers to inform employees of hazardous 
chemicals in the workplace. After lengthy litigation over the 
OSHA rule and OIRA's role in its promulgation, the Supreme 
Court ruled that OIRA's authority to review agency information 
collection activities was limited to information collected by 
an agency, and did not extend to third-party information 
disclosure requirements. The Court's discussion of limits on 
OMB's ability to affect an agency's ``substantive regulatory 
choice'' was seized on by OMB critics as vindication of their 
decade-long argument that OMB was overstepping its legal 
mandates. On the other side of the argument were those who 
claimed that agencies were now using Dole to justify sending 
fewer proposals to OIRA for clearance.
    The Committee believes that the Court misreads Congress' 
intent in enacting the 1980 Act. H.R. 830 overturns the Dole 
decision and includes third party disclosure requirements 
within its provisions.
    The basic reasons to ensure that third party disclosure 
requirements are clearly within the scope of the Act are 
threefold. The character of Federal information collection has 
changed since 1980. Increasingly, Federal agencies are using 
third party disclosure requirements to meet program needs, 
instead of directly collecting, processing, and disseminating 
information itself. Third party disclosures include Federal 
requirements for labeling, self-certification, public 
recordkeeping, conveying information between third parties 
(such as pension data a Federal agency requires employers give 
their employees); and directly conveying information to State 
or local governments.
    Third party disclosure is increasing partly because 
agencies, with their own limited resources to collect and 
analyze information, have discovered that their program 
objectives may be met by requiring private parties to provide 
information directly to the intended beneficiary (e.g., an 
employee of the employer) or enforcer (e.g., the State or local 
government charged with regulatory enforcement), eliminating 
the Federal middle-man. In order to decrease the direct cost of 
Government services, agencies may also adopt third party 
disclosure in the form of self-certification and recordkeeping 
by private entities to replace extensive information 
collections.
    In addition, the Federal Government has increased the use 
of third party disclosure by having private institutions and 
individuals report to State or local governments. States, for 
example, are often charged with the responsibility for 
implementing and enforcing Federal program requirements with 
extensive information collection. In such situations, a Federal 
agency may not actually receive the information as collected, 
but require the States to retain the reports from the public 
for possible Federal inspection or having States send the 
Federal agency only a summary of information reported to them.

             E. President Bush's Council On Competitiveness

    The lack of Congressional support for reauthorizing the 
Paperwork Reduction Act during the late 1980s and early 1990s 
resulted in a debilitated OIRA. The Agency suffered from a 
reducing budget and a lack of political level leadership. The 
vacuum that was created was largely filled during the 
administration of President George Bush by the creation of the 
Council on Competitiveness. The Council was a Cabinet-level 
body, chaired by Vice President Dan Quayle, and designed to 
reduce the burdens of excessive regulation and to encourage 
America's competitiveness.
    In a September, 1992 report entitled, ``The Legacy of 
Regulatory Reform: Restoring America's Competitiveness,'' the 
council detailed its success in making the regulatory process 
more efficient and effective.
    Some of the report's highlights include:
          The Bush/Quayle Administration's reforms to the drug 
        approval process save lives and reduce suffering for 
        millions of U.S. citizens. Experts estimate that more 
        than 33,000 lives will be save annually in the U.S. The 
        Council's reforms will cut, nearly in half, the time 
        necessary to approve important new drugs to treat 
        cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer's depression, cystic 
        fibrosis, AIDS and other life-threatening diseases. The 
        76,000 AIDS/HIV patients in the United States can be 
        helped by our rapid approval process.
          Health care has benefited from U.S. world leadership 
        in biotechnology that has created more than 750 new 
        drugs, vaccines and devices to address diseases, such 
        as cancer and AIDS. The Council's efforts have 
        supported the development of the U.S. biotechnology 
        industry. This rapid growth section employ 
        approximately 80,000 Americans nationwide.
          The Bush Administration's regulatory reform efforts 
        have generated and saved jobs for workers in the U.S. 
        Economists estimate that a regulatory reduction of this 
        magnitude will save or create over 200,000 jobs 
        nationwide. By cutting regulatory red tape, the Bush/
        Quayle Administration has freed up resources for 
        productive, job-creating uses. These efforts have and 
        will continue to touch the lives of the citizens of the 
        United States.
          The Bush/Quayle Administration opposed efforts to 
        expand harmful fuel efficiency (CAFE) regulations that 
        create incentives for American companies to relocate 
        automobile and auto parts manufacturing overseas. 
        Raising the CAFE standard merely 2 mpg would cost over 
        200,000 jobs nationwide. A much higher CAFE standard, 
        such as the proposed 40 mpg level, would cripple the 
        U.S. automobile industry and threaten some 2.1 million 
        auto-related jobs in America.
          The Council on Competitiveness' Report on National 
        Biotechnology Policy sets forth a common sense approach 
        to biotechnological innovations in agriculture. 
        Biotechnology offers the prospect of higher crop 
        yields, reduced pesticide use, improved nutritional 
        characteristics, and healthier crops for America's 2 
        million farms. By employing risk-based regulation, this 
        industry will safely grow to $50 billion nationwide by 
        the year 2000, with substantial benefits to American 
        workers and consumers.
          Many of the Bush Administration's legal reforms 
        incorporated market-style incentives to reduce 
        litigation and encourage earlier dispute resolution. 
        The Council on Competitiveness has worked to implement 
        reforms, which would promote fairness and 
        predictability in our nations court system. With 18 
        million new civil cases filed in the United States last 
        year, the time has come for someone to stand up to the 
        litigation explosion. The Council on Competitiveness is 
        the voice in Government leading the charge.
          Lack of clarity over Superfund liability drove many 
        of America's 35,000 lending institutions to become very 
        reluctant in lending to American businesses. The 
        Council on Competitiveness has worked with EPA to 
        clarify lender liability obligations under superfund, 
        and thereby improve the lending climate for American 
        businesses.
          The Administration has put in place environmental 
        programs that are affordable and effective, and 
        preserve jobs. The Bush/Quayle Administration 
        coordinated implementation of the new Clean Air Act 
        that improves the quality of the environment in the 
        United States:
                  Reduces sulphur dioxide emissions in the year 
                2000 by 10 million tons less than they would 
                have been otherwise.
                  Reduces cancer-causing hazardous air 
                pollutants by 27 million pounds approximately 
                four years ahead of schedule.
                  Reformulates gasoline to make it less 
                polluting by reducing the emissions of ozone 
                depleting and cancer-causing chemicals.
          Small businesses generate most of the new jobs in 
        America. Excessive regulation litigation costs are 
        often serving as the greatest barriers to new small 
        businesses. The Council on Competitiveness has worked 
        with the Securities and Exchange Commission to make it 
        easier for America's small businesses to access capital 
        markets directly. For the first time, thousands of 
        small businesses will be able to use streamlined 
        securities registration forms. It is estimated that 
        eligible businesses will save up to $180 million in 
        legal and accounting fees.
    Despite these successes, not everybody was pleased. 
According to the November 11, 1991 edition of Insight magazine:

          The council's power to drag out and review the 
        regulatory process at every step along the way has 
        infuriated members of Congress and other advocates of 
        regulations it has helped to quash. Public interest and 
        environmental groups denounce it as a deregulatory star 
        chamber.
          In a September report, ``All the Vice President's 
        Men: How the Quayle Council Secretly Undermines Health, 
        Safety and Environmental Regulations,'' two pro-
        regulatory groups, OMB Watch and Public Citizen's 
        Congress Watch, decried the ``stranglehold on the 
        agency rulemaking process'' enjoyed by the little-known 
        but ``formidable'' President's Council on 
        Competitiveness.

    The Council was eliminated in early 1993 following the 
inauguration of President William J. Clinton.

                        f. 1995 reauthorization

    Reauthorization efforts in the current 104th Congress began 
in the final days of the 103rd Congress. During that Congress, 
Congressmen Norman Sisisky (D-VA) and then Government 
Operations Committee ranking minority member William F. 
Clinger, Jr., (R-VA), introduced H.R. 2995, a bill to 
reauthorize the Paperwork Reduction Act. This bill gained 
almost immediately over 120 cosponsors with an almost equal 
number of Republicans as Democrats. A Senate companion bill, S. 
560 was introduced by Senators Sam Nunn (D-GA), Dale Bumpers D-
AK) and William Roth (R-DE). A similar bill, S. 681, was 
introduced by Senators John Glenn (D-OH), and Carl Levin (D-
MI). Discussions among the primary sponsors of the two Senate 
bills, and with officials of the Clinton Administration, 
suggested that a renewed cooperative effort could produce a 
single compromise bill.
    A compromise bill was drafted in the Senate, and later 
supported in the House by Congressmen Clinger and Sisisky. It 
was approved by the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs on 
August 2, 1994, and later passed the full Senate with unanimous 
support. In a joint letter on August 3, 1994, Congressmen 
Clinger and Sisisky wrote Government Operations Committee 
Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) seeking Committee consideration of 
the Senate bill. In their letter, they stated,

          S. 560, as amended by a substitute offered by Sen. 
        John Glenn, is a logical extension of legislation first 
        championed by the Government Operations Committee a 
        decade and a half ago. This new bill builds on the 
        Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 by significantly 
        improving the management of information technology and 
        information resources in the federal government.
          We are writing to ask that you join us in support of 
        this effort. We also understand the Clinton 
        Administration's Office of Management and Budget, the 
        General Accounting Office, and the small business 
        community have all expressed their support for S.560, 
        as amended.

    Unfortunately, the Committee took no action and the 
Senate's compromise proposal failed to clear the Congress 
during the 103rd Congress. The amended S. 560 became the base 
vehicle for consideration in both the House and the Senate 
during the 104th Congress, however, and is represented in many 
of the pages of the bill approved by the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight.
    Following review of the Act's implementation, reports from 
OMB, GAO and others, and consideration of the varied public 
views, the Committee is convinced that the basic purposes of 
the Act and the management framework it set in place in 1980 
are still appropriate and should be continued. However, too 
little progress has been made in implementing key provisions of 
the Act. Amendments are required to strengthen each functional 
IRM area: IRM policy; paperwork control; dissemination; 
statistics; records management; security and privacy; and 
information technology management.
    First, with regard to the reduction of paperwork burdens, 
more needs to be done. Specific annual paperwork reduction 
goals will help focus agency attention on this important task. 
If these goals are not reached, OMB should recommend to 
Congress statutory changes to programs designed to meet the 
full 10 percent burden reduction goals. More precise agency 
requirements, including public comment, will lead to early 
agency review of information collection activities before 
submission to OMB. Finally, the disparate treatment of 
information disclosure and collection requirements, introduced 
by Dole, should be ended.
    The Act's IRM provisions are also in need of revision for a 
variety of reasons, not the least of which is the use of new 
information technology. Over the past 13 years, OIRA failed to 
carry out its IRM responsibilities as well as it could. 
Similarly, Federal agencies made limited progress in 
implementing efficient and effective programs of information 
resources management. As a result, many of the problems the Act 
sought to remedy not only persist, but have grown more serious. 
Additionally, a revised Act should also help agencies prepare 
for the variety of new information management challenges that 
are on the horizon.
    Overall, the Committee believes, as did the Federal 
Paperwork Commission, that more needs to be done to improve the 
management of Federal information resources. Information 
policymakers must equip themselves with the knowledge necessary 
to achieve the highest quality, best use, and least burden from 
Government information. Similarly, agency managers, called upon 
to do more with less, must familiarize themselves with the 
capabilities of information technology as a resource for 
efficiently and effectively administering programs--again, 
maximizing utility and minizing burden. Without this effort, 
Government information activities will be too wasteful and too 
burdensome, and the American public will have their worst views 
of Government information confirmed.
    To achieve this goal, the Committee believes that 
Government information, as a valuable and useful resource to 
Government and society, must be managed in a coordinated and 
systematic manner based on established principles of 
information resources management. OIRA, in conjunction with 
other central management offices, should exercise leadership in 
developing coherent information policy which gives balanced and 
needed emphasis to all information functions. Federal agencies 
should establish information resources management programs that 
implement OIRA's policy guidance. Without such programs, 
agencies will fail in their operational responsibilities--OIRA 
may develop the policies but the practices take place in the 
agencies.
    The Committee is pleased to see a variety of initiatives to 
change the culture of Federal information resources management 
by focusing on ``best practices'' and the improvement of 
mission performance. See, GAO's report, ``Improving Mission 
Performance Through Strategic Information Management and 
Technology'' (GAO/AIMD-94-115, May 1994); the revised OMB 
Circular A-130, 59 Fed. Reg. 37906 (July 25, 1994); and 
``Reengineering through Information Technology,'' Accompanying 
Report of the National Performance Review (September 1993). 
These efforts hold great promise for improving the efficiency 
and effectiveness of Government information activities.
    The major functional areas addressed by the legislation are 
as follows:

Information resources management

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 established the concept 
of information resources management (IRM) for the Federal 
Government. The Act calls for the efficient and effective 
management of information and related resources, like other 
Government resources. The management structure required by the 
Act--a central office in OMB and designated IRM officials in 
the agencies--was intended to insure that agency IRM activities 
be given more visibility and attention from top management.
    Managers in most agencies continue to overlook the 
importance of their information management activities. In many 
Government agencies, information issues are viewed as an 
administrative function, rather than an integral part of agency 
management and operations. As a result, these issues and 
functions often are delegated to technical staff. Consequently, 
during the 14-year period the law has been in effect, most 
agencies have made little progress in improving the management 
of their information resources, particularly with regard to 
their supporting the fulfillment of agency programs and 
missions.
    Furthermore, within the past decade, the public has grown 
accustomed to the benefits of using information technology to 
improve the cost, quality, and timeliness in the delivery of 
services and products. Americans now expect to solve a problem 
with one telephone call, obtain customer service 24 hours a 
day, withdraw cash from automated teller machines around the 
country, and get products delivered almost anywhere overnight. 
Consequently, at a time when almost anyone can get eyeglasses 
in about an hour, veterans cannot fathom why they must wait six 
weeks to obtain them from the Government. Similarly, the 
general public cannot understand why it takes weeks, instead of 
days, to process an income tax refund or months to determine 
eligibility for Social Security disability benefits.
    Federal agencies are estimated to have spent at least $25 
billion on information systems in fiscal year 1994, and about a 
quarter of a trillion dollars since the Paperwork Reduction Act 
was enacted 14 years ago. Despite this huge expenditure, it is 
unclear what the public has received for its money. Critical 
information assets are frequently inaccurate, inaccessible, or 
nonexistent. Efforts across the Government to improve mission 
performance and reduce costs are still too often limited by the 
lack of information or the poor use of information technology.
    The General Accounting Office's reports on information 
management and technology issues of 1988 and 1992 underscored 
how federal agencies often lack the critical information needed 
to analyze programmatic issues, control costs, and measure 
results. (See ``Information Management and Technology Issues,'' 
GAO/OCG-93-5TR, December 1992; ``Information Technology 
Issues,'' GAO/OCG-89-6TR, November 1988).
    Further, GAO has documented examples of Federal agency 
information systems failures over the past 10 years that 
include:
          Over $1 billion of mistaken Medicare payments;
          The outlay of millions of dollars of unauthorized 
        student loans because of poor information tracking;
          Inadequate financial data on agencies' basic 
        operations that frustrates financial management and 
        auditing; and
          The release of highly sensitive data on law 
        enforcement informants through mismanagement of 
        security.
    For most Federal agencies, GAO has reported that pervasive 
gaps in available skills and confused roles and 
responsibilities severely inhibit significant increases in 
performance. Common problems include:
          (1) A failure to define the roles of program managers 
        in relation to IRM professionals;
          (2) The lack of an effective IRM official to raise 
        and help resolve information management issues with top 
        management; and
          (3) Outdated or poorly defined skill requirements.
These problems weaken an agency's ability to define how new 
information systems support its missions, meet customer needs, 
or respond more quickly to change
    Without action by Federal executives, the gap between 
expectations held by the public and agency performance will 
continue to expand. Program failures will continue and 
opportunities for improvement will be lost. Many low-value, 
high-risk information systems projects will continue to be 
pursued unimpeded and undermanaged as leaders blindly respond 
to crises by purchasing more and more technology and throwing 
it at their problems. Most Federal managers will continue to 
operate without the financial information and other management 
information they need to truly improve mission performance. 
Moreover, many Federal employees will struggle unsuccessfully, 
under increasing workloads, to do their jobs better as they are 
hampered with using information systems that simply add on 
another automated layer of bureaucracy.
    Given these risks and the vast potential for improvement, 
business as usual is simply no longer a tenable option for 
Federal executives and Government agencies. Recommendations of 
the President's National Performance Review (NPR) suggest the 
scale of improvements possible from ``reinventing'' the 
management of information technology. One such initiative, the 
Wage Reporting Simplification Project, identified life cycle 
savings of $1.7 billion to participating Government agencies 
and $13.5 billion in reduced burden to private sector employers 
(See ``Engineering through Information Technology,'' 
Accompanying Report of the National Performance Review, 
September 1993).
    The specific performance planning and reporting 
requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act 
(P.L. 103-62) point to a time when agency managers, in the very 
near future, will have to account for the programmatic outcomes 
of their information activities.
    Given this need for action, the overarching management 
strategy of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 is all the more 
important. As stated in the legislative history of the Act in 
1980, the purpose of aggregating these information resources 
management functions within OMB's Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) was to establish a government wide 
policy framework for ``information resources management.'' 
Application of the policy framework was expected to result in 
considerable financial savings to the Government and a 
substantial reduction in paperwork burden imposed by Federal 
agencies on the public.
    Through the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Congress attempted 
to articulate the management concept that could drive real 
world management improvements. Nearly a decade and a half 
later, the Committee finds that, while IRM is a recognized 
concept in Government and the private sector, there is not 
enough commitment to making IRM work in practice. The Committee 
is convinced, however, that the management concept is not 
flawed. Rather the need is to develop an improved strategy by 
which to apply IRM.
    Information, as a resource, is not simply a matter of 
questions answered or systems acquired. Information must be 
reliable, accurate, complete, accessible, and timely if it is 
to be used by agency managers to make decisions and take 
actions in fulfilling agency missions. Accordingly, investments 
in information resources must be managed as a part of a 
coordinated, performance-oriented approach to ``recognize and 
address the interconnectivity among the stages of the 
information life cycle.'' (See ``Information Life Cycle: Its 
Place in the Management of U.S. Government Information 
Resources,'' Government Information Quarterly, Peter Hernon, 
Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 156-7, 1994).
    Part of a revised IRM strategy is to implement more fully 
the Act's original IRM management structure. The 1980 Act 
required agency heads to designate a senior IRM official, 
reporting directly to the agency head, who would be responsible 
and accountable for the agency's IRM activities. The goal was 
to consolidate responsibility for the functional IRM activities 
(collection of information, statistics, privacy and security, 
records management, and information technology) already 
established through various laws.
    The Act's IRM structure at OMB and in each agency was to 
establish an identifiable line of accountability for IRM 
activities between the OMB Director and individual agencies and 
within the agencies. Not only would this structure enable 
agencies to better manage their information resources, but it 
would also enable the Congress to pinpoint responsibility for 
those activities.
    In most agencies, the IRM official designated by the agency 
head under the Paperwork Reduction Act was (and is) the 
Assistant Secretary for Administration (or similar official). 
In addition to the IRM functions, this official also had/has a 
variety of other functions, such as procurement, payroll, human 
resources management, and space management. The common result 
was that these functions took precedence over the (newly 
coordinated) IRM responsibilities. This meant that, instead of 
getting greater attention and visibility for the IRM functions, 
subordinate officials continued to manage IRM activities, as 
before.
    Investments in information technology also continued to be 
managed as before--as isolated projects not evaluated or 
coordinated to assure compatibility among systems. Further, 
they were not compared against each other and ranked in terms 
of priority given their expected support for the accomplishment 
of agency programs and missions.
    Moreover, as a subordinate staff function, IRM was not 
considered important enough to integrate with other management 
activities, such as strategic planning, budgeting, financial 
management, and personnel management. Diminished in importance 
organizationally, IRM also suffered from the failure to develop 
clear job descriptions and training programs for IRM personnel. 
This reduced opportunities for professional advancement and IRM 
skill development and further reduced agency IRM capacity.
    Given the weakness of agency IRM efforts, the failure of 
OMB to provide effective IRM guidance was all the more 
significant. Given this history, the Committee amends the Act 
in order to clarify the meaning and requirements for IRM both 
within OIRA and the agencies. First, IRM is redefined in H.R. 
830 to link management directly with program outcomes:

          The term ``information resources management'' means 
        the process of managing information resources to 
        accomplish agency missions and to improve agency 
        performance, including the reduction of information 
        collection burdens on the public.

    Focusing IRM on supporting mission accomplishment shifts 
the term from the generic concept of efficiency and 
effectiveness to one of direct support for the accomplishment 
of agency missions. This is consistent with the Committee's 
development of the Government Performance and Results Act, 
which requires agencies to develop strategic plans, and 
performance plans and reports, to focus program and management 
activities on directly serving programmatic outcomes.
    H.R. 830 maintains OMB's central IRM role. The OIRA 
Administrator should still prescribe governmentwide IRM 
policies and guidance (with support from other central 
management agencies), oversee agency implementation, and 
evaluate agency IRM activities. However, the current 
legislation revises many of these mandates to refocus them on 
integrating information management with program management and 
concentrating on program outcomes as the standard for oversight 
of the efficiency and effectiveness of IRM.
    Likewise, H.R. 830 also revises agency IRM 
responsibilities. It spells out the Act's functional IRM areas 
(paperwork control, dissemination, etc.) as agency operational 
responsibilities (in section 3506) to match OMB's policy and 
oversight responsibilities (in section 3504). Accountability 
for carrying out these responsibilities also is more clearly 
spelled out. Under the leadership and direct responsibility of 
the agency head, H.R. 830 first assigns program officials the 
responsibility and accountability for information resources 
assigned to and supporting their programs, and, second, assigns 
IRM oversight within the agency to the IRM office.
    The connection and collaboration among program, 
information, and agency managers is then institutionalized by 
the requirement that each agency establish a process for 
maximizing the value and assessing and managing the risks of 
major information systems initiatives. Further, the process is 
to be used to select, control, and evaluate the results of 
these initiatives and assure that decisions regarding these 
initiatives are integrated with budget, financial, and program 
management decisions.
    Neither the functional responsibilities nor the management 
accountability are new creations under this legislation. The 
1980 Act, as well as other related information management laws, 
vest these duties in the agencies. The amendments proposed in 
the current legislation are intended to more clearly focus 
agency managers on the breadth of their IRM responsibilities.
    As a guide to the implementation of these requirements, the 
Committee believes that OMB and the agencies should draw on the 
developing body of GAO work or IRM ``best practices''. (See 
``Executive Guide: Improving Mission Performance Through 
Strategic Information Management and Technology,'' GAO/AIMD-94-
115, May 1994.) GAO's best practices, which were identified at 
leading public and private organizations, center on three key 
efforts to build a modern information resources management 
infrastructure: (1) deciding to change information resources 
management practices and getting management commitment, (2) 
directing resources toward high-value uses and mission goals, 
and (3) supporting improvement with resources, organizational 
support, and trained and committed managers and professional 
staff. A description of these practices and recommendations for 
senior executives are contained in the appendix to this report.
    Based on the findings of the report and other work by GAO, 
Gene Dodaro, Assistant Comptroller General for Accounting and 
Information Management, GAO, testified before the Subcommittee 
on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources, and Regulatory 
Affairs, on February 7, 1995. In his testimony, Mr. Dodaro made 
the following key points:
          The Paperwork Reduction Act is a vital component of 
        an overall legislative framework--including the Chief 
        Financial Officer Act, the Government Performance and 
        Results Act, and the Federal Acquisition Streamlining 
        Act--designed to resolve basic management problems that 
        undermine effective implementation of many Government 
        programs.
          The public environment has changed dramatically in 
        the 14 years since initial passage of the Act. Rapid 
        changes in information technology and management 
        techniques have greatly increased the act's potential 
        to help streamline operations and produce higher 
        quality services delivered more effectively, faster, 
        and at lower cost. These developments make it essential 
        to update the act and place it within the context of 
        the information age of the 1990s and beyond.
          Despite the urgency to change, little meaningful 
        progress towards improving Government productivity, 
        mission performance results, and service delivery can 
        be achieved unless federal agencies adopt sound 
        strategic information management approaches. The 
        improvements to the Act can help construct a useful 
        framework to bring modern technology management 
        approaches to the Federal Government.

Collection of information/control of paperwork

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 authorized OMB to judge 
whether agency information collection activities are 
``necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the 
agency.'' In 1994, the Committee looks back over the record of 
the Act's implementation and finds that the Act's paperwork 
clearance process has served as an effective mechanism to 
control Federal agency information collection activities.
    The effectiveness of the process as a control mechanism, 
however, has neither provided a reduction of the total 
paperwork burden, nor has it been used consistently by OMB as 
the Committee intended. Therefore, the Committee believes that 
a strengthened process, with clarified agency responsibilities 
and improved opportunities for public participation, will 
result in more significant reductions in paperwork burdens and 
more faithful implementation of the Act.
    First, despite the Act's mandate, Government paperwork 
burdens on the public continue to be a real and serious 
problem. At Congressional hearings, representatives of the 
business community have testified about rising paperwork 
burdens. In 1989, Mark Richardson of the Business Council on 
the Reduction of Paperwork stated that the cost of the 
paperwork burden to the business sector had reached a level 
more than three times what it was in 1978, ``about $330 billion 
annually.'' Senate Hrg. 101-166, p. 81. During the February 7, 
1995, Committee hearing, Robert Coakley of the Council on 
Regulatory and Information Management suggested that the amount 
of time and effort for the public to meet the Federal 
Government's information needs has reached an amount equivalent 
to nine percent of the Gross Domestic Product.

          My organization C-RIM, estimates that an amount of 
        time and effort equal to 9 percent of the Gross 
        Domestic Product is dedicated to meeting the Federal 
        Government's information needs. That is a ballpark 
        figure of what the off-budget cost of Federal paperwork 
        requirements--the ``hidden taxes'' of Government 
        programs--amounts to.
          Here is how we reach that number. The Government's 
        own estimate of the hours it takes the public to 
        collect information, report, keep the records, fill out 
        the forms, and answer all the questions that accompany 
        the delivery of federally sponsored services is 
        compiled for the annual Information Collection Budget. 
        The fiscal 1991 estimate (the last annual estimate 
        reflected in an Annual Report by the Office of 
        Information and Regulatory Affairs) is 6.5 billion 
        hours. Eighty-three percent of that is associated with 
        the Treasury Department.
          Treasury's large share is due to an adjustment made 
        by the IRS in the late 1980's when an IRS commissioned 
        5-year study by Arthur D. Little indicated that the IRS 
        previously had under-estimated the burden of its 
        reporting and recordkeeping requirements by a factor of 
        7. It adjusted its burden figures accordingly. The rest 
        of the Government did not.
          Take the remaining 17 percent, adjust it 
        conservatively by a factor of 4 instead of 7, and the 
        total burden hour number comes to 10.2 billion hours.
          Time is money. At 50 dollars an hour--a reasonable 
        estimate of the average cost of an hour spent for 
        meeting Federal reporting or recordkeeping 
        requirements--the cost of the federal paperwork burden 
        comes to 510 billion dollars, which approximates 9 
        percent of the 1992 Gross Domestic Product.

    In the first years of the Act's implementation, OMB's 
annual reduction figures had suggested great progress in 
reducing these paperwork burdens (e.g., 12.8 percent in 1982 
and 10 percent in 1983). within several years, however, the 
paperwork problem proved to be more intractable. OMB's 
governmentwide burden estimate increased each year, despite the 
reductions associated with specific year-to-year disapprovals. 
According to GAO, there was ``a 27-percent increase in reported 
burden hours (to 1.9 billion) between 1980 and 1987.'' 
``Paperwork Reduction: Little Real Burden Change in Recent 
Years,'' GAO/PEMD-89-19FS, June 1989.
    New information collections necessitated by new laws and 
regulations accounted for some of this increase. Other 
increases were due to agency reevaluation of existing burdens. 
Thus, GAO pointed out in 1993 that while the paperwork burden 
OMB reported rose from over 1.8 billion hours in 1987 to nearly 
6.6 billion hours in 1992, most of the increase was due to a 
recalculation of burden hours by the Department of the 
Treasury, not because of new burdens imposed on the public. 
``Paperwork Reduction: Reported Burden Hour Increases Reflect 
New Estimates, Not Actual Change,'' GAO/PEMD-94-3, December 
1993. On the basis of such factors, as well as other 
methodological problems, GAO has cautioned against singular 
reliance on such estimates. While the Committee acknowledges 
these limitations, the Committee believes that burden estimates 
serve an invaluable role as markers along the road to paperwork 
reduction.
    Particularly for small businesses, paperwork burdens can 
force the redirection of resources away from business 
activities that might otherwise lead to new and better products 
and services, and to more and better jobs. Accordingly, the 
Federal Government owes the public an ongoing commitment to 
scrutinize its information requirements to ensure the 
imposition of only those necessary for the proper performance 
of an agency's functions. Burden estimates and reduction goals 
can help OMB and agencies target particularly burdensome 
paperwork and focus agency efforts on achieving meaningful 
burden reductions. The Committee thus increases the Act's five 
percent annual burden reduction goal to ten percent and 
stresses the need for OMB to oversee improved burden estimation 
efforts. The Committee's only caution is that OMB and agencies 
not rely solely on burden estimates apart from a qualitative 
assessment of the necessity of any information collection for 
the proper performance of an agency's functions.
    It is because of the Committee's commitment to the goals of 
the 1980 Act, however, that the current legislation overturns 
Dole v. United Steelworkers of America, the Supreme Court's 
1990 decision that the Paperwork Reduction Act's paperwork 
clearance process for agency information ``collections'' does 
not cover agency information ``disclosure'' requirements. The 
need for a comprehensive and conclusive process for the review 
of agency information activities that burden the public 
requires the Committee to amend the Act to clearly overturn the 
Supreme Court decision. The IRM mandate of the Act does focus 
on internal government operations, but to the extent Government 
information activities affect the public, associated burdens 
must be evaluated, justified, and reduced as provided under the 
Act. In this way, overturning the court decision is also 
consistent with the original intent of the 1980 Act to 
eliminate exemptions from paperwork clearance.
    Moreover, it became clear shortly after the Court's 
decision that agencies would use the decision to avoid OMB 
review. In a report prepared for Congress, GAO found that 
neither OMB nor the agencies it reviewed had issued any formal 
guidance implementing the decision. Further, agencies differed 
in their interpretation of the decision. Two agencies studied 
by GAO had not changed their practices (i.e., EPA and HHS). Two 
other agencies, however, were sending fewer proposals to OMB 
for clearance (i.e., OSHA and the FTC). ``Paperwork Reduction: 
Agency Responses to Recent Court Decisions,'' GAO/PEMD-93-5, 
February 3, 1993. The solution now is to end the disparate 
treatment of collections of information made by Federal 
agencies and third-party paperwork burdens imposed on one party 
by another party at the direction of a Federal agency.
    The current legislation also strengthens OMB 
accountability, as well as its paperwork reduction mandate. 
Committed to a comprehensive process, but mindful of past 
controversies, the Committee believes that a more thorough and 
open agency paperwork clearance process can improve the quality 
of paperwork reviews and public confidence in Government 
decision-making. Analogous to the way in which an agency's 
rulemaking record stands as the basis for and evidence of the 
need for a regulation, so should a more highly developed and 
examined record of an agency's formulation of an information 
collection proposal stand as the basis for the collection and 
as a public record of its need.
    The delineation of a more detailed agency paperwork 
clearance process obviously places a heavier burden on agencies 
to justify the programmatic need for information. But this, 
too, should help counteract some of the negative connotations 
associated with information collections. Information 
requirements will less often come unannounced and unexplained 
if the agency has already had to justify the requirement, and 
the burden it imposes, to the public and consider public 
comments. This early review in turn should help agencies make 
their case for the value of Federal information and prompt them 
to improve the quality and availability of such information. 
The review certainly will assist individuals and organizations 
representing those who are burdened to engage agencies in 
meaningful dialogue about the need for information. Out of this 
more thorough review of information collection proposals should 
come more effective ways to minimize burdens and maximize the 
utility of information collected or generated by or for the 
Federal Government. As agencies move to more electronic 
information systems, this type of clearance process provides 
greater assurances that both information collection and 
technology investments are made wisely.
    H.R. 830, as amended, seeks to improve the law to more 
clearly address the benefits as well as the burdens of Federal 
information. Accurate, timely, relevant, statistically sound 
information is essential to rational and effective legislation, 
regulation, resource allocation, and enforcement--indeed, for 
virtually all public policy decisions. Thus, the bill, seeking 
to ``ensure the greatest possible public benefit'' form 
Government information, states that it is a basic obligation of 
the agencies and OMB to ``improve information resources 
management in ways that increase productivity, efficiency, and 
effectiveness of Federal programs, including service to the 
public.'' Better IRM will create better information, used 
better, and with fewer burdens on the American public. For 
example, the bill maximizes utility by placing an emphasis on 
interoperability of agency systems and improvements in data 
sharing. These steps are meant to capitalize on the advantages 
that information technologies offer for streamlining agency 
operations, enhancing public access to Government information, 
and reducing burdens on the public.
    To accomplish these various objectives, H.R. 830, as 
amended, makes extensive changes to the existing law regarding 
the controls over information collections. At the OMB level, 
the legislation requires the Director, in consultation with the 
agency heads, to set an annual governmentwide goal for the 
reduction of information collection burdens by at least ten 
percent and to set annual agency goals for burden reduction, as 
well--importantly, not merely as a stand-alone goal, but as a 
part of a broader IRM plan, including efforts to reduce burden, 
eliminate duplication, meet shared data needs, and improve 
efficient and effective use of information technology. In 
addition, the bill calls on OIRA to coordinate its review of 
procurement and acquisition-related collections of 
information--one of the most frequently mentioned areas of 
burden--with OMB's Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) 
to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the procurement 
process as well as to reduce burdens on the public.
    At the agency level, the bill describes in some detail the 
requirements for agencies to establish processes for reviewing 
their information collections before submitting them to OMB for 
clearance. The agency's designated IRM official should, 
independently of the proposing program office, evaluate the 
need for the information, the burden estimate, the agency's 
plans for management and use of the information to be 
collected, and whether the proposed collection meets the other 
requirements of the Act. H.R. 830, as amended, also prescribes 
that agencies must consult with the public on their proposed 
collections and certify to OMB that the clearance steps have 
been taken. These include assuring the need for the 
information, that the collection is not unnecessarily 
duplicative of information otherwise reasonably accessible to 
the agency, and that the burden to be imposed has been 
minimized.
    Under the legislation, OMB must then allow at least 30 days 
for further public comments. Also, OMB is to provide a decision 
to the requesting agency within 60 days (the 30-day extension 
period under current law is eliminated). If OMB does not notify 
the agency of its decision on the proposed collection within 
this time, approval is inferred and the agency may collect the 
information for two years. Any such OMB decision to disapprove 
a collection of information or instruct an agency to make 
substantive or material change to its is to be publicly 
available and include an explanation of the OMB decision. 
Further, communications between the OIRA Administrator, or OIRA 
staff and an agency or person not employed by the Federal 
Government regarding proposed collections of information are to 
be made part of the public record. Public comments pertinent to 
OIRA's decision to approve, modify, or disapprove an agency's 
collection of information are to be part of the public record.
    Finally, an additional new purpose of the bill is to 
strengthen the partnership between the Federal Government and 
State, local, and tribal governments by minimizing information 
collection burdens and maximizing utility of information 
collected by Federal agencies. This will require additional 
attention be paid to establishing common standards for data 
exchange and for interoperatability among systems.
    In these various ways, and as more precisely described in 
the section-by-section analysis, the Committee intends to 
strengthen the Act's paperwork reduction requirements to 
improve the efficiency and effectiveness of Government 
operations, including the reduction of paperwork burdens on the 
public.

Information dissemination

    Information dissemination is an integral part of the 
information life cycle. While only mentioned once in the 1980 
Act, the 1986 amendments properly inserted references to 
dissemination in provisions on IRM, IRM planning, and OMB's 
functional authority. In the years since the last 
reauthorization, dissemination has emerged as a particularly 
important functional information area due to new opportunities 
for improved dissemination of and public access to Government 
information made possible by emerging information technologies, 
not the least of which are growing public networks.
    To realize the full potential for the flow of information, 
particularly electronically, requires new efforts by the 
Federal Government to coordinate and improve dissemination 
management policies and practices. For these reasons, and as 
described below, the Committee believes it is very important to 
provide a more detailed set of dissemination policies in 
statute.
    The delineation of detailed dissemination policies and 
principles is also recommended because of the record of OMB's 
role in agency dissemination activities over the past 13 years. 
In the early 1980s, OMB used longstanding management powers to 
mandate the elimination and consolidation of thousands of 
agency publications as part of the Reagan Administration's 
``war on waste.'' While savings were undoubtedly realized, the 
elimination of many public service publications and the 
restrictions on agency dissemination planning were criticized. 
In addition, subsequent OMB policy guidance further limited 
agency dissemination activities by subordinating Government 
dissemination decisions to that of the private sector. OMB 
Circular No. A-130 (December 12, 1985, 50 Fed. Reg. 52730, 
December 24, 1985), and OMB's ``Advance Notice of Further 
Policy Development on dissemination of Information,'' 54 Fed. 
Reg. 214 (January 4, 1989). While OMB proposed a more positive 
policy (``Second Advance Notice of Further Policy Development 
on Dissemination of Information,'' 54 Fed. Reg. 25554, June 15, 
1989), and ultimately finalized a policy substantially in 
accord with the provisions of this legislation (revised OMB 
Circular No. A-130, Transmittal No. 1, June 25, 1993, 58 Fed. 
Reg. 36068, July 2, 1993, and Transmittal No. 2, June 15, 1994, 
59 Fed. Reg. 37906, July 25, 1994), the record of OMB's 
changing dissemination policies, and the criticisms and 
questions that accompanied them, recommend the delineation of a 
consistent policy set in statute.
    The legislation, therefore, provides a detailed framework 
to guide Federal Government dissemination of public 
information. Policy guidance and oversight responsibilities are 
vested in OMB and operational responsibilities rest with the 
agencies. The legislation's mandate is clear. OMB has an 
obligation to promote public access to Government information 
through the development and oversight of governmentwide 
information dissemination policies. Likewise, agencies have an 
obligation to conduct their dissemination activities to ensure 
that the public has timely and equitable access to public 
information.
    The Committee intends these provisions to assist agency 
managers in accomplishing their missions by disseminating 
information necessary for the proper performance of the 
agency's functions. Working in consultation with the public, 
OMB, and other central management offices, agencies should 
adopt uniform technical standards and capabilities, and 
integrate dissemination decision-making with the management of 
other IRM functions to promote and provide more efficient and 
effective public access to a broader range of Government 
information.
    Accordingly, the legislation's policies and required 
practices apply to the dissemination of all Government 
information regardless of form or format (i.e., paper 
publications, compact disc, on-line data, etc.), that public 
information be made available on a timely, equal and equitable 
basis to all persons, that a diversity of government and non-
government sources be used to facilitate access to Government 
information, and that there be no exclusive or restrictive 
distribution arrangements to limit or regulate the use or reuse 
of public information.
    These requirements are designed to facilitate information 
dissemination as part of the efficient and effective 
performance of Government functions. This imperative does not, 
however, provide a single method or rule for dissemination. 
Federal agencies must develop approaches and make specific 
dissemination decisions that balance among competing forces and 
interests. Agencies must avoid privatization of essential 
government public services. Yet agencies need to affirm the 
important role played by information providers in the private 
sector. Agencies also must develop effective dissemination 
capabilities, while avoiding proprietary-like information 
operations.
    Thus, as agencies are governed by the public purposes of 
their statutory missions, they should avoid copyright-like 
controls (e.g., restrictions on reuse of information) or 
pricing arrangements that restrict the flow of public 
information. They should also take advantage of (and not 
unnecessarily duplicate) private sector initiatives that may 
more efficiently or effectively serve the same ends.
    One critical component in establishing broad-based public 
access to Government information is the development of a 
Government Information Locator Service (GILS). Such a locator 
system (or system of systems) should facilitate public and 
agency access to Government information by providing pointers 
to information holdings of Federal agencies. Ultimately, this 
system should become a path to the holdings themselves. 
However, the Committee recognizes the diversity of current 
agency information systems and technologies. It is important, 
therefore, at this time to promote access through available 
channels.
    In the context of the current legislation and the immediate 
future, OMB has moved in the right direction in issuing its 
recent directive on GILS, and NIST likewise is making a 
valuable contribution to the creation of GILS standards. It is 
important, however, to insure consistent implementation across 
agencies and to create procedures and mechanisms that can be 
used to build a viable locator system. This includes ensuring 
the security and integrity of GILS. GILS also needs to be able 
to evolve over time to accommodate the changing mix of 
electronic formats for Government information and rapid 
advances in information technology so that it does not become 
obsolete. The Committee expects that the interagency committee 
created in the legislation will provide the advice needed to 
ensure security and integrity of data, compatibility, sharing 
among agencies, and uniform access by the public. The term 
``uniform'' should be understood to mean establishing a 
consistent standard for access and does not mean that all 
agency systems must employ the same software and hardware.

Statistical policy

    Between 1939 and 1977, Federal statistical policy was the 
responsibility of OMB/BoB (Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1939, 
see also section 103 of the Budget and Accounting Procedures 
Act of 1950, 31 U.S.C. 1104(d)). In October 1977, it was 
assigned to the Department of Commerce by Executive Order No. 
12013. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 transferred 
statistical policy and coordination back to OMB, integrated it 
with related information functions, and attempted to strengthen 
OMB's oversight and coordination responsibilities. To further 
strengthen the administration of the statistical functions, the 
1986 amendments required OMB to appoint a professional 
statistician to the position of Chief Statistician to carry out 
OIRA's statistical policy responsibilities.
    H.R. 830, as amended, continues and strengthens the 
requirements for OMB leadership of the Federal statistical 
system and adds a number of new provisions. These provisions 
reflect the Committee's view of the importance of improving 
central leadership and coordination of Federal statistical 
programs. While there is continuing concern about the adequacy 
of OMB's attention to its statistical policy functions, the 
Committee believes that these functions would still be best 
served by being in OMB, as the central office with management 
and budget, as well as IRM, authority.
    The Committee is convinced that much more needs to be done 
to address growing problems in the Federal statistical system. 
It has found that the Federal statistical system has not kept 
up with the changing nature of the U.S. and global economies, 
nor with advances in information technology. Statistical 
priorities and programs need to be reexamined and updated in 
light of rapidly changing economic, technological, and social 
conditions. Statistical information is used for a wide variety 
of decision-making, both in the public and private sectors. 
Having reliable, pertinent information therefore becomes a 
necessity if such decisions are to be based on valid 
information.
    To address these concerns, H.R. 830, as amended, amplifies 
OMB's existing statistical policy responsibilities and includes 
other provisions designed to improve the Federal statistical 
system and information infrastructure. The Committee intends 
that OMB give balanced emphasis to all of its major information 
policy functions, including statistics. The Committee expects 
OMB to devote an appropriate amount of its staff resources to 
statistical policy development and leadership.
    H.R. 830, as amended, strengthens the statistical policy 
mandate by explicitly requiring OMB to coordinate and provide 
leadership for the development of the decentralized Federal 
statistical system. Such coordination is needed to ensure the 
efficiency and effectiveness of the system as well as the 
integrity, objectivity, impartiality, utility, and 
confidentiality of information collected for statistical 
purposes. A study by the National Research Council (``Private 
Lives and Public Policies: Confidentiality and Accessibility of 
Government Statistics,'' 1994) noted increased concerns among 
many Americans about the confidentiality of information 
collected by Government surveys. The report recommended new 
standards and procedures be implemented by Federal agencies to 
preserve confidentiality. These concerns are reflected in the 
legislation's amendments to the Act to provide more specific 
mandates for OMB and agencies to protect personal privacy in 
the collection of information for statistical purposes.
    Developing interoperability among statistical systems in 
the different agencies also is important for improving access 
to valid and current data. To facilitate this coordination, the 
bill requires OMB to establish an interagency council, headed 
by the Chief Statistician and consisting of the heads of the 
major statistical agencies and representatives of other 
statistical agencies under rotating membership. In addition, 
OMB is to review the budget proposals for agency statistical 
programs to ensure that they are consistent with governmentwide 
priorities for maintaining and improving the quality of Federal 
statistics and prepare an annual report on statistical program 
funding.
    These provisions require that OMB adopt a proactive 
approach to statistical leadership. The Committee expects that 
OMB, and in particular the Chief Statistician, will provide 
leadership in identifying statistical priorities and in 
identifying and recommending corresponding budget priorities 
for Federal statistical programs. Additionally, OMB should take 
an active role in developing statistical standards and 
guidelines to assist Federal agencies in the development and 
implementation of statistical programs. Statistical policy must 
address issues related to information collection, use, and 
dissemination. Appropriate protection for statistical 
confidentiality and security for statistical systems must be an 
integral part of the development of these programs. OMB is also 
to coordinate the participation of the United States in 
international statistical activities, including the development 
of comparable statistics. In addition, OMB is to provide 
opportunities for training in statistical policy and 
coordination functions to Federal Government employees.

Records management

    In order to provide greater visibility to the area of 
records management, the Paperwork Reduction Act assigned OIRA 
an oversight role to support the efforts of GSA in getting 
agencies to implement effective records management practices. 
This was the only entirely new function assigned to OMB by the 
1980 Act. The need was described in a July 1980 letter from the 
Comptroller General:

          With regard to records management, the bill 
        recognizes the need to provide a cohesive Federal 
        information policy and to coordinate the various 
        components of Federal information practices. Records 
        management, concerned with information use and 
        disposition, is a vital element of information policy. 
        In the past, this function has not received the level 
        of management attention it deserves. For example, 
        although the General Services Administration (GSA) is 
        authorized to do so, it does not always report to OMB 
        or to the Congress serious weaknesses in agencies' 
        records management programs along with the potential 
        for savings if corrective actions are taken. We pointed 
        this problem out as early as 1973, but in a recent 
        study we found that GSA's actions to date have been 
        inadequate.
          We believe the assignment of oversight responsibility 
        to OMB and the periodic evaluations required by the 
        bill would remedy the situation. In doing so, the 
        benefits which improved records management practices 
        can bring to the performance of Federal programs can be 
        realized.

    Records management is essential to efficient and effective 
management of information throughout the information life 
cycle. As such, its oversight continues to be properly assigned 
to OMB under the Act. In the new era of electronic records, it 
is even more important to ensure effective records management 
at all stages of the information life cycle. Agencies 
increasingly rely on electronic mail for communication, on 
online systems for dissemination, and on CD-ROMs for storing 
large volumes of data. Unless information created in these 
formats is properly managed to insure its integrity and 
archival preservation, much of the Government's record will be 
lost.
    The current policy debate about records management in this 
emerging environment of networks, electronic mail, and the 
National Information Infrastructure demand the development of 
new agency policies and practices. OMB, NARA, and each 
operating agency must take affirmative steps to manage records, 
regardless of their form or format, consistent with legal 
requirements and the practical demands of the electronic 
information age. Agencies must determine how they will insure 
future access to Government records originating in electronic 
formats and need to work closely with NARA in establishing 
consistent standards for archiving electronic materials.
    H.R. 830, as amended, reiterates the Act's mandate for OMB 
to provide advice and assistance to the GSA Administrator and 
to the Archivist and to review agency compliance with the 
records management requirements. Further, it charges OMB with 
the responsibility to oversee the application of records 
management policies and guidelines, including requirements for 
archiving information in electronic format, when agencies are 
planning and designing their information systems. Finally, as 
with other functional areas, the Act now explicitly spells out 
the role of agency records management responsibilities in the 
IRM framework.
    The Committee also wishes to emphasize the importance of 
consistent records retention policies for records management 
functions. Clear records retention policies for all 
recordkeeping requirements are needed if expensive and wasteful 
burdens on the public, State and local governments, and Federal 
agencies are to be avoided.

Privacy and security

    Maintaining privacy and security is a key element in 
managing information. OMB had responsibilities for privacy and 
security of Government information prior to enactment of the 
1980 Paperwork Reduction Act, under the 1974 Privacy Act and 
within other statistical policy, forms clearance, and computer 
security functions.
    H.R. 830, as amended, continues OMB's role under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act for developing and overseeing agency 
implementation of policies, standards, and guidelines for the 
privacy, confidentiality, security, disclosure, and sharing of 
information. The Act promotes sharing and disclosure of 
information for purposes of maximizing the utility of 
information to users, both governmental and non-governmental. 
Sharing of information among Government agencies also serves 
the goal of minimizing the burden imposed on the public by 
Government collection of information. Such sharing and 
disclosure must be done, however, consistent with the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act and other laws that 
govern access, confidentiality, sharing, or disclosure, such as 
the Privacy Act, the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection 
Act, the Freedom of Information Act, and agency specific laws 
such as those governing the Internal Revenue Service and the 
Census Bureau.
    As a practical matter, the growth of networks offer new 
opportunities for broadly sharing information among agencies 
and with the public. At the same time, they create new 
vulnerabilities that can lead to breaches in security and 
threats to the loss of privacy. An assessment by the National 
Research Council (``Computers at Risk: Safe Computers in the 
Information Age,'' (1991)) predicted that without more 
responsible use and management of computer systems, disruptions 
with adverse consequences would increase. The Committee is 
concerned about these increasing incidents of security breaches 
that range from hackers breaking into DOD computers (``Computer 
Security: Hackers Penetrate DOD Computer Systems,'' GAO/T-
IMTEC-92-5, November 20, 1991), to IRS employees browsing 
through personal income records (``IRS Automation: Controlling 
Electronic Filing Fraud and Improper Access to Taxpayer Data,'' 
GAO/T-AIMD/GGD-94-183, July 19, 1994, and ``IRS Information 
Systems: Weaknesses Increase Risk of Fraud and Impair 
Reliability of Management Information,'' GAO/AIMD-93-34, 
September 22, 1993). Agencies must take the necessary steps to 
maintain the appropriate balance between openness and security, 
and give new attention to the risks of maintaining information 
in electronic formats.
    The bill also recognizes the enactment of the Computer 
Security Act in 1987, establishing that OMB require Federal 
agencies to identify the sensitivity of their information and 
to afford appropriate security protections for it. Not only 
must systems be secured to maintain confidentiality of 
sensitive data, but procedures must ensure that integrity of 
information and availability of systems and data are not 
compromised. A crucial component of establishing sound computer 
security management involves agency-wide training and 
awareness. If systems and information are to be safeguarded, 
training at all levels must be implemented. Again, as computer 
systems increasingly are linked to national and international 
networks, effective implementation of computer security is 
essential.

Information technology

    One of the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act when it 
was originally enacted was: ``to ensure that automatic data 
processing and telecommunications technologies are acquired and 
used by the Federal Government in a manner which improves 
service delivery and program management, increases 
productivity, reduces waste and fraud, and, wherever 
practicable and appropriate, reduces the information processing 
burden for the Federal Government and for persons who provide 
information to the Federal Government;'' (P.L. 96-511, sec. 
2(a) (44 U.S.C. 3501(5)).
    As such, information technology has been recognized from 
the beginning as instrumental in improving Government 
operations and fulfilling agency missions, including reducing 
the burdens imposed on persons who provide information to the 
Government.
    Yet, the management and application of information 
technology to support Government operations has been a 
historical problem. The Comptroller General described in July 
1980 that the management of automatic data processing equipment 
was characterized by:
          (1) Overly complex and costly software that too often 
        fails to meet user needs, is inefficient, or simply 
        does not work; and
          (2) A costly, prolonged, and ineffective acquisition 
        process which too often emphasizes hardware 
        characteristics over sound financial investment.
    Noting that the functions assigned OMB, GSA, and the 
Department of Commerce under the Brooks Act were not changed by 
the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Comptroller General stated 
that, by reemphasizing the Brooks Act, the 1980 legislation 
attempted to strengthen the leadership and central direction 
provided by these agencies. Further, the consolidation within 
OMB of policymaking and oversight responsibilities for the 
other information management functions covered by the bill 
should enhance the capability for applying advanced information 
technology to the problems of controlling paperwork burdens and 
improving the quality of data for program management and 
evaluation.
    To support his 1980 message, the Comptroller General listed 
70 GAO reports describing deficiencies in agency information 
management activities, with 31 dealing specifically with 
information technology problems.
    Agencies have continued to spend more on information 
technology--now in the range of $25 billion a year, and 
totalling about a quarter of a trillion dollars in the 14 years 
since the passage of the Act. GAO, too, has continued to report 
on deficiencies related to agency information technology 
activities and systems development efforts. In a February 1992 
report summarizing 132 reports it issued between October 1988 
and May 1991, GAO described ten categories of problems:
          Inadequate management of information systems 
        development life cycle;
          Ineffective oversight and control of IRM;
          Cost overruns in information systems development 
        efforts;
          Schedule delays in information systems development 
        efforts;
          Inaccurate, unreliable, or incomplete data;
          Inability to ensure the security, integrity, or 
        reliability of information systems;
          Inability of systems to work together;
          Inadequate resources to accomplish IRM goals;
          Systems that make access to data time-consuming or 
        cumbersome; and
          Systems that were not performing as intended.
(See ``Information Resources: Summary of Federal Agencies' 
Information Resources Management Problems,'' GAO/IMTEC-92-13FS, 
February 13, 1992.)
    Described previously in the Information Resources 
Management section of this report (and summarized in the 
appendix) is a report by GAO describing ways that agencies can 
employ practices used by leading organizations in the private 
and public sectors to manage their information technology. This 
report, ``Executive Guide: Improving Mission Performance 
Through Strategic Information Management and Technology,'' 
(GAO/AIMD-94-115, May 1994), describes 11 practices with 
related attributes and suggestions to agencies on how to get 
started in implementing the specific practice for better 
managing information and information technology.
    Gene Dodaro, Assistant Comptroller General for Accounting 
and Information Management, GAO, testified before the 
Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources, 
and Regulatory Affairs, that GAO finds huge, complex 
information system modernizations at great risk from two basic 
management problems: (1) the failure to adequately select, 
plan, prioritize, and control system and software projects and 
(2) the failure to use technology to simplify, direct, and 
reengineer functional processes in ways that reduce costs, 
increase productivity, and improve service. These problems 
permeate critical Government operations in key agencies, such 
as the Federal Aviation Administration, Internal Revenue 
Service, Social Security Administration, and the Departments of 
Defense, Agriculture, and Veterans Affairs.
    Mr. Dodaro singled out the following changes included in 
H.R. 830 that are patterned after GAO's ``best practices'' and 
will help deal with these problems:
          Current provisions in the Act place the 
        responsibility for effective information management and 
        technology on the designated IRM senior officials and 
        their respective organizational units. Section 3506 of 
        the bill modifies this by strengthening the 
        accountability of the agency head and of program 
        managers for information resources supporting their 
        programs. Working with the designated senior IRM 
        official and the Chief Financial Officer, these 
        managers are to define program information needs and 
        develop strategies, systems, and capabilities to meet 
        those needs. Increasing program managers' 
        accountability and involvement focuses information 
        management decision-making and systems development 
        activities on measurable mission outcomes of strategic 
        importance to the agency.
          The current law also does not emphasize mechanisms 
        for selecting, controlling, or evaluating information 
        systems projects in ways that maximize the value of the 
        investment or effectively identify and manage risks. 
        Provisions in H.R. 830 call for strengthening processes 
        that agencies use to decide their information 
        technology expenditures and to set goals for measuring 
        progress in using information technology to increase 
        productivity and accomplish outcome-oriented results. 
        Most importantly, Section 3506 requires agencies to 
        assess and manage their information technology 
        initiatives with defined processes for selecting, 
        controlling, and evaluating the initiatives based on 
        comparing anticipated benefits to actual results. 
        Additionally, Sections 3504 and 3505 help better manage 
        risks by requiring the OMB Director to take steps to 
        infuse more discipline and accountability into the 
        Government's technology expenditures.
          The current law does not emphasize the necessary 
        technical skills or the clear delineation of management 
        roles and responsibilities, both of which are needed to 
        manage information technology as part of an overall 
        business strategy. Sections 3504 and 3506 of H.R. 830 
        require that training be developed to educate program 
        officials and other agency managers about information 
        technology. Section 3506 also defines the roles and 
        relationships between program and IRM officials in the 
        development of information systems and capabilities to 
        meet program needs.

                             g. conclusion

    Based on the record compiled by the Committee, during both 
this Congress and preceding attempts to reauthorize 
appropriations for the Paperwork Reduction Act since 1989 when 
the current authorization expired, there is ample evidence of 
the need to reauthorize appropriations and strengthen the Act. 
Improvements are needed to clarify OMB and agency 
responsibilities for all functional areas covered by the Act. 
Improvements are also needed in efforts to reduce the burden of 
meeting the Federal Government's information needs, increase 
the efficiency and effectiveness of Federal information 
resources management, and strengthen public participation in 
paperwork reduction and other IRM decisions. H.R. 830, as 
amended, accomplishes these purposes and the Committee strongly 
endorses its enactment.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis

                       section 5001. short title

    This legislation is entitled the ``Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995.''

        section 5002. coordination of federal information policy

    This legislation recodifies chapter 35, title 44, of the 
United States Code. The bill is drafted as a revision of the 
chapter due to the number of proposed changes to current law. 
These changes range from substance to style. They include the 
deletion of obsolete terms and provisions, the reorganization 
of sections for purposes of clarity and consistency, the 
consolidation and refinement of definitions and common terms, 
and the addition of new requirements to update and strengthen 
the original purposes of the Act. To the extent the revision is 
a restatement of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, as 
amended in 1986, the legislation is a reaffirmation of the 
law's scope, underlying purposes, requirements, and legislative 
history, which remains an important explanation of the 
congressional intent underpinning the Act's provisions. To the 
extent the revision modifies provisions in current law, it is 
done for the purposes described below, and again, in order to 
further the purposes of the original law.

                          sec. 3501. purposes

    Section 3501 maintains the Act's primary focus on 
minimizing paperwork burdens on the public. The bill adds 
several additional purposes and revises and realigns other 
purposes to emphasize the need to improve information resources 
management (IRM) as a means to minimize government costs and to 
improve the productivity, efficiency, and effectiveness of 
government programs, including the reduction of paperwork 
burdens and improved service delivery to the public. It 
promotes the theme of improving the quality and use of 
information to strengthen agency decisionmaking and 
accountability and to maximize the benefit and utility of 
information created, collected, maintained, used, shared, 
disseminated, and retained by or for the Federal Government. It 
emphasizes that information technology should be employed by 
Federal agencies to improve mission performance and reduce 
paperwork burdens, and that the Federal Government and State, 
local, and tribal governments should increase their common 
efforts to improve the utility and decrease the burdens of 
collection of information activities.

                         sec. 3502. definitions

    1. The term ``agency'' is unchanged from current law.
    2. The term ``burden'' is expanded with a more detailed 
list of descriptive examples of actions that constitute burden 
imposed by collections of information (e.g., the resources 
expended for reviewing instructions; acquiring, installing, and 
utilizing technology to gather, obtain, compile, or report the 
information; adjusting the existing ways to comply with any 
previously applicable instructions and requirements; searching 
data sources; completing and reviewing the collection of 
information; and transmitting the information to the requesting 
agency or otherwise disclosing the information as instructed by 
an agency). No substantive limitation is intended by the use of 
these examples. The Committee wants to cover all burdens 
associated with information collection.
    The phrase ``or for'' an agency is added, as it is 
elsewhere in the legislation, to clarify that the burdens 
associated with providing, maintaining, or disclosing 
information to or for a Federal agency, or to a third party or 
the public on the instruction or behalf of a Federal agency, 
are all equally included in the meaning of the term ``burden.''
    3. The term ``collection of information'' is amended to 
accomplish several purposes.
    First, several phrases are added (i.e., ``causing to be 
obtained,'' ``requiring the disclosure to third parties or the 
public,'' and ``or for'' an agency) to clarify that all 
Federally sponsored collections of information, not just those 
directly provided to a Federal agency, are contemplated within 
the meaning of the term. Information maintained, or information 
provided by persons to third parties, for example, is therefore 
covered by the Act, most particularly, the paperwork clearance 
requirements of sections 3506 and 3507, and the public 
protection provided by section 3512.
    Whether a ``collection of information'' is conducted for or 
sponsored by the Federal government, rather than whether the 
government is the primary or immediate user of the information 
collected by a respondent, is the primary factor which 
determines whether a collection of information is covered by 
the meaning of the term. This clarification is intended to 
overturn the Supreme Court's interpretation of this term in 
Dole v. United Steelworkers of America, 494 U.S. 26 (1990). 
Agency third-party disclosure requirements are within the scope 
of the Act.
    Second, the phrase ``regardless of form or format'' 
replaces the phrase ``through the use of written report forms, 
application forms, schedules, questionnaires, reporting or 
recordkeeping requirements, and other similar methods'' 
contained in current law. This clarifies that regardless of the 
instrument, media, or method of agency action, a collection of 
information is any agency action that calls for facts or 
opinions resulting from answers to identical questions, 
identical reporting or recordkeeping requirements, or third 
party information disclosure requirements. This includes any 
collection of information, whether the agency action is 
described as an information collection request, collection of 
information requirement, or other term. It also includes all 
the collection methods that are specifically listed in current 
law. It also includes information collection activities 
regardless of whether the collection is formulated or 
communicated in written, oral, electronic or other form, and 
regardless of whether the compliance is mandatory, voluntary, 
or needed to obtain a benefit or contract with the Federal 
government.
    Third, the term ``collection of information'' replaces the 
terms ``information collection request'' and ``collection of 
information requirement'' in current law. The present 
definition of ``information collection request'' in section 
3502(11), and all its uses in current law are deleted. The use 
of the term ``collection of information requirement'' in the 
current law's section 3504(h) is also deleted.
    The use of the phrase, ``collection of information,'' is 
made only for purposes of clarity and consistency. In the past, 
the use of separate terms created confusion about possible 
differences among the terms. The most significant instance 
involved the distinction between ``information collection 
request'' and ``collection of information requirement,'' which 
was added to the Act by a floor amendment to the original 1980 
legislation. In 1986, Congress amended the Act to include 
``collection of information requirement'' in the definition of 
``information collection request.'' This action, however, left 
references to the two terms in the text of the Act. The current 
legislation conclusively ends any possible misunderstanding by 
creating a comprehensive definition for ``collection of 
information'' as the single term used in the Act.
    4. The term ``Director'' is unchanged from current law.
    5. The term ``independent regulatory agency'' is unchanged 
from current law.
    6. A new definition is created for ``information 
resources,'' which means information and related resources, 
such as personnel, equipment, funds, and information 
technology. The new definition is intended to complement the 
revised definition of ``information resources management.'' 
Both the new definition and the amended definition serve to 
clarify and improve the existing law's definition of 
``information resources management.'' They make it clear that 
the resources to be managed are more than just information or 
information technology. They are those associated programmatic 
and managerial resources needed to perform information 
functions.
    7. The term ``information resources management'' (IRM) is 
redefined to mean ``the process of managing information 
resources to accomplish agency missions and to improve agency 
performance, including the reduction of information collection 
burdens on the public.'' This new definition is meant to 
further the original Act's intent to have Federal agencies 
better coordinate the management of information activities and 
associated resources. The legislation strengthens this mandate 
by focusing IRM on the basic reason for using information 
resources; i.e., to serve agency performance and efficiently 
and effectively accomplish agency missions, including the Act's 
objective of reducing public information collection burdens.
    8. The definition of ``information system,'' is updated to 
mean an organized and distinct or discrete set of information 
resources and processes, automated or manual, for any elements 
of the collection, processing, maintenance, use, sharing, 
dissemination, and disposition of information. It includes 
systems that provide information to top agency managers as well 
as systems supporting agency program operations. The previous 
definition of ``information system'' appeared to make the 
phrase synonymous with a ``management information system.'' 
Information systems are now understood to serve a much broader 
range of purposes than just providing management information.
    9. The term ``information technology'' replaces the current 
term ``automatic data processing equipment'' (ADPE) but does 
not change the underlying definition from the ``Brooks Act'' 
(40 U.S.C. 759). The reason for this change is that the term 
``information technology'' has replaced ``ADPE' in common usage 
and management practice. Moreover, as broadly defined by the 
Brooks Act, the term covers computer and telecommunications 
equipment and services. Throughout the Act, therefore, the 
legislation substitutes ``information technology'' for various 
references to ``automatic data processing,'' ``automatic data 
processing equipment,'' and ``telecommunications.''
    10. The term ``person'' is unchanged from current law.
    11. The term ``practical utility'' is broadened and 
clarified by dropping the phrase ``it collects'' from current 
law. This change clarifies that federally conducted or 
sponsored collections of information which mandate that persons 
provide or maintain information to or for third parties may 
have practical utility if the actual use of the information is 
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the 
agency. This change is part of the Committee's intent to 
clarify the term in light of overturning the interpretation of 
``collection'' by the Supreme Court in Dole v. United 
Steelworkers of America.
    12. The term ``public information'' is added. It means any 
information, regardless of form or format, that an agency 
discloses, disseminates, or makes available to the public. Its 
application in the Act, as amended by this legislation, is 
primarily in the context of ``dissemination'' of information by 
an agency.
    13. The term ``recordkeeping requirement'' is clarified by 
the addition of the phrase ``or for'' an agency. As with the 
definition of ``burden'' and ``collection of information,'' 
this amendment is meant to cover instances in which information 
is provided, maintained, or dislocated to or for an agency. To 
overturn the interpretation of ``recordkeeping requirement'' in 
Dole v. United Steelworkers of America, the definition is 
clarified by adding at the end, the specific inclusion of 
``retention, reporting, notifying, or disclosure to third 
parties or the public of such records.''
    In addition to its treatment of these definitions, the 
legislation eliminates the following definitions as 
unnecessary:
          ``automatic data processing''--this term is replaced 
        by the term ``information technology,'' as described 
        above;
          ``data element,'' ``data element dictionary,'' ``data 
        profile,'' ``directory of information resources,'' and 
        ``information referral service''--these terms are 
        unnecessary given the legislation's revision of section 
        3511, regarding the Government Information Locator 
        Service; and
          ``information collection request''--this term is 
        subsumed within the definition of ``collection of 
        information,'' as described above.

        Sec. 3503. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs

    Section 3503, which establishes OMB's Office of Information 
and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), is amended to conform with the 
1990 Chief Financial Officers Act's creation of the position of 
OMB Deputy Director for Management (DDM). While the OIRA 
Administrator is and should continue to ``serve as principal 
adviser to the Director on Federal information resources 
management policy,'' the Committee recognizes the status of the 
DDM as the OMB official designated by statute to coordinate and 
supervise the general management functions of OMB.

             Sec. 3504. Authority and functions of Director

    Section 3504 sets out OMB's IRM authority and functions 
under the Act. The legislation's amendments to the section do 
not change the structure of OMB's functional responsibilities, 
but rather revise and refine the specific details under each 
function, and, for the first time, delineate specific 
``dissemination'' responsibilities.
    As revised, the section eliminates references to OMB as the 
implementing agency. This reflects the recognition that OIRA 
can and should provide policy and practice leadership and 
oversight, but cannot and should not attempt to take over 
operational responsibilities for agency IRM functions. For this 
reason, the legislation also describes detailed agency 
responsibilities in section 3506 to mirror the OMB functions 
spelled out in section 3504. This reflects a major purpose of 
the legislation, that is, to improve implementation of the Act 
by more clearly delineating agency responsibilities.
    The bill also streamlines language and makes more 
consistent use of terms such as collection of information 
(e.g., instead of ``information collection request'' or 
``collection of information requirement''), information 
resources management, and information technology. Along these 
same lines of clarifying terms, section 3504(h) in current law 
(dealing with OMB review and approval of collections of 
information contained in proposed rules--an element of the so-
called Kennedy Amendment to the original 1980 legislation) is 
moved, but without substantive change, to section 3507(d), 
which is the primary location of OMB paperwork review and 
approval provisions.

Subsec. (a)

    As with the definition of IRM, this subsection identifies 
the Director's functional IRM responsibilities and focuses them 
on: (1) developing and coordinating governmentwide policies and 
guidelines, and (2) providing direction and overseeing the 
review and approval of the collection of information, the 
reduction of burden on the public, and overseeing agency use of 
information resources.

Subsec. (b)

    Subsection (b), the general IRM policy functions, is 
amended to refer to ``information resources management policy'' 
instead of ``information today.'' The specific requirements are 
then updated and streamlined--again, with a major purpose being 
the management of information resources.
    New specific functions assigned the Director are to foster 
greater sharing, dissemination, and access to public 
information; oversee the development and implementation of 
``best practices'' in IRM by Federal agencies; and oversee 
agency integration of program and management functions with 
their IRM functions (in many cases agencies have conducted them 
as separate activities as if there was no relationship between 
them). An agency's strategic plan (sometimes referred to as an 
agency business plan) should establish the mission for agency 
programs with performance measures to measure program 
performance (in accordance with the requirements of the 
Government Performance and Results Act) and the IRM plan should 
describe how information resources will be acquired and managed 
in support of the agency programs.

Subsec. (c)

    The collection of information and paperwork control 
subsection is amended so as to fit with other sections, e.g., 
paperwork burden reduction goals in section 3505, agency 
responsibilities in section 3506, and the review and approval 
of proposed agency collections of information in section 3507. 
One new specific requirement is added to highlight the need to 
reduce the burdens associated with government procurement-
related paperwork. This requires coordination between OIRA and 
the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) in the review 
of proposed agency collections of procurement-related 
information. The focus on minimizing burden remains (in 
paragraph (3)). It is complemented (in paragraph (4)) by the 
mandate to maximize the utility and benefit of information once 
it is collected or created by or for the Federal Government. 
OIRA is to oversee agency development of burden estimates (in 
paragraph (5)); i.e., to ensure consistency among agencies in 
burden estimation.

Subsec. (d)

    New provisions are established to provide specific guidance 
for the management of information dissemination functions. 
These were, heretofore, only generally referred to in current 
law (e.g., sec. 3504(a)). While the Act's life cycle approach 
previously conveyed an expectation of OMB oversight of agency 
information dissemination functions, the developing 
capabilities of agencies and of information technologies for 
this purpose necessitates the articulation of specific OMB 
information dissemination policy setting and oversight 
responsibility. As with other OMB IRM functions detailed in 
section 3504, the counterpart agency information dissemination 
responsibilities are spelled out in section 3506.
    This new subsection requires OMB to develop governmentwide 
policies and guidelines to guide agency dissemination of public 
information, and promote public access to public information. 
As elsewhere in the legislation, the mandate applies to the 
dissemination of information, regardless of form or format. 
This is meant to emphasize the need to develop policies and 
practices to promote dissemination of information in electronic 
format, as well as traditional paper forms.

Subsec. (e)

    OMB's statistical policy and coordination duties are 
spelled out in greater detail to assist in improving the 
coordination of the decentralized Federal statistical system. 
Specific duties codified by this legislation include: 
coordinating system activities to ensure the integrity, 
objectivity, impartiality, utility, and confidentiality of 
information collected for statistical purposes; ensuring that 
budgetary proposals are consistent with governmentwide 
priorities for improving statistics; developing policies for 
the timely and orderly release of statistical data; promoting 
the sharing of statistical information; and coordinating 
participation of the United States in international statistical 
activities. To facilitate interagency coordination and improve 
Federal statistical policy, the subsection calls for the 
creation of an Interagency Council on Statistical Policy. It 
also calls for OMB to provide opportunities to Federal 
Government employees for training in statistical policy.

Subsec. (f)

    OMB's records management duties are reaffirmed and are 
strengthened to include oversight of agency implementation of 
records management policies established by the Archivist of the 
United States and the Administrator of General Services. Given 
emerging issues regarding electronic records management, 
specific reference is made to emphasize the need to develop 
policies and practices to ensure that ultimate need to archive 
information in electronic format be considered in the initial 
planning and design of automated information systems.

Subsec. (g)

    OMB's privacy and security functions are amended to 
streamline language and integrate policies related to privacy, 
confidentiality, security, disclosure, and sharing of 
information. The current references to security are 
strengthened by citing the Computer Security Act of 1987. And 
consistent with the Act, the subsection is amended to focus 
OIRA oversight on the pressing need of agency computer security 
planning to address ``risk'' of possible harms and to afford 
security protections commensurate with the risk involved.

Subsec. (h)

    OMB's information technology (heretofore, ADP) duties are 
revised to reflect the need to integrate information technology 
management functions (like other elements of IRM) with program 
functions to serve and improve program performance. The 
Committee is convinced that OMB must improve its ability to 
affect agency mission accomplishment through the effective 
management of information technology, especially through the 
application of GAO's ``Best Practices'' recommendations and OMB 
policy guidance and oversight, as provided under the Act.
    Specific OMB responsibilities added to those in this 
subsection of current law are for OMB to: (1) coordinate 
information technology procurement policies with the Office of 
Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) in OMB; and (2) ensure agency 
integration of IRM plans, program plans, and budgets to assist 
in the planning, use and management of information technology. 
Consistent with other changes made by the legislation to focus 
OMB's activities on policy guidance and oversight as opposed to 
operational responsibility, the legislation also highlights in 
this subsection the importance and responsibility of GSA and 
NIST to work in partnership with OMB to improve agency 
information technology functions. Finally, the legislation also 
amends this subsection to make word changes for the sake of 
consistency and clarity.

              Sec. 3505. Assignment of tasks and deadlines

    Section 3505 is amended to remove now-outdated tasks and 
deadlines assigned to the Director in current law from the 1980 
Act and the 1986 amendments and to provide a new set of OMB and 
agency objectives.
    1. OMB is to set, in consultation with agency heads, an 
annual governmentwide goal for the reduction of information 
collection burdens by at least ten percent, as well as agency-
specific goals for paperwork reduction that ``represent the 
maximum practicable opportunity in each agency'' and for 
improving IRM activities' support of agency programs. The 
Committee anticipates that the burden reduction goals will be 
measured against existing levels of burden estimated for the 
time the goals are set.
    2. OMB is to conduct pilot projects to test alternative 
policies and procedures to fulfill the purposes of the Act 
(with the authority to waive the application of designated 
agency regulations or administrative directives involving the 
collection of information after giving timely notice to the 
public and Congress regarding the need for such waiver), 
particularly with regard to minimizing the Federal information 
collection burden.
    3. In consultation with GSA, the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology (NIST), National Archives and Records 
Administration (NARA), and Office of Personnel Management 
(OPM), OMB is to develop and maintain a governmentwide 
strategic IRM plan that describes: (1) the objectives and means 
by which federal agencies will apply information resources to 
improve agency and program performance; (2) plans for reducing 
information collection burdens, enhancing public access to 
information, and meeting Federal information technology needs; 
and (3) progress in using IRM to improve agency performance and 
the accomplishment of missions.

               Sec. 3506. Federal agency responsibilities

    Because a major purpose of this reauthorization of the Act 
is to more clearly delineate agency responsibilities and 
accountability for each information function, the legislation 
substantially revises section 3506 to describe key agency 
functional IRM responsibilities that mirror the OMB 
responsibilities set out in section 3504. The Committee intends 
this section to stand as a clear mandate to agencies that 
responsibility for agency IRM rests squarely with the agency, 
and that each agency is expected to take this responsibility 
very seriously. Agencies should also be cognizant of other IRM 
responsibilities spelled out in more detail in related IRM 
laws.

Subsec. (a)

    This subsection establishes the management structure which 
the agencies are to establish in carrying out their IRM 
responsibilities.
    1. Each agency's IRM responsibility is clearly vested in 
the agency head to carry out and integrate IRM activities in a 
manner that improves agency productivity, efficiency, and 
effectiveness and that complies with the requirements of the 
Act and the related policies established by OMB.
    2. The current law is unchanged with regard to the 
establishment of an agency designated senior IRM official. The 
senior IRM official is primarily responsible for assisting top 
agency program and management officials in managing information 
resources in support of agency programs and activities and for 
the effective and efficient design, development, and delivery 
of information activities to support program responsibilities 
and comply with the requirements of this Act.
    3. The senior IRM official is required to head an office 
responsible for ensuring agency compliance with prompt, 
efficient, and effective implementation of the information 
policies and information resources management responsibilities 
established under this Act, including the reduction of 
information collection burdens on the public. Subsection (c) 
provides that it is this office that is to review and certify 
proposed collections of information for OMB review and 
approval. Also, the senior IRM official and staff are to have 
professional qualifications necessary to administer the 
agency's IRM functions.
    4. Consistent with the goal of integrating IRM in program 
management, the legislation specifies that agency program 
officials are responsible and accountable for information 
resources assigned to and supporting their programs. The 
provision also describes the relationship between the senior 
IRM official and program and management officials, including 
the Chief Financial Officer (or comparable official). In 
consultation with the agency Chief Financial Officer and the 
senior IRM official, program officials are to define program 
information needs and cooperatively develop strategies, 
information systems, and capabilities to meet those needs.

Subsec. (b)

    With respect to general information resources management, 
each agency is to undertake several specified actions:
    1. Manage information resources to reduce information 
collection burdens, increase program efficiency and 
effectiveness, and improve the integrity, quality, and utility 
of information to users both within and outside the agency;
    2. Develop and maintain a current strategic IRM plan 
describing how the agency will employ information resources to 
accomplish agency missions;
    3. Maintain an ongoing process to improve IRM and integrate 
it with organizational planning, budget, financial management, 
human resources management, and program decisions; to develop 
an accurate accounting of information technology expenditures 
and related expenses; and to establish goals for improving 
IRM's contribution to agency programs;
    4. Maintain an inventory of information resources, 
including directories necessary to fulfill the Government 
Information Locator Service (GILS) requirements of section 
3511; and
    5. Conduct IRM training programs to educate program and 
management officials about the importance of IRM.

Subsec. (c)

    With regard to the collection of information and the 
control and reduction of paperwork burdens, the legislation 
specifies detailed agency paperwork clearance requirements. The 
Committee believes significant improvements can be made to the 
information collection clearance process by focusing increased 
agency attention to (and public participation in) the initial 
formulation of and periodic review of information collections. 
One improvement provided by a more complete airing of issues 
during the course of the agency's development of an information 
collection proposal should be to reduce the amount of 
contention that in the past arose relatively late in the 
process during OIRA review.
    1. Section 3506(c) mandates a detailed information 
collection evaluation procedure requiring each agency to 
establish a process within the office designated under 
subsection (a), independent of program responsibility, to 
evaluate proposed collections. This office must:
          Review a collection of information before it is 
        submitted to OMB for review, that includes making an 
        independent evaluation of its need; preparing a 
        description of it, a collection plan, and a burden 
        estimate; pilot testing the collection, if appropriate; 
        and developing a plan for the management and use of the 
        information to be collected;
          Ensure that information collections are inventoried, 
        display a control number and, when appropriate, an 
        expiration date; indicate the collection is in 
        accordance with the Act; and contain a statement 
        informing the person being asked why the information is 
        being collected, its use, its burden, and whether 
        responses are voluntary, required to obtain a benefit, 
        or mandatory. This requirement is transposed from 
        current law (section 3504(c)(3)) to make it more 
        clearly an agency responsibility, rather than a duty of 
        OMB. Note that this requirement must also be certified 
        to by each agency (see section 3506(c)(3)(F); and
          Assess the information collection burden of proposed 
        legislation affecting the agency.
    2. Each agency is to provide a 60-day public comment period 
which occurs before the proposed collection is submitted to OMB 
for review. While such comment to OMB has been useful in the 
past, and should continue to be so, public comment on agency 
development of information collections should help:
          Determine whether the information collection is 
        necessary for the proper performance of the functions 
        of the agency;
          Assess the accuracy of, and improve, the agency's 
        burden estimate;
          Enhance the quality and utility of the information to 
        be collected; and
          Minimize the information collection burden, including 
        through the consideration and use of alternate 
        information technologies.
    This agency public comment period is not required for 
proposed information collections contained in proposed rules, 
which must be reviewed by OIRA under section 3507(d) (under 
this legislation, section 3504(h) under current law). The 
reason for this exemption is that such proposals solicit public 
comment through the agency notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 
under the Administrative procedure Act. To require an 
additional (and earlier) agency public comment period would 
result, as a practical matter, in agency publication of advance 
notices of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) for every proposed rule 
that contains a collection of information. This would create a 
significant amount of internal government paperwork and expense 
for an insignificant improvement in opportunities for public 
notice and comment.
    This agency public comment period is also not required if 
the agency can demonstrate good cause for not doing so to OMB. 
Given the nature of certain kinds of information collections, 
advance notice may tempt at least some potential respondents 
either to destroy the information sought or to take other 
action to frustrate the legitimate goal of the agency, for 
example, the seizure of illegally gained financial assets.
    3. Each agency is to certify (with a supporting record, 
including comments received, and an agency response to any 
significant issues raised by the public) that each proposed 
collection of information submitted to OMB for review under 
section 3507:
          Is necessary for the proper performance of the 
        functions of the agency, including that it has 
        practical utility;
          Is not unnecessarily duplicative of available 
        information;
          Reduces, to the extent practicable and appropriate, 
        the burden on respondents, which may include 
        establishing alternative compliance or reporting 
        requirements for small entities in accordance with the 
        Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6);
          Is written using plain, understandable language;
          Is to be implemented in ways consistent and 
        compatible, to the maximum extent practicable, with the 
        respondents' existing reporting and recordkeeping 
        practices;
          Informs the respondent why the information is being 
        collected; now it is to be used; a burden estimate; and 
        whether responses are voluntary, for a benefit, or 
        mandatory;
          Has been developed by an office that has allocated 
        resources for the management and use of the 
        information;
          Uses appropriate statistical survey methodology; and
          Considers and uses alternative information 
        technologies, to the extent practicable, to reduce 
        information collection burden, and improve data 
        quality, agency efficiency, and responsiveness to the 
        public.

Subsec. (d)

    As a complement to the delineation of OMB responsibilities 
at section 3504(d) to develop and oversee information 
dissemination policies, the legislation in this subsection 
establishes specific agency operational responsibilities to 
ensure that the public has timely and equitable access to 
public information. These provisions are largely consistent 
with the information dissemination principles of OMB Circular 
No. A-130 (58 Fed. Reg. 36068, July 2, 1993, and 59 Fed. Reg. 
37906, July 25, 1994), particularly as they relate to 
maintaining a diversity of public and private information 
dissemination channels, and avoiding improperly restrictive 
practices.
    Most generally, these statutory provisions are intended to 
guide agency dissemination activities and promote public access 
to government information in the increasingly multiple forms 
and formats made possible by new information technologies. 
Accordingly, these agency dissemination responsibilities apply 
to Federal public information ``regardless of the form or 
format in which it is disseminated.''
    1. The key purpose contained in 3506(d)(1) is to provide 
for the dissemination to the public of public information 
products and services on a timely, equal, and equitable terms. 
The goal of nondiscrimination requires agencies not only to 
refrain from enhancing the position of some members of the 
public over that of others, but to refrain from enhancing the 
Federal Government's position over that of others as well.
    Each agency must ensure that the public has timely and 
equitable access to the agency's public information, including 
by encouraging a diversity of public and private sources, and 
by agency dissemination of public information in an efficient, 
effective, and economical manner, including, for public 
information maintained in electronic format, timely, equal, and 
equitable access to the underlying data. The goal in this 
paragraph is to enunciate clearly the obligation of Federal 
agencies to ensure effective access to public information held 
by the government information. The two secondary objectives are 
for agencies to: (1) encourage a diversity of providers in the 
private and public sectors, while avoiding unnecessary 
duplication of effort; and (2) disseminate information, whose 
dissemination is determined by the agency to be necessary for 
the proper performance of its functions, efficiently, 
effectively, and economically.
    This obligation also requires agencies to disseminate and 
make public information available on a non-discriminatory and 
non-exclusive basis to any public or private entity for any 
lawful purpose, including for redissemination of the 
information, or for its incorporation in another information 
product or service. In addition, ensuring effective access can 
require agencies (consistent with budget constraints) to 
eliminate, reduce, or otherwise compensate for barriers that 
may frustrate intended users, e.g., excessive charges, 
licensing requirements, or technical barriers.
    The term ``equal'' modifying ``timely and equitable'' 
information dissemination is intended to ensure against 
agencies discriminating against or otherwise disadvantaging 
classes of users, particularly commercial users. Agencies must 
balance it, however, against other policies, specifically, the 
proper performance of agency functions and the need to ensure 
that information dissemination products reach the public for 
whom they are intended. If an agency mission includes 
disseminating information to certain specific groups or members 
of the public and the agency determines that user charges will 
constitute a significant barrier to carrying out its 
responsibility, the agency may have grounds for reducing or 
eliminating its user charges for the information dissemination 
product, or for exempting some recipients from the charge.
    2. Subsection 2506(d)(2) requires that each agency 
regularly solicit and consider public input on the agency's 
information dissemination activities. This includes outreach to 
the public to ascertain information user needs so that 
information can be disseminated in useful forms and formats. 
This also includes gathering information on information 
provided by other public or private sources, in order to avoid 
needless duplication of effort.
    3. Subsection 3506(d)(3) sets out public notice 
requirements. Before taking any action to initiate, 
substantially modify, or terminate a public information product 
or service, an agency must take steps to inform interested 
members of the public of its plans. The purpose of the notice 
is to maximize the ability of the public to influence agency 
information plans at an early stage. This subsection provides 
that each agency should provide adequate notice when 
initiating, substantially modifying, or terminating significant 
information dissemination products.
    4. Subsection 3506(d)(4) lists four categories of conduct 
that agencies should avoid unless specifically authorized by 
statute. These four categories of conduct are: (1) exclusive, 
restricted, or other distribution arrangements that adversely 
affect the timely and equitable availability of public 
information; (2) restrictions on or regulation of the use, 
reuse, or redissemination of information; (3) fees or royalties 
for reuse, resale, or redissemination of information; and (4) 
the establishment of user fees for information that exceed the 
cost of dissemination, unless the head of the agency, with 
public notice, requests the establishment of higher user fees; 
the Director, with public notice, so agrees; and this waiver 
would not materially impair the timely and equitable 
availability of public information to the public.
    Subparagraph (A) provides that agencies should avoid 
establishing an exclusive, restricted, or other distribution 
arrangement that interferes with timely, equal, or equitable 
availability of public information to the public. The purpose 
of this provision is to prohibit agencies from establishing 
discriminatory monopoly distribution arrangements for public 
information.
    Subparagraph (B) provides that agencies should avoid 
restricting or regulating the use, resale, or redissemination 
of public information products or services by the public. 
Except where a statute specifically authorizes such a 
restriction, public information may continue to be used, 
republished, resold, extracted, and redisseminated in any way 
by any person.
    Subparagraph (C) provides that agencies should avoid 
charging fees or royalties for resale or redissemination of 
public information. Public information may be used, sold, or 
redisseminated whether or not the person paid any fees to the 
government to obtain the information.
    Subparagraph (D) provides that agencies should avoid 
establishing user fees for public information products that 
exceed the cost of dissemination. This is consistent with 
current OMB policies. While current user fee policies for other 
goods and services may support other types of price structures, 
information products can only be priced at cost of 
dissemination. The government should not treat its information 
dissemination activities as general revenue sources. It is the 
policy of H.R. 830 that the government should not make a profit 
by selling public information collected and compiled at 
taxpayer expense to the American public.
    It is intended that the granting of waivers will be rare 
and that the authorized terms and conditions will narrowly 
circumscribe any waivers. It also is intended that any waivers 
will be of limited duration. OMB may not help an agency evade 
the cost of dissemination pricing requirement by repeatedly 
granting it waivers.

Subsec. (e)

    With regard to agency statistical activities, the 
legislation requires agencies to:
          Ensure the relevance, accuracy, timeliness, 
        integrity, and objectivity of its statistical 
        information;
          Fully inform respondents regarding the sponsors, 
        purposes, and uses of statistical surveys and studies;
          Protect respondent privacy and ensure that 
        disclosures fully honor pledges of confidentiality;
          Observe Federal standards and rules on data 
        collection, analysis, documentation, sharing, and 
        dissemination of statistical information;
          Ensure timely publication of survey and study 
        results, including about their quality and limitations; 
        and
          Make data available, consistent with privacy and 
        confidentiality measures, to statistical agencies and 
        readily accessible to the public.

Subsec. (f)

    With respect to records management, the legislation 
describes specific agency responsibilities to implement and 
enforce applicable policies and procedures (established by the 
Archivist of the United States and the Administrator of General 
Services), including requirements for archiving information 
maintained in an electronic format, particularly in the 
planning, design and operation of information systems. This 
emphasis on electronic records parallels the emphasis added to 
OMB's records management responsibilities in section 3504(f).

Subsec. (g)

    The legislation describes agency responsibilities for 
privacy and security. Each agency must:
          Enforce applicable policies and procedures on 
        privacy, confidentiality, security, disclosure and 
        sharing of information maintained by an agency or by 
        another entity on behalf of the agency;
          Be responsible and accountable for compliance with 
        the Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act, the 
        Computer Security Act, and other related information 
        management laws; and
          Develop capabilities and provide protections, in 
        carrying out the Computer Security Act, as needed to 
        address cost-effectively the risk of harm from loss, 
        misuse, or unauthorized access to or modification of 
        information maintained by or on behalf of an agency.

Subsec. (h)

    Finally, the legislation specifies actions agencies are to 
take with respect to information technology. Each agency must:
          Implement and enforce applicable information 
        technology management policies, procedures, and 
        standards;
          The agency designated IRM official must be 
        responsible and accountable for information technology 
        investments;
          Use information technology to improve the 
        productivity, efficiency, and effectiveness of agency 
        programs, including dissemination of public 
        information; and
          Propose changes in legislation, regulations, and 
        procedures to improve information technology practices, 
        including changes to better use technology to reduce 
        information collection burden.

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

    Section 3507 provides the details of the OMB paperwork 
clearance process and the actions agencies must take to get 
their proposals reviewed and approved by OMB. With the 
establishment of specific agency information collection 
clearance requirements and the creation of a way for the public 
to participate earlier in the information collection 
development process, several modifications and cross-references 
are made to ensure that the agency clearance actions are 
performed consistent with and to facilitate the efficient 
functioning of the overall clearance process. In this regard, 
for example, the OMB process is streamlined in terms of the 
comment period and review time limit (with a maximum of 60 days 
instead of 60 days plus a discretionary 30-day extension).

Subsec. (a)

    The current law's basic paperwork clearance requirements 
remain the same, that is, that an agency is not to conduct or 
sponsor the collection of information unless, in advance of the 
adoption or revision of the collection, the Act's information 
collection clearance requirements are met at both the agency 
and OMB levels.
    1. The agency must conduct its information collection 
review established under section 3506(c)(1); evaluate the 
public comments received under section 3506(c)(2); submit to 
OMB the certification required by section 3506(c)(3), together 
with the proposed collection of information and supporting 
material; and publish a notice in the Federal Register 
describing the submission, its title, a summary, the need for 
the information, its proposed use, respondents and frequency of 
response, an estimate of the burden, and notice that comments 
may be submitted to the agency and OMB.
    2. The agency may not collect the information without OMB 
approval, unless approval has been inferred (i.e., after 
passage of the time limit for OMB review, see subsection (c), 
below).
    3. The agency must obtain an OMB-assigned control number to 
be displayed on or by the collection of information.

Subsec. (b)

    OMB is to provide at least 30 days for public comment on 
the proposed collection of information before making a 
decision, except in emergencies, as provided under subsection 
(j), and except for good cause. OMB is also authorized to 
approve a collection of information more rapidly than in 30 
days if there is good cause to do so. For example, given the 
nature of certain kinds of information collections, delay in 
OMB approval may tempt at least some potential respondents 
either to destroy the information sought or to take other 
action to frustrate the legitimate goal of the agency, for 
example, the seizure of illegally gained financial assets.

Subsec. (c)

    To clarify the existing law, sections 3507(c) and (d) now 
clearly delineate the different procedures for OMB clearance of 
information collections not contained in proposed regulations 
and information collections contained in proposed regulations 
(subject to notice and comment), respectively. As described 
below, subsection (d) is substantively the same as the current 
law's language in section 3504(h).
    Subsection (c) states that, for any proposed collection of 
information not contained in a proposed rule, OMB has 60 days 
for its review. If OMB does not notify the agency of a denial 
or approval within the 60 days, the approval may be inferred, a 
control number is assigned, and the agency may collect the 
information for not more than one year.

Subsec. (d)

    The requirements of current law at section 3504(h) with 
regard to OMB clearance of information collections contained in 
a proposed rule, are moved to this subsection so as to place 
the major provisions of the paperwork clearance requirements in 
one section. While word changes are made for purposes of 
consistency and clarity in light of existing legislative 
history, no substantive changes are proposed. For example, 
under current law the substantive standard for review of 
collections of information contained in proposed rules, which 
are subject to notice and comment, is identical to that 
applicable to all other collections of information (See, Cong. 
Rec. December 15, 1980, S 16700 Kennedy statement). As under 
current law:
    1. An agency must, no later than the publication of the 
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), send to OMB any proposed 
rule containing a collection of information and supporting 
material. Within 60 days after the NPRM, OMB may file public 
comments on the proposed regulatory collection of information 
pursuant to the standards set forth in section 3508.
    2. When the final rule is published, the agency must 
explain how any collection of information contained in the 
final rule responds to the comments, if any, filed by OMB or 
the public, or explain the reasons such comments were rejected.
    3. OMB cannot disapprove any collection of information 
contained in an agency rule, if OMB received notice and did not 
comment within 60 days after the NPRM.
    4. OMB can disapprove:
          Any collection of information which was not 
        specifically required by an agency rule (i.e., and thus 
        should be reviewed under subsection (c));
          Any collection of information contained in an agency 
        rule, if the agency failed to comply with the Act's 
        submission and clearance requirements;
          Any collection of information contained in a final 
        rule, if OMB finds within 60 days after the publication 
        of the final rule that the agency's response to OMB's 
        comments on the collection proposed in the NPRM cannot 
        be approved under the standards set forth in section 
        3508; or
          Any collection of information contained in a final 
        rule, if OMB finds that the agency substantially 
        modified the collection in the final rule from that in 
        the NPRM and did not comply with OMB's submission and 
        clearance requirements.
    5. The procedures in this subsection apply only when an 
agency publishes a NPRM and requests public comments.
    6. The decision by OMB to approve or not act upon a 
collection of information in an agency rule is not subject to 
judicial review. No substantive change from existing section 
3504(h)(9) is intended.

Subsec. (e)

    This new subsection consolidates several provisions in 
current law regarding public disclosure of OMB information 
collection clearance activities (i.e., current law--sections 
3504(h)(6) and 3507(h)). It also presents the disclosure 
requirement in a more comprehensive fashion--any decision by 
OMB to disapprove a collection of information, or to instruct 
an agency to make substantive or material change to a 
collection of information, is to be publicly available, along 
with an explanation of the reasons for such decision. Public 
disclosure is also required for written communications to and 
from OIRA regarding a proposed collection of information 
(current law--section 3507(h)).
    These requirements do not, however, require the disclosure 
of any national security information (current law--sec. 
3507(h)) or ``any communication relating to a collection of 
information, the disclosure of which could lead to retaliation 
or discrimination against the communicator.'' This new language 
is added to protect ``whistle-blowers'' who otherwise might 
fear possible retaliation from agencies for complaining about 
agency collections of information.

Subsec. (f)

    The current law's authorization of independent regulatory 
agency overrides of OMB information collection disapproval is 
unchanged, but for word changes for purposes of consistency and 
clarity.

Subsec. (g)

    The current law's limit of three years for information 
collection approvals is unchanged, but for word changes for 
purposes of consistency and clarity.

Subsec. (h)

    As originally enacted, the Act described only procedures 
for gaining approval of new information collections. With the 
3-year limit on OMB's approvals, it was largely assumed that 
agencies would be required to resubmit the collections for 
reapproval upon their expiration, and procedures for this 
purpose were subsequently adopted by OMB and are codified at 5 
C.F.R. 1320.14. Repeated questions, however, about how 
agencies, OMB, and the public should approach continuing 
collections recommend establishing a statutory requirement to 
prescribe the conditions for re-review. The new procedure 
provided by the legislation has three major elements.
    1. If an agency decides to seek an extension of OMB's 
approval granted for a currently-approved collection of 
information, the agency is to conduct the review required under 
section 3506(c), including the seeking of public comment on the 
continued need for the information and the burden imposed. 
After seeking comment, but no later than 60 days before the 
expiration of OMB's approval (and control number), the agency 
is to submit the collection to OMB, with an explanation of how 
the agency has used the information under the current approval.
    2. If OMB disapproves an information collection in an 
existing rule, or recommends or instructs the agency to make a 
substantive or material change to such a collection, OMB must 
publish an explanation and shall instruct the agency to enter 
rulemaking to consider changes to the collection of information 
in the rule and thereafter to submit the collection for review 
under subsection (d) (as an information collection contained in 
a proposed rule).
    3. An agency is not allowed to make a substantive or 
material change to a collection of information after it is 
approved by the Director unless the modification itself is 
submitted for approval and is approved.

Subsec. (i)

    The current law's provisions on OMB delegation of 
information collection clearance authority to agencies is 
unchanged, except for word changes for purposes of consistency 
and clarity.

Subsec. (j)

    The provisions in current law on expedited OMB paperwork 
clearance in emergency and time-limited situations are modified 
with word changes for consistency and clarity, and to provide 
that the standard for agency determination of the need for an 
expedited clearance is the reasonable likelihood (as opposed to 
a certainty) of public harm, failure to respond to an 
emergency, or violation of a legal deadline. The Committee does 
not intend agency heads or OMB to use this modification to 
alter their clearance practices from that under current law.

     Sec. 3508. Determination of necessity for information; hearing

    Section 3508 provides the standard for review for OMB 
paperwork clearance decisions--``whether the collection of 
information is necessary for the proper performance of the 
functions of the agency, including whether the information will 
have practical utility.'' Except for word changes for purposes 
of clarity, consistency, and style, the substance of OMB's 
authority to approve or disapprove agency collections of 
information remains unaltered from current law and the full 
scope of the standards, policies, and purposes set forth in the 
Act. Thus, OMB's attention to reducing burden, eliminating 
duplication, coordinating interagency collections, and 
overseeing the efficient and effective use of information 
collected by and for Federal agencies arises from and is 
authorized by this ``necessary for the proper performance'' 
standard.

          sec. 3509. Designation of central collection agency

    This section's provisions on OMB's designation of one 
agency to obtain information for two or more agencies are 
unchanged from current, except for word changes for purposes of 
consistency and clarity.

   sec. 3510. cooperation of agencies in making information available

    The current law's provisions are unchanged, except for word 
changes for purposes of consistency and clarity. This section 
encourages agencies to cooperate in data sharing to facilitate 
more efficient and effective, and less burdensome information 
collection and use.

   sec. 3511. establishment and operation of government information 
                            locator service

    Section 3511 required OMB to develop and operate a Federal 
Information Locator System (FILS). The section is amended to 
update the FILS requirement and transform it into an attainable 
goal.
    The section now provides that OMB, to assist and promote 
agency and public access to government information:
    1. Cause to be established a distributed agency-based 
electronic Government Information Locator Service (GILS) to 
identify major agency information systems, information 
holdings, and dissemination products;
    2. Require each agency to have an agency information 
locator service as a component of a governmentwide GILS;
    3. Establish an interagency committee, with the National 
Archives and Records Administration (NARA), GSA, the Government 
Printing Office (GPO), and the Library of Congress, to advise 
the Secretary of Commerce on the development of technical 
standards to ensure compatibility, promote information sharing 
among the agencies, and promote access to government 
information by the public;
    4. Consider public access and other user needs in the 
establishment and operation of GILS;
    5. Ensure the security and integrity of GILS, including so 
that only information intended to be disclosed to the public or 
shared with other agencies is disclosed or shared; and
    6. Periodically review GILS and recommend improvements 
(e.g., ways to improve public access to government information 
and interagency sharing of information to improve agency 
performance).
    In carrying out its responsibility under Section 3511 to 
consider user needs in establishing and operating the GILS, OMB 
shall take appropriate steps to facilitate the inclusion in the 
Service of non-government information products and services 
based upon federal public information. One critical user need, 
as recognized in this legislation, is public access to a 
diversity of sources for public information. GILS can help 
satisfy that need by electronically accommodating non-federal 
sources of this information, as well as to databases maintained 
by federal agencies.

                      sec. 3512. public protection

    The intended scope, purposes, and requirements of section 
3512's current provisions on public enforcement of the Act's 
information collection clearance requirements are unchanged. 
The section is amended, however, for purposes of consistency 
and clarity, and to unequivocally cover all collections of 
information, i.e., maintaining, providing, or disclosing 
information to or for an agency or person, or to a third party 
or the public on the instructions or behalf of a Federal 
agency.
    Court decisions have affirmed that the section's intended 
protection can be asserted effectively in empowering members of 
the public to defend themselves against unapproved collections 
of information which are subject to the Act. The Committee 
supports this provision and the purposes for which it was 
originally enacted, and continues, to serve.

  sec. 3513. director review of agency activities; reporting; agency 
                                response

    Section 3513 is updated and streamlined to provide for 
periodic executive branch review of agency implementation of 
the Act and related IRM laws. Many of the reviews of agency IRM 
activities conducted over the years have been compliance 
oriented. The section now focuses OMB review of agency IRM 
activities on determining their efficiency and effectiveness in 
helping to improve agency performance and achieve program 
missions and goals.
    Each agency that has an IRM activity reviewed under this 
section is to respond, within 60 days of receiving the report 
on the review, with a written plan to the Director. The plan is 
to describe the steps, including milestones, that will be taken 
by the agency to address the IRM problems identified in the 
report and to improve agency performance and the accomplishment 
of its missions.

                 sec. 3514. responsiveness to congress

    Section 3514 provides that OMB is to inform the Congress on 
the major activities under the Act, including through an annual 
report. However, consistent with current legislative efforts to 
streamline congressional reporting requirements so as to 
mandate only that degree of reporting that is actually used, 
several detailed specifications for tabulations and lists are 
deleted from current law.
    The focus of the report is changed--to be on the results 
achieved rather than mostly information of projects undertaken. 
The Director is to report on the extent that agencies have (1) 
reduced information collection burdens on the public, (2) 
improved the quality and utility of statistical information, 
(3) improved public access to Government information, and (4) 
improved program performance and the accomplishment of agency 
missions through their IRM activities. For agencies that do not 
reduce information collection burdens by at least ten percent 
in the preceding year (a goal set forth in section 3505(1)), 
the agencies are to identify for OMB the program and 
legislative responsibilities which preclude such burden 
reduction, and suggest recommendations to help the agency meet 
that burden reduction goal. OMB is to provide in the annual 
report a list of these program and legislative 
responsibilities, and the recommendations with which it agrees 
that Congress should take into consideration in seeking to 
reduce paperwork burdens imposed by legislation.

                    sec. 3515. administrative powers

    The current law's provisions are unchanged.

                    sec. 3516. rules and regulations

    The current law's provisions are unchanged.

       sec. 3517. consultation with other agencies and the public

    This section is amended to permit a person to request OMB 
to review any collection of information to determine if the 
person must comply with the collection--whether the collection 
is covered by the Act and has been properly cleared. Unless the 
request is frivolous (or extra time is needed), the Director is 
to respond to the person within 60 days and take any 
appropriate remedial action. The Director is also to coordinate 
the response with the agency responsible for the collection of 
information. The section is also amended to make word changes 
for purposes of consistency and clarity.

           sec. 3518. effect on existing laws and regulations

    Except for the provision discussed in the next paragraph, 
the current law's provisions are unchanged, except for word 
changes for purposes of consistency and clarity.

                    sec. 3519. access to information

    The current law's provisions are unchanged, except for word 
changes for purposes of consistency and clarity.

               sec. 3520. authorization of appropriations

    This section is changed to make the Office of Information 
and Regulatory Affairs a fully integrated component of the 
Office of Management and Budget. OMB's appropriation is first 
determined by the Committees on Appropriations. To avoid cross 
purposes, the same should be true for all the components of 
OMB.

                       section 3. effective date.

    The provisions of this legislation, amending the Paperwork 
Reduction Act, shall take effect on October 1, 1995. This 
effective date is intended to allow OMB time to revise its 
paperwork clearance regulations, and to allow agencies time to 
submit any current information disclosure requirements for OMB 
clearance. Without this grace period, disclosure requirements 
currently deemed not subject to the Act due to the 1990 Supreme 
Court decision in Dole v. Steelworkers of America would 
immediately become unenforceable under the public protection 
language of section 3512. This could confuse the public and 
disrupt agency activities dependent upon such disclosure of 
third-party collections of information.

                            Roll Call Votes

    In compliance with clause 2(l)(2)(B) of rule XI of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth the record 
of the following roll call votes taken with respect to H.R. 
830:

                    Amendment Number: #1 of H.R. 830

    Description: Section 3505, page 19, line 8 strike ``five'' 
and insert ``10''.
    Offered by: Mr. Fox.
    Voice vote: Ayes.

                    Amendment Number: #2 of H.R. 830

    Description: Section 3501, page 2, line 10, insert 
microenterprises, after the words small businesses.
    Offered by: Mr. Sanders.
    Withdrawn.

                    Amendment Number: #3 of H.R. 830

    Description: Section 3504, page 12, line 14 strike ``and'' 
and insert in lieu thereof.
    Offered by: Mr. Sanders.
    Voice vote: Ayes.

                    Amendment Number: #4 of H.R. 830

    Description: Page 55, strike line 11 through page 56, line 
2, and insert the following:
    Offered By: Mr. Davis.
    Voice vote: Ayes.
    Passed as amended by the Kanjorski Amendment.

                    Amendment Number: #5 of H.R. 830

    Description: Strike Section 3518(f).
    Offered by: Mr. Kanjorski.
    Voice vote: Ayes.

                    Amendment Number: #6 of H.R. 830

    Description: En Bloc, Section 3504, 3505(a)(3), 3511(3).
    Offered by: Mr. Owens.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Representative            Aye    Nay   Present           Representative            Aye    Nay   Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Clinger.....................  .....     X   .......  Mrs. Collins--IL................     X   .....  .......
Mr. Gilman......................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Waxman......................     X   .....  .......
Mr. Burton......................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Lantos......................  .....  .....  .......
Mrs. Morella....................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Wise........................     X   .....  .......
Mr. Shays.......................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Owens.......................     X   .....  .......
Mr. Schiff......................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Towns.......................     X   .....  .......
Mrs. Ros-Lehtinen...............  .....     X   .......  Mr. Spratt......................     X   .....  .......
Mr. Zeliff......................  .....     X   .......  Mrs. Slaughter..................     X   .....  .......
Mr. McHugh......................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Kanjorski...................     X   .....  .......
Mr. Horn........................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Condit......................     X   .....  .......
Mr. Mica........................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Peterson....................  .....     X   .......
Mr. Blute.......................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Sanders.....................  .....  .....  .......
Mr. Davis.......................  .....     X   .......  Mrs. Thurman....................     X   .....  .......
Mr. McIntosh....................  .....     X   .......  Mrs. Maloney....................  .....  .....  .......
Mr. Fox.........................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Barrett.....................  .....     X   .......
Mr. Tate........................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Taylor......................     X   .....  .......
Mr. Chrysler....................  .....     X   .......  Mrs. Collins--MI................  .....  .....  .......
Mr. Gutknecht...................  .....     X   .......  Mrs. Norton.....................  .....  .....  .......
Mr. Souder......................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Moran.......................  .....  .....  .......
Mr. Martini.....................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Green.......................     X   .....  .......
Mr. Scarborough.................  .....     X   .......  Mrs. Meek.......................  .....  .....  .......
Mr. Shadegg.....................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Mascara.....................     X   .....  .......
Mr. Flanagan....................  .....  .....  .......  Mr. Fattah......................     X   .....  .......
Mr. Bass........................  .....     X   .......  ................................  .....  .....  .......
Mr. LaTourette..................  .....  .....  .......  ................................  .....  .....  .......
Mr. Sanford.....................  .....     X   .......  ................................  .....  .....  .......
Mr. Ehrlich.....................  .....     X   .......  ................................  .....  .....  .......
      Totals--14 ayes; 27 nays.                                                                                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    Amendment Number: #7 of H.R. 830

    Description: Section 3506(1) in subsection (b)(4) after 
Administrator of General Services.
    Offered by: Mr. Owens.
    Withdrawn.

                    amendment number: #8 of H.R. 830

    Description: En Bloc, Page 6, beginning at line 15, strike 
soliciting, or requiring the disclosure to third parties or the 
public and insert or soliciting. Offered by: Mrs. Collins--IL.
    Failed by rollcall.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Representative            Aye    Nay   Present           Representative            Aye    Nay   Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Clinger.....................  .....     X   .......  Mrs. Collins--IL................     X   .....  .......
Mr. Gilman......................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Waxman......................  .....  .....  .......
Mr. Burton......................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Lantos......................  .....  .....  .......
Mrs. Morella....................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Wise........................     X   .....  .......
Mr. Shays.......................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Owens.......................     X   .....  .......
Mr. Schiff......................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Towns.......................     X   .....  .......
Mrs. Ros-Lehtinen...............  .....     X   .......  Mr. Spratt......................     X   .....  .......
Mr. Zeliff......................  .....     X   .......  Mrs. Slaughter..................     X   .....  .......
Mr. McHugh......................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Kanjorski...................     X   .....  .......
Mr. Horn........................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Condit......................     X   .....  .......
Mr. Mica........................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Peterson....................     X   .....  .......
Mr. Blute.......................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Sanders.....................     X   .....  .......
Mr. Davis.......................  .....     X   .......  Mrs. Thurman....................     X   .....  .......
Mr. McIntosh....................  .....     X   .......  Mrs. Maloney....................     X   .....  .......
Mr. Fox.........................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Barrett.....................     X   .....  .......
Mr. Tate........................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Taylor......................     X   .....  .......
Mr. Chrysler....................  .....     X   .......  Mrs. Collins--MI................  .....  .....  .......
Mr. Gutknecht...................  .....     X   .......  Mrs. Norton.....................  .....  .....  .......
Mr. Souder......................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Moran.......................  .....  .....  .......
Mr. Martini.....................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Green.......................     X   .....  .......
Mr. Scarborough.................  .....     X   .......  Mrs. Meek.......................     X   .....  .......
Mr. Shadegg.....................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Mascara.....................     X   .....  .......
Mr. Flanagan....................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Fattah......................     X   .....  .......
Mr. Bass........................  .....  .....  .......  ................................  .....  .....  .......
Mr. LaTourette..................  .....     X   .......  ................................  .....  .....  .......
Mr. Sanford.....................  .....     X   .......  ................................  .....  .....  .......
Mr. Ehrlich.....................  .....     X   .......  ................................  .....  .....  .......
      Totals--18 ayes; 26 nays.                                                                                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    Amendment Number: #9 of H.R. 830

    Description: Page 56, line 17, before the first period 
insert the following: ``for each fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 
1999, 2000.''
    Offered by: Mrs. Maloney.
    Failed by roll call.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Representative            Aye    Nay   Present           Representative            Aye    Nay   Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Clinger.....................  .....     X   .......  Mrs. Collins--IL................     X   .....  .......
Mr. Gilman......................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Waxman......................  .....  .....  .......
Mr. Burton......................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Lantos......................  .....  .....  .......
Mrs. Morella....................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Wise........................     X   .....  .......
Mr. Shays.......................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Owens.......................     X   .....  .......
Mr. Schiff......................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Towns.......................     X   .....  .......
Mrs. Ros-Lehtinen...............  .....     X   .......  Mr. Spratt......................     X   .....  .......
Mr. Zeliff......................  .....     X   .......  Mrs. Slaughter..................     X   .....  .......
Mr. McHugh......................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Kanjorski...................     X   .....  .......
Mr. Horn........................     X   .....  .......  Mr. Condit......................     X   .....  .......
Mr. Mica........................  .....  .....  .......  Mr. Peterson....................     X   .....  .......
Mr. Blute.......................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Sanders.....................     X   .....  .......
Mr. Davis.......................  .....     X   .......  Mrs. Thurman....................     X   .....  .......
Mr. McIntosh....................  .....     X   .......  Mrs. Maloney....................     X   .....  .......
Mr. Fox.........................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Barrett.....................     X   .....  .......
Mr. Tate........................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Taylor......................     X   .....  .......
Mr. Chrysler....................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Collins--MI.................  .....  .....  .......
Mr. Gutknecht...................     X   .....  .......  Mrs. Norton.....................  .....  .....  .......
Mr. Souder......................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Moran.......................  .....  .....  .......
Mr. Martini.....................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Green.......................     X   .....  .......
Mr. Scarborough.................  .....     X   .......  Mrs. Meek.......................     X   .....  .......
Mr. Shadegg.....................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Mascara.....................     X   .....  .......
Mr. Flanagan....................  .....     X   .......  Mr. Fattah......................     X   .....  .......
Mr. Bass........................  .....     X   .......  ................................  .....  .....  .......
Mr. LaTourette..................  .....     X   .......  ................................  .....  .....  .......
Mr. Sanford.....................  .....     X   .......  ................................  .....  .....  .......
Mr. Ehrlich.....................     X   .....  .......  ................................  .....  .....  .......
      Totals--21 ayes; 23 nays.                                                                                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       final passage of h.r. 830

    Offered by: Mr. Burton.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Representative            Aye    Nay   Present           Representative            Aye    Nay   Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Clinger.....................     X   .....  .......  Mrs. Collins--IL................  .....     X   .......
Mr. Gilman......................     X   .....  .......  Mr. Waxman......................  .....     X   .......
Mr. Burton......................     X   .....  .......  Mr. Lantos......................  .....  .....  .......
Mrs. Morella....................     X   .....  .......  Mr. Wise........................     X   .....  .......
Mr. Shays.......................     X   .....  .......  Mr. Owens.......................  .....     X   .......
Mr. Schiff......................     X   .....  .......  Mr. Towns.......................  .....     X   .......
Mrs. Ros-Lehtinen...............     X   .....  .......  Mr. Spratt......................     X   .....  .......
Mr. Zeliff......................     X   .....  .......  Mrs. Slaughter..................     X   .....  .......
Mr. McHugh......................     X   .....  .......  Mr. Kanjorski...................     X   .....  .......
Mr. Horn........................     X   .....  .......  Mr. Condit......................     X   .....  .......
Mr. Mica........................     X   .....  .......  Mr. Peterson....................     X   .....  .......
Mr. Blute.......................     X   .....  .......  Mr. Sanders.....................     X   .....  .......
Mr. Davis.......................     X   .....  .......  Mrs. Thurman....................     X   .....  .......
Mr. McIntosh....................     X   .....  .......  Mrs. Maloney....................     X   .....  .......
Mr. Fox.........................     X   .....  .......  Mr. Barrett.....................     X   .....  .......
Mr. Tate........................     X   .....  .......  Mr. Taylor......................     X   .....  .......
Mr. Chrysler....................     X   .....  .......  Mrs. Collins--MI................  .....  .....  .......
Mr. Gutknecht...................     X   .....  .......  Mrs. Norton.....................  .....  .....  .......
Mr. Souder......................     X   .....  .......  Mr. Moran.......................  .....  .....  .......
Mr. Martini.....................     X   .....  .......  Mr. Green.......................     X   .....  .......
Mr. Scarborough.................     X   .....  .......  Mrs. Meek.......................  .....  .....  .......
Mr. Shadegg.....................     X   .....  .......  Mr. Mascara.....................     X   .....  .......
Mr. Flanagan....................     X   .....  .......  Mr. Fattah......................  .....  .....  .......
Mr. Bass........................     X   .....  .......  ................................  .....  .....  .......
Mr. LaTourette..................     X   .....  .......  ................................  .....  .....  .......
Mr. Sanford.....................     X   .....  .......  ................................  .....  .....  .......
Mr. Ehrlich.....................     X   .....  .......  ................................  .....  .....  .......
      Totals--40 ayes; 4 nays.                                                                                  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    In compliance with clause 2(l)(3)(b) of Rule XI of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with 
respect to H.R. 830, the following estimate and comparison 
prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 
under section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                 Washington, DC, February 14, 1995.
Hon. William F. Clinger, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight,
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 830, the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995.
    Enactment of H.R. 830 would not affect direct spending or 
receipts. Therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply 
to the bill.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them.
            Sincerely,
                                              James L. Blum
                                        (For Robert D. Reischauer).
    Enclosure.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    1. Bill number: H.R. 830.
    2. Bill title: Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
    3. Bill status: As ordered reported by the House Committee 
on Government Reform and Oversight on February 10, 1995.
    4. Bill purpose: H.R. 830 would redefine and clarify many 
of the responsibilities of the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) and would expand federal agencies' 
roles in efforts to improve the management of information. H.R. 
830 also would authorize the appropriation of such sums as are 
necessary for OIRA in the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB).
    5. Estimated cost to the Federal Government: Because H.R. 
830 does not provide a specific authorization, the following 
table shows two alternatives sets of authorization levels--the 
1995 appropriation for OIRA without an adjustment for 
anticipated inflation and the 1995 appropriation with an 
adjustment for inflation.
    CBO estimates that because OIRA is already performing many 
of the functions required in this bill, enacting H.R. 830 would 
result in no significant additional costs. Provisions 
clarifying the role of federal agencies in information 
management are also not expected to result in significant 
additional costs.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      1996       1997       1998       1999       2000  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Without                                                                 
 adjustment for                                                         
 inflation:                                                             
    Estimated                                                           
     authorizatio                                                       
     n level.....          6          6          6          6          6
    Estimated                                                           
     outlays.....          5          6          6          6          6
With adjustment                                                         
 for inflation:                                                         
    Estimated                                                           
     authorizatio                                                       
     n level.....          6          7          7          7          7
    Estimated                                                           
     outlays.....          5          7          7          7          7
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The costs of this bill fall within budget function 800.
    Outlay estimates are based on historical spending rates for 
this program and assume that appropriations will be provided 
before the start of each fiscal year.
    6. Comparison with spending under current law: OIRA's 1995 
appropriation is about $6 million. If appropriations were to 
remain at the 1995 level, projected spending would not exceed 
the amount under current law. If appropriations were to 
increase each year to reflect anticipated inflation, budget 
authority and outlays would exceed levels under current law by 
amounts growing to $1 million in 2000.
    7. Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.
    8. Estimated cost to State and local governments: None.
    9. Estimate Comparison: None.
    10. Previous CBO estimate: On February 3, 1995, CBO 
transmitted a cost estimate for S. 244, the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995, as ordered reported by the Senate Committee on 
Governmental Affairs on February 1, 1995. H.R. 830 is similar 
to S. 244.
    11. Estimate prepared by: Susanne S. Mehlman.
    12. Estimate approved by: Paul N. Van de Water, Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                     Inflationary Impact Statement

    Pursuant to clause 2(l)(4) of Rule XI of the House of 
Representatives, the Committee estimates that H.R. 830 will 
have no significant inflationary impact on prices and costs in 
the national economy.

                           Oversight Findings

    Findings and recommendations by the Committee on Government 
Reform and Oversight pursuant to clause 2(l)(3)(D) of Rule XI 
of the House of Representatives are incorporated into the 
descriptive portions of this report.
    The Small Business Committee also held a hearing on the 
Paperwork Reduction Act. Their findings are summarized in the 
attached letter to Chairman Clinger.

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Committee on Small Business,
                                 Washington, DC, February 13, 1995.
Hon. William Clinger, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight,
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Chairman Clinger: On January 27, the Small Business 
Committee held a hearing on Title V, of H.R. 9, the ``Job 
Creation and Wage Enhancement Act of 1995.'' Title V is 
entitled the ``Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.''
    The legislative provisions contained in this vital piece of 
the ``Contract with America'' have their origins in legislation 
you, Congressman Sisisky, Congressman LaFalce, myself and some 
111 other members from both sides of the aisle actively 
cosponsored in the 103d Congress. (H.R. 2995) While we did not 
succeed in passing this legislation last Congress, I am very 
excited about the potential of working with you and the new 
leadership in both the House and Senate to enact similar 
legislation this Congress. I am one who strongly believes the 
Paperwork Reduction Act and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 
Title VI of H.R. 9, are precisely the kind of common sense 
regulatory reforms that this Congress can enact, after the 
unsuccessful efforts of the past several years, for the benefit 
of small businesses and all the American people.
    The Small Business Committee shares a jurisdictional 
interest with the Government Reform and Oversight Committee on 
legislation regarding paperwork reduction. Our hearing focused 
on the impact this and similar legislation in the Senate, S. 
244, will have on the small business community. What follows is 
a summary of the hearing and a highlighting of several 
recommendations made by our witnesses which could improve the 
legislation. For the benefit of our colleagues who are not 
members of either of our Committees, I request that this letter 
be included in your Committee's report on H.R. 830, legislation 
responsive to Title V of H.R. 9 and reported favorably by your 
Committee on February 10th.

                               witnesses

    Ms. Sally Katzen, Administrator of the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and 
Budget, Executive Office of the President, presented the 
Clinton Administration's position on and aspirations for 
paperwork reduction legislation.
    Mr. William Koeblitz, President and Chief Executive Officer 
of Med Center, Inc., of Valley View Ohio, testified on behalf 
of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Federation of 215,000 
businesses. He was accompanied by Nancy Fulco, Manager of 
Regulatory Policy for the Chamber, and David Voight, Director 
of the Chamber's Small Business Center. Mr. Koeblitz is a 
member of the U.S. Chamber's Board of Directors and the 
Chairman of the Chamber's Regulatory Affairs Committee.
    Mr. David Massanari, M.D., a practicing family physician 
from Sanford, Maine testified on behalf of the American Academy 
of Family Physicians. Dr. Massanari serves as a member of the 
Board of Directors of the American Academy of Family 
Physicians, and chairs their Commission on Legislation and 
Government Affairs.
    Mr. Victor Tucci, M.D., President of Three Rivers Health 
and Safety, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania testified on behalf of 
the National Small Business United.
    Mr. Guy W. Courtney, President and Chief Executive Officer 
of The Machaira Group, Inc., a securities brokerage firm 
located in Palatine, Illinois testified as an interested small 
businessman. He is a delegate to the 1995 White House 
Conference on Small Business where he serves on the Capital 
Formation and Paperwork and Regulatory committees.
    Mr. James P. Carty, Vice President, Small Manufacturers, 
testified on behalf of the National Association of 
Manufacturers.
    Witnesses from the U.S. Chamber, National Small Business 
United, and the National Association of Manufacturers 
acknowledged their participation in the Paperwork Reduction Act 
Coalition, a broad-based coalition which is dedicated to 
supporting the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

                          summary of testimony

    All the witnesses were supportive of Title V's provisions 
to positively amend the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980. All 
the witnesses supported correcting the problems created by the 
1990 Supreme Court decision, Dole vs. Steelworkers of America. 
All but one specifically endorsed language overturning Dole, 
and which clarifies that the PRA cover all paperwork 
requirements, including those where the federal government 
mandates a private party provide or maintain information for a 
third party, as opposed to the federal government directly. All 
supported the establishment of national burden reduction goals.
    Administrator Katzen noted the particular importance of 
paperwork reduction to small business and cited a 1987 survey 
conducted by Price Waterhouse which concluded that ``costs 
involved in completing government forms--and perhaps more 
importantly, the time invested by senior management--are 
disproportionately heavy for small companies.'' She further 
cited a GAO study (GAO/PEMD-93-5) which detailed problems 
agencies are having implementing the Act created by the Dole 
decision. She urged the Committee focus upon the provisions of 
S. 244, the Senate companion to the ``Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995'', which she believes reflects improvements resulting 
from two years of ``active, collaborative, bipartisan effort''. 
She declared S. 244 has the full support of the Clinton 
Administration and pledged to work cooperatively with the 
Congress to help enact meaningful and helpful improvements to 
the Paperwork Reduction Act.
    Mr. Koeblitz established the importance of paperwork 
reduction to the Chamber's membership. Each Congressional 
cycle, the Chamber surveys its members to determine the issues 
of greatest importance for the coming Congress. Out of 64 
issues identified for the 104th Congress, paperwork reduction 
ranked third behind unfunded mandates on state and local 
governments and the private sector, and welfare reform. 
Considering the unfunded mandates issue also involves 
regulatory burdens, the message was clear, the American 
business community wants to get back to the business of running 
their companies rather than devoting inordinate amounts of time 
responding to federal government edicts. He stressed the 
importance of overturning Dole and noted that actual paperwork 
and regulatory burdens imposed on the public are underestimated 
drastically.
    Dr. Tucci displayed and explained the burden of what the 
material safety data sheets (MSDS) are for his company. He 
questioned whether the requirements for MSDS's were achieving 
their purpose of telling workers about chemical hazards. By 
implication, he noted OSHA's MSDS requirements were not covered 
by the PRA as a result of the Dole decision. He expressed the 
view that ``bootleg'' paperwork requests were proliferating as 
a result of the decision. He commented that NSBU's annual 
survey of members to identify the ``most significant 
challenges'' to their business' growth and survival reveal that 
``regulatory burdens'' is consistently one of the top three 
challenges.
    Dr. Massanari stated that a family physician's practice is 
generally a ``small business''. Over a third (35.5 percent) of 
family physicians are in solo practice, an additional 12% are 
in two-person partnerships, and another third practice in small 
to medium sized groups. They are all overwhelmed by paperwork. 
The in-service and administrative structure taken for granted 
to exist in larger organizations, such as hospitals, simply 
does not exist in these small practices.
    Dr. Massanari pointed to several paperwork intensive areas 
that could benefit from less burdensome rules if the PRA were 
applied properly to them. He noted the problem the Dole 
decision creates in this regard. Medicare rules and 
reimbursement procedures, routine and frequent Health Care and 
Financing Administration (HCFA) policy changes, post-payment 
audits, the Clinical Laboratory Improvements Act (CLIA), the 
training records of the OSHA blood-borne pathogen standard, 
home health, and nursing home regulations were cited as 
examples. He stressed that the Academy regards HCFA's new 
Medicare Carrier Manual instructions as a good test of the 
scope and strength of the Paperwork Reduction Act. They will be 
watching to see whether OIRA and OMB assert the instructions 
are covered by the Act and believe strengthening amendments to 
the law would help resolve the issue.
    Mr. Courtney commented on the paperwork problems of 
``start-up'' companies and noted the disproportionate burdens 
placed upon small businesses. He recommended that the goals of 
the Act be made an absolute requirement. He emphasized the 
importance of federal officials affirmatively collecting the 
views of small businesses before paperwork requirements were 
promulgated. Small business involvement should come at the 
beginning, not the end. Mr. Courtney described the ``soft'' 
costs associated with paperwork burdens as opposed to the 
``hard'' costs and recommended both kinds of costs be addressed 
in evaluating the need for paperwork requirements.
    Mr. Carty welcomed the prospect of enacting the PRA 
amendments after six years of effort. The NAM is a steering 
committee member of the Paperwork Reduction Act Coalition. He 
noted the historic role the Small Business Committee had played 
in the Federal Reports Act of 1942, the Federal Paperwork 
Commission of 1974 and the PRA of 1980. He emphasized the need 
for OIRA to be a strong regulatory ``traffic cop'' for the 
President. He described the important role the law plays to 
link information technology and the information age to reducing 
the government's off-budget burden on small businesses. He 
further explained how the Act's protections against 
bureaucratic excesses had been seriously eroded in recent 
times. ``The problem today is the law's effectiveness has been 
eroded by three major factors, the Supreme Court decision, Dole 
v. Steelworkers of America; agencies who increasingly ignore 
the spirit and letter of the law; and six years of Congress and 
the Executive branch not being able to agree on what amendments 
are needed. Mr. Carty concluded by summarizing recommendations 
for the Committee's consideration.

                            recommendations

    Witnesses before the Committee specifically recommended 
that the Paperwork Reduction Act proposals before Congress be 
improved by:
          Raising the goal of reducing existing paperwork 
        burdens annually from the present proposals of 5 
        percent to 10 percent.
          Consider making the burden reduction goals mandatory. 
        This would require agencies to find ways to reduce 
        burdens when they establish new ones.
          Providing citizens a private right of action when the 
        Administrator of OIRA fails to respond in writing to a 
        properly presented inquiry on whether a collection of 
        information is covered under the Act.
          Amending the PRA to explicitly require that all 
        recordkeeping requirements contain a specific record 
        retention requirement. Recordkeeping requirements 
        should not be approved unless they display how long 
        they must be kept.
          Statutorily empowering the Small Business 
        Administration's Chief Counsel for Advocacy to address 
        and help enforce the PRA's impact on small businesses.
    Thank you for your attention to this matter.
            Sincerely,
                                                Jan Meyers,
                                                             Chair.

       XI. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

    In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

                      TITLE 44, UNITED STATES CODE

          * * * * * * *

        [CHAPTER 35--COORDINATION OF FEDERAL INFORMATION POLICY

[Sec.
[3501. Purpose.
[3502. Definitions.
[3503. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
[3504. Authority and functions of Director.
[3505. Assignment of tasks and deadlines.
[3506. Federal agency responsibilities.
[3507. Public information collection activities--submission to Director; 
          approval and delegation.
[3508. Determination of necessity for information; hearing.
[3509. Designation of central collection agency.
[3510. Cooperation of agencies in making information available.
[3511. Establishment and operation of Federal Information Locator 
          System.
[3512. Public protection.
[3513. Director review of agency activities; reporting; agency response.
[3514. Responsiveness to Congress.
[3515. Administrative powers.
[3516. Rules and regulations.
[3517. Consultation with other agencies and the public.
[3518. Effect on existing laws and regulations.
[3519. Access to information.
[3520. Authorization of appropriations.

[Sec. 3501. Purpose

  [The purpose of this chapter is--
          [(1) to minimize the Federal paperwork burden for 
        individuals, small businesses, State and local 
        governments, and other persons;
          [(2) to minimize the cost to the Federal Government 
        of collecting, maintaining, using, and disseminating 
        information;
          [(3) to maximize the usefulness of information 
        collected, maintained, and disseminated by the Federal 
        Government;
          [(4) to coordinate, integrate and, to the extent 
        practicable and appropriate, make uniform Federal 
        information policies and practices;
          [(5) to ensure that automatic data processing, 
        telecommunications, and other information technologies 
        are acquired and used by the Federal Government in a 
        manner which improves service delivery and program 
        management, increases productivity, improves the 
        quality of decisionmaking, reduces waste and fraud, and 
        wherever practicable and appropriate, reduces the 
        information processing burden for the Federal 
        Government and for persons who provide information to 
        and for the Federal Government; and
          [(6) to ensure that the collection, maintenance, use 
        and dissemination of information by the Federal 
        Government is consistent with applicable laws relating 
        to confidentiality, including section 552a of title 5, 
        United States Code, known as the Privacy Act.

[Sec. 3502. Definitions

  [As used in this chapter--
          [(1) the term ``agency'' means any executive 
        department, military department, Government 
        corporation, Government controlled corporation, or 
        other establishment in the executive branch of the 
        Government (including the Executive Office of the 
        President), or any independent regulatory agency, but 
        does not include the
  [General Accounting Office, Federal Election Commission, the 
governments of the District of Columbia and of the territories 
and possessions of the United States, and their various 
subdivisions, or Government-owned contractor-operated 
facilities including laboratories engaged in national defense 
research and production activities;
          [(2) the terms ``automatic data processing,'' 
        ``automatic data processing equipment,'' and 
        ``telecommunications'' do not include any data 
        processing or telecommunications system or equipment, 
        the function, operation or use of which--
                  [(A) involves intelligence activities;
                  [(B) involves cryptologic activities related 
                to national security;
                  [(C) involves the direct command and control 
                of military forces;
                  [(D) involves equipment which is an integral 
                part of a weapon or weapons system; or
                  [(E) is critical to the direct fulfillment of 
                military or intelligence missions, provided 
                that this exclusion shall not include automatic 
                data processing or telecommunications equipment 
                used for routine administrative and business 
                applications such as payroll, finance, 
                logistics, and personnel management;
          [(3) the term ``burden'' means the time, effort, or 
        financial resources expended by persons to provide 
        information to a Federal agency;
          [(4) the term ``collection of information'' means the 
        obtaining or soliciting of facts or opinions by an 
        agency through the use of written report forms, 
        application forms, schedules, questionnaires, reporting 
        or recordkeeping requirements, or other similar methods 
        calling for either--
                  [(A) answers to identical questions posed to, 
                or identical reporting or recordkeeping 
                requirements imposed on, ten or more persons, 
                other than agencies, instrumentalities, or 
                employees of the United States; or
                  [(B) answers to questions posed to agencies, 
                instrumentalities, or employees of the United 
                States which are to be used for general 
                statistical purposes;
          [(5) the term ``data element'' means a distinct piece 
        of information such as a name, term, number, 
        abbreviation, or symbol;
          [(6) the term ``data element dictionary'' means a 
        system containing standard and uniform definitions and 
        cross references for commonly used data elements;
          [(7) the term ``data profile'' means a synopsis of 
        the questions contained in an information collection 
        request and the official name of the request, the 
        location of information obtained or to be obtained 
        through the request, a description of any compilations, 
        analyses, or reports derived or to be derived from such 
        information, any record retention requirements 
        associated with the request, the agency responsible for 
        the request, the statute authorizing the request, and 
        any other information necessary to identify, obtain, or 
        use the data contained in such information;
          [(8) the term ``Director'' means the Director of the 
        Office of Management and Budget;
          [(9) the term ``directory of information resources'' 
        means a catalog of information collection requests, 
        containing a data profile for each request;
          [(10) the term ``independent regulatory agency'' 
        means the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
        System, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the 
        Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal 
        Communications Commission, the Federal Deposit 
        Insurance Corporation, the Federal Energy Regulatory 
        Commission, the Federal Housing Finance Board, the 
        Federal Maritime Commission, the Federal Trade 
        Commission, the Interstate Commerce Commission, the 
        Mine Enforcement Safety and Health Review Commission, 
        the National Labor Relations Board, the Nuclear 
        Regulatory Commission, the Occupational Safety and 
        Health Review Commission, the Postal Rate Commission, 
        the Securities and Exchange Commission, and any other 
        similar agency designated by statute as a Federal 
        independent regulatory agency or commission;
          [(11) the term ``information collection request'' 
        means a written report form, application form, 
        schedule, questionnaire, reporting or recordkeeping 
        requirement, collection of information requirement, or 
        other similar method calling for the collection of 
        information;
          [(12) the term ``information referral service'' means 
        the function that assists officials and persons in 
        obtaining access to the Federal Information Locator 
        System;
          [(13) the term ``information resources management'' 
        means the planning, budgeting, organizing, directing, 
        training, promoting, controlling, and management 
        activities associated with the burden, collection, 
        creation, use, and dissemination of information by 
        agencies, and includes the management of information 
        and related resources such as automatic data processing 
        equipment (as such term is defined in section 111(a) of 
        the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 
        1949 (40 U.S.C. 759(a));
          [(14) the term ``information systems'' means 
        management information systems;
          [(15) the term ``person'' means an individual, 
        partnership, association, corporation, business trust, 
        or legal representative, an organized group of 
        individuals, a State, territorial, or local government 
        or branch thereof, or a political subdivision of a 
        State, territory, or local government or a branch of a 
        political subdivision;
          [(16) the term ``practical utility'' means the 
        ability of an agency to use information it collects, 
        particularly the capability to process such information 
        in a timely and useful fashion; and
          [(17) the term ``recordkeeping requirement'' means 
        requirement imposed by an agency on persons to maintain 
        specified records.

[Sec. 3503. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs

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

[Sec. 3504. Authority and functions of Director

  [(a) The Director shall develop and implement Federal 
information policies, principles, standards, and guidelines and 
shall provide direction and oversee the review and approval of 
information collection requests, the reduction of the paperwork 
burden, Federal statistical activities, records management 
activities, privacy and security of records, agency sharing and 
dissemination of information, and acquisition and use of 
automatic data processing, telecommunications, and other 
information technology for managing information resources. The 
authority of the Director under this section shall be exercised 
consistent with applicable law.
  [(b) The general information policy functions of the Director 
shall include--
          [(1) developing and implementing uniform and 
        consistent information resources management policies 
        and overseeing the development of information 
        management principles, standards, and guidelines and 
        promoting their use;
          [(2) initiating and reviewing proposals for changes 
        in legislation, regulations, and agency procedures to 
        improve information practices, and informing the 
        President and the Congress on the progress made 
        therein;
          [(3) coordinating, through the review of budget 
        proposals and as otherwise provided in this section, 
        agency information practices;
          [(4) promoting, through the use of the Federal 
        Information Locator System, the review of budget 
        proposals and other methods, greater sharing of 
        information by agencies;
          [(5) evaluating agency information management 
        practices to determine their adequacy and efficiency, 
        and to determine compliance of such practices with the 
        policies, principles, standards, and guidelines 
        promulgated by the Director; and
          [(6) overseeing planning for, and conduct of research 
        with respect to, Federal collection, processing, 
        storage, transmission, and use of information.
  [(c) The information collection request clearance and other 
paperwork control functions of the Director shall include--
          [(1) reviewing and approving information collection 
        requests proposed by agencies;
          [(2) determining whether the collection of 
        information by an agency is necessary for the proper 
        performance of the functions of the agency, including 
        whether the information will have practical utility for 
        the agency;
          [(3) ensuring that all information collection 
        requests--
                  [(A) are inventoried, display a control 
                number and, when appropriate, an expiration 
                date;
                  [(B) indicate the request is in accordance 
                with the clearance requirements of section 
                3507; and
                  [(C) contain a statement to inform the person 
                receiving the request why the information is 
                being collected, how it is to be used, and 
                whether responses to the request are voluntary, 
                required to obtain a benefit, or mandatory;
          [(4) designating as appropriate, in accordance with 
        section 3509, a collection agency to obtain information 
        for two or more agencies;
          [(5) setting goals for reduction of the burdens of 
        Federal information collection requests;
          [(6) overseeing action on the recommendations of the 
        Commission on Federal Paperwork; and
          [(7) designing and operating, in accordance with 
        section 3511, the Federal Information Locator System.
  [(d) The statistical policy and coordination functions of the 
Director shall include--
          [(1) developing and periodically reviewing and, as 
        necessary, revising long-range plans for the improved 
        coordination and performance of the statistical 
        activities and programs of the Federal Government;
          [(2) reviewing budget proposals of agencies to assure 
        that the proposals are consistent with such long-range 
        plans;
          [(3) coordinating, through the review of budget 
        proposals and as otherwise provided in this chapter, 
        the functions of the Federal Government with respect to 
        gathering, interpreting, and disseminating statistics 
        and statistical information;
          [(4) developing and implementing Government-wide 
        policies, principles, standards, and guidelines 
        concerning statistical collection procedures and 
        methods, statistical data classification, statistical 
        information presentation and dissemination, and such 
        statistical data sources as may be required for the 
        administration of Federal programs;
          [(5) evaluating statistical program performance and 
        agency compliance with Government-wide policies, 
        principles, standards, and guidelines;
          [(6) integrating the functions described in 
        paragraphs (1) through (5) of this subsection with the 
        other information resources management functions 
        specified in this chapter; and
          [(7) appointing a chief statistician who is a trained 
        and experienced professional statistician to carry out 
        the functions described in paragraphs (1) through (6) 
        of this subsection.
  [(e) The records management functions of the Director shall 
include--
          [(1) providing advice and assistance to the Archivist 
        of the United States and the Administrator of General 
        Services in order to promote coordination in the 
        administration of chapters 29, 31, and 33 of this title 
        with the information policies, principles, standards, 
        and guidelines established under this chapter;
          [(2) reviewing compliance by agencies with the 
        requirements of chapters 29, 31, and 33 of this title 
        and with regulations promulgated by the Archivist of 
        the United States and the Administrator of General 
        Services thereunder; and
          [(3) coordinating records management policies and 
        programs with related information programs such as 
        information collection, statistics, automatic data 
        processing and telecommunications, and similar 
        activities.
  [(f) The privacy functions of the Director shall include--
          [(1) developing and implementing policies, 
        principles, standards, and guidelines on information 
        disclosure and confidentiality, and on safeguarding the 
        security of information collected or maintained by or 
        on behalf of agencies;
          [(2) providing agencies with advice and guidance 
        about information security, restriction, exchange, and 
        disclosure; and
          [(3) monitoring compliance with section 552a of title 
        5, United States Code, and related information 
        management laws.
  [(g) The Federal automatic data processing (including 
telecommunications) functions of the Director shall include--
          [(1) developing and implementing policies, 
        principles, standards, and guidelines for automatic 
        data processing (including telecommunications) 
        functions and activities of the Federal Government, and 
        overseeing the establishment of standards under section 
        111(d) of the Federal Property and Administrative 
        Services Act of 1949;
          [(2) monitoring the effectiveness of, and compliance 
        with, directives issued pursuant to sections 110 and 
        111 of such Act and reviewing proposed determinations 
        under section 111(e) of such Act;
          [(3) providing advice and guidance on the acquisition 
        and use automatic data processing (including 
        telecommunications) equipment, and coordinating, 
        through the review of budget proposals and other 
        methods, agency proposals for acquisition and use of 
        such equipment;
          [(4) promoting the use of automatic data processing 
        (including telecommunications) equipment by the Federal 
        Government improve the effectiveness of the use and 
        dissemination of data in the operation of Federal 
        programs; and
          [(5) initiating and reviewing proposals for changes 
        legislation, regulations, and agency procedures to 
        improve automatic data processing (including 
        telecommunications) practices, and informing the 
        President and the Congress of the progress made 
        therein.
  [(h)(1) As soon as practicable, but no later than publication 
of a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register, 
each agency shall forward to the Director a copy of any 
proposed rule which contains a collection of information 
requirement and upon request, information necessary to make the 
determination required pursuant to this section.
    [(2) Within sixty days after the notice of proposed 
rulemaking is published International Relations the Federal 
Register, the Director may file public comments pursuant to the 
standards set forth in section 3508 on the collection of 
information requirement contained in the proposed rule.
    [(3) When a final rule is published in the Federal 
Register, the agency shall explain how any collection of 
information requirement contained in the final rule responds to 
the comments, if any, filed the Director or the public, or 
explain why it rejected those comments.
    [(4) The Director has no authority to disapprove any 
collection of information requirement specifically contained in 
an agency rule, if he has received notice and failed to comment 
on the rule within sixty days of the notice of proposed 
rulemaking.
    [(5) Nothing in this section prevents the Director, in his 
discretion--
          [(A) from disapproving any information collection 
        request which was not specifically required by an 
        agency rule;
          [(B) from disapproving any collection of information 
        requirement contained in an agency rule, if the agency 
        failed to comply with the requirements of paragraph (1) 
        of this subsection; or
          [(C) from disapproving any collection of information 
        requirement contained in a final agency rule, if the 
        Director finds within sixty days of the publication of 
        the final rule that the agency's response to his 
        comments filed pursuant to paragraph (2) of this 
        subsection was unreasonable.
          [(D) from disapproving any collection of information 
        requirement where the Director determines that the 
        agency has substantially modified in the final rule the 
        collection of information requirement contained in the 
        proposed rule where the agency has not given the 
        Director the information required in paragraph (1), 
        with respect to the modified collection of information 
        requirement, at least sixty days before the issuance of 
        the final rule.
    [(6) The Director shall make publicly available any 
decision disapprove a collection of information requirement 
contained in agency rule, together with the reasons for such 
decision.
    [(7) The authority of the Director under this subsection 
subject to the provisions of section 3507(c).
    [(8) This subsection shall apply only when an agency 
publishes a notice of proposed rulemaking and requests public 
comments.
    [(9) There shall be no judicial review of any kind of the 
Director's decision to approve or not to act upon a collection 
of information requirement contained in an agency rule.

[Sec. 3505. Assignment of tasks and deadlines

  [In carrying out the functions under this chapter, the 
Director shall--
          [(1) upon enactment of this Act--
                  [(A) set a goal to reduce the then existing 
                burden of Federal collections of information by 
                15 per centum by October 1, 1982; and
                  [(B) for the year following, set a goal to 
                reduce the burden which existed upon enactment 
                by an additional 10 per centum;
          [(2) within one year after the effective date of this 
        Act--
                  [(A) establish standards and requirements for 
                agency audits of all major information systems 
                and assign responsibility for conducting 
                Government-wide or multiagency audits, except 
                the Director shall not assign such 
                responsibility for the audit of major 
                information systems used for the conduct of 
                criminal investigations or intelligence 
                activities as defined in section 4-206 of 
                Executive Order 12036, issued January 24, 1978, 
                or successor orders, or for cryptologic 
                activities that are communications security 
                activities;
                  [(B) establish the Federal Information 
                Locator System;
                  [(C) identify areas of duplication in 
                information collection requests and develop a 
                schedule and methods for eliminating 
                duplication;
                  [(D) develop a proposal to augment the 
                Federal Information Locator System to include 
                data profiles of major information holdings of 
                agencies (used in the conduct of their 
                operations) which are not otherwise required by 
                this chapter to be included in the System; and
                  [(E) identify initiatives which may achieve a 
                10 per centum reduction in the burden of 
                Federal collections of information associated 
                with the administration of Federal grant 
                programs;
          [(3) within two years after the effective date of 
        this Act--
                  [(A) establish a schedule and a management 
                control system to ensure that practices and 
                programs of information handling disciplines, 
                including records management, are appropriately 
                integrated with the information policies 
                mandated by this chapter;
                  [(B) identify initiatives to improve 
                productivity in Federal operations using 
                information processing technology;
                  [(C) develop a program to (i) enforce Federal 
                information processing standards, particularly 
                software language standards, at all Federal 
                installations; and (ii) revitalize the 
                standards development program established 
                pursuant to section 759(f)(2) of title 40, 
                United States Code, separating it from 
                peripheral technical assistance functions and 
                directing it to the most productive areas;
                  [(D) complete action on recommendations of 
                the Commission on Federal Paperwork by 
                implementing, with modification or rejecting 
                such recommendations including, where 
                necessary, development of legislation to 
                implement such recommendations;
                  [(E) develop and annually revise, in 
                consultation with the Administrator of General 
                Services, a 5-year plan for meeting the 
                automatic data processing equipment (including 
                telecommunications) and other information 
                technology needs of the Federal Government in 
                accordance with the requirements sections 110 
                and 111 of the Federal Property and 
                Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 
                757, 759) and the purposes of this chapter; and
                  [(F) submit to the President and the Congress 
                legislative proposals to remove inconsistencies 
                in laws and practices involving privacy, 
                confidentiality, and disclosure of information;
          [(4) upon the enactment of the Paperwork Reduction 
        Reauthorization Act of 1986--
                  [(A) set a goal to reduce, by September 30, 
                1987, the burden of Federal collections of 
                information existing on September 30, 1986, by 
                at least 5 percent; and
                  [(B) for the fiscal year beginning on October 
                1, 1987, and each of the next two fiscal years, 
                set a goal to reduce the burden of Federal 
                collections of information existing at the end 
                of the immediately preceding fiscal year by at 
                least 5 percent;
          [(5) maintain a comprehensive set of information 
        resources management policies; and
          [(6) within one year after the date of enactment of 
        the Paperwork Reduction Reauthorization Act of 1986--
                  [(A) issue, in consultation with the 
                Administrator of General Services, principles, 
                standards, and guidelines to implement the 
                policies described in paragraph (5);
                  [(B) report to the Congress on the 
                feasibility and means enhancing public access, 
                including access by electronic media, to 
                information relating to information collection 
                requests required by this chapter to be made 
                available to the public; and
                  [(C) identify further initiatives to reduce 
                the burden of Federal collections of 
                information associated with the administration 
                of Federal grant programs.

[Sec. 3506. Federal agency responsibilities

  [(a) Each agency shall be responsible for carrying out its 
information management activities in an efficient, effective, 
and economical manner, and for complying with the information 
policies, principles, standards, and guidelines prescribed by 
the Director.
  [(b) The head of each agency shall designate, within three 
months after the effective date of this Act, a senior official 
or, in the case of military departments, and the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense, officials who report directly to such 
agency head to carry out the responsibilities of the agency 
under this chapter. If more than one official is appointed for 
the military departments the respective duties of the officials 
shall be clearly delineated.
  [(c) Each agency shall--
          [(1) systematically inventory its major information 
        systems and periodically review its information 
        resources management activities;
          [(2) ensure its information systems do not overlap 
        each other or duplicate the systems of other agencies;
          [(3) develop procedures for assessing the paperwork 
        and reporting burden of proposed legislation affecting 
        such agency;
          [(4) assign to the official designated under 
        subsection (b) the responsibility for the conduct of 
        and accountability for any acquisitions made pursuant 
        to a delegation of authority under section 111 of the 
        Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 
        1949 (40 U.S.C. 759);
          [(5) ensure that information collection requests 
        required by law or to obtain a benefit, and submitted 
        to nine or fewer persons, contain a statement to inform 
        the person receiving the request that the request is 
        not subject to the requirements of section 3507 of this 
        chapter; and
          [(6) implement applicable Government-wide and agency 
        information policies, principles, standards, and 
        guidelines with respect to information collection, 
        paperwork reduction, statistical activities, records 
        management activities, privacy and security of records, 
        sharing and dissemination of information, acquisition 
        and use of information technology, and other 
        information resource management functions;
          [(7) periodically evaluate and, as needed, improve, 
        the accuracy, completeness, and reliability of data and 
        records contained within Federal information systems; 
        and
          [(8) develop and annually revise a 5-year plan, in 
        accordance with appropriate guidance provided by the 
        Director, for meeting the agency's information 
        technology needs.
  [(d) The head of each agency shall establish such procedures 
necessary to ensure the compliance of the agency with the 
requirements of the Federal Information Locator System, 
including necessary screening and compliance activities.

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

  [(a) An agency shall not conduct or sponsor the collection of 
information unless, in advance of the adoption or revision of 
the request for collection of such information--
          [(1) the agency has taken actions, including 
        consultation with the Director, to--
                  [(A) eliminate, through the use of the 
                Federal Information Locator System and other 
                means, information collections which seek to 
                obtain information available from another 
                source within the Federal Government;
                  [(B) reduce to the extent practicable and 
                appropriate the burden on persons who will 
                provide information to the agency; and
                  [(C) formulate plans for tabulating the 
                information in a manner which will enhance its 
                usefulness to other agencies and to the public;
          [(2) the agency (A) has submitted to the Director the 
        proposed information collection request, copies of 
        pertinent regulations and other related materials as 
        the Director may specify, and an explanation of actions 
        taken to carry out paragraph (1) of this subsection, 
        and (B) has prepared a notice to be published in the 
        Federal Register stating that the agency has made such 
        submission and setting forth a title for the 
        information collection request, a brief description of 
        the need for the information and its proposed use, a 
        description of the likely respondents and proposed 
        frequency of response to the information collection 
        request, and an estimate of the burden that will result 
        from the information collection request; and
          [(3) the Director has approved the proposed 
        information collection request, or the period for 
        review of information collection requests by the 
        Director provided under subsection (b) has elapsed.
  [(b) The Director shall, within sixty days of receipt of a 
proposed information collection request, notify the agency 
involved of the decision to approve or disapprove the request 
and shall make such decisions, including an explanation 
thereof, publicly available. If the Director determines that a 
request submitted for review cannot be reviewed within sixty 
days, the Director may, after notice to the agency involved, 
extend the review period for an additional thirty days. If the 
Director does not notify the agency of an extension, denial, or 
approval within sixty days (or, if the Director has extended 
the review period for an additional thirty days and does not 
notify the agency of a denial or approval within the time of 
the extension), a control number shall be assigned without 
further delay, the approval may be inferred, and the agency may 
collect the information for not more than one year.
  [(c) Any disapproval by the Director, in whole or in part, of 
a proposed information collection request of an independent 
regulatory agency, or an exercise of authority under section 
3504(h) or 3509 concerning such an agency, may be voided, if 
the agency by a majority vote of its members overrides the 
Director's disapproval or exercise of authority. The agency 
shall certify each override to the Director, shall explain the 
reasons for exercising the override authority. Where the 
override concerns an information collection request, the 
Director shall without further delay assign a control number to 
such request, and such override shall be valid for a period of 
three years.
  [(d) The Director may not approve an information collection 
request for a period in excess of three years.
  [(e) If the Director finds that a senior official of an 
agency designated pursuant to section 3506(b) is sufficiently 
independent of program responsibility to evaluate fairly 
whether proposed information collection requests should be 
approved and has sufficient resources to carry out this 
responsibility effectively, the Director may, by rule in 
accordance with the notice and comment provisions of chapter 5 
of title 5, United States Code, delegate to such official the 
authority to approve proposed requests in specific program 
areas, for specific purposes, or for all agency purposes. A 
delegation by the Director under this section shall not 
preclude the Director from reviewing individual information 
collection requests if the Director determines that 
circumstances warrant such a review. The Director shall retain 
authority to revoke such delegations, both in general and with 
regard to any specific matter. In acting for the Director, any 
official to whom approval authority has been delegated under 
this section shall comply fully with the rules and regulations 
promulgated by the Director.
  [(f) An agency shall not engage in a collection of 
information without obtaining from the Director a control 
number to be displayed upon the information collection request.
  [(g) If an agency head determines a collection of information 
(1) is needed prior to the expiration of the sixty-day period 
for the review of information collection requests established 
pursuant to subsection (b), (2) is essential to the mission of 
the agency, and (3) the agency cannot reasonably comply with 
the provisions of this chapter within such sixty-day period 
because (A) public harm will result if normal clearance 
procedures are followed, or (B) an unanticipated event has 
occurred and the use of normal clearance procedures will 
prevent or disrupt the collection of information related to the 
event or will cause a statutory deadline to be missed, the 
agency head may request the Director to authorize such 
collection of information prior to expiration of such sixty-day 
period. The Director shall approve or disapprove any such 
authorization request within the time requested by the agency 
head and, if approved, shall assign the information collection 
request a control number. Any collection of information 
conducted pursuant to this subsection may be conducted without 
compliance with the provisions of this chapter for a maximum of 
ninety days after the date on which the Director received the 
request to authorize such collection.
  [(h) Any written communication to the Administrator of the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs or to any employee 
thereof from any person not employed by the Federal Government 
or from an agency concerning a proposed information collection 
request, and any written communication from the Administrator 
or employee of the Office to such person or agency concerning 
such proposal, shall be made available to the public. This 
subsection shall not require the disclosure of any information 
which is protected at all times by procedures established for 
information which has been specifically authorized under 
criteria established by an Executive order or an Act of 
Congress to be kept secret in the interest of national defense 
or foreign policy.

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

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

[Sec. 3509. Designation of central collection agency

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

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

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

[Sec. 3511. Establishment and operation of Federal Information Locator 
                    System

  [(a) There is established in the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs a Federal Information Locator System 
(hereafter in this section referred to as the ``system'') which 
shall be composed of a directory of information resources, a 
data element dictionary, and an information referral service. 
The system shall serve as the authoritative register of all 
information collection requests, and shall be designed so as to 
assist agencies and the public in locating existing Government 
information derived from information collection requests.
  [(b) In designing and operating the System, the Director 
shall--
          [(1) design and operate an indexing system for the 
        System;
          [(2) require the head of each agency to prepare in a 
        form specified by the Director, and to submit to the 
        Director for inclusion in the System, a data profile 
        for each information collection request of such agency;
          [(3) compare data profiles for proposed information 
        collection requests against existing profiles in the 
        System, and make available the results of such 
        comparison to--
                  [(A) agency officials who are planning new 
                information collection activities; and
                  [(B) on request, members of the general 
                public; and
          [(4) ensure that no actual data, except descriptive 
        data profiles necessary to identify duplicative data or 
        to locate information, are contained within the System.

[Sec. 3512. Public protection

  [Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall 
be subject to any penalty for failing to maintain or provide 
information to any agency if the information collection request 
involved was made after December 31, 1981, and does not display 
a current control number assigned by the Director, or fails to 
state that such request is not subject to this chapter.

[Sec. 3513. Director review of agency activities; reporting; agency 
                    response

  [(a) The Director shall, with the advice and assistance of 
the Administrator of General Services and the Archivist of the 
United States, selectively review, at least once every three 
years, the information management activities of each agency to 
ascertain their adequacy and efficiency. In evaluating the 
adequacy and efficiency of such activities, the Director shall 
pay particular attention to whether the agency has complied 
with section 3506.
  [(b) The Director shall report the results of the reviews to 
the appropriate agency head, the House Committee on Government 
Operations, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, the 
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, and the 
committees of the Congress having jurisdiction over legislation 
relating to the operations of the agency involved.
  [(c) Each agency which receives a report pursuant to 
subsection (b) shall, within sixty days after receipt of such 
report, prepare and transmit to the Director, the House 
Committee on Government Operations, the Senate Committee on 
Governmental Affairs, the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations, and the committees of the Congress having 
jurisdiction over legislation relating to the operations of the 
agency, a written statement responding to the Director's 
report, including a description of any measures taken to 
alleviate or remove any problems or deficiencies identified in 
such report.

[Sec. 3514. Responsiveness to Congress

  [(a) The Director shall keep the Congress and its committees 
fully and currently informed of the major activities under this 
chapter, and shall submit a report thereon to the President of 
the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives 
annually and at such other times as the Director determines 
necessary. The Director shall include in any such report--
          [(1) proposals for legislative action needed to 
        improve Federal information management, including, with 
        respect to information collection, recommendations to 
        reduce the burden on individuals, small businesses, 
        State and local governments, and other persons;
          [(2) a compilation of legislative impediments to the 
        collection of information which the Director concludes 
        that an agency needs but does not have authority to 
        collect;
          [(3) an analysis by agency, and by categories the 
        Director finds useful and practicable, describing the 
        estimated reporting hours required of persons by 
        information collection requests, including to the 
        extent practicable the direct budgetary costs of the 
        agencies and identification of statutes and regulations 
        which impose the greatest number of reporting hours;
          [(4) a summary of accomplishments and planned 
        initiatives to reduce burdens of Federal information 
        collection requests;
          [(5) a tabulation of areas of duplication in agency 
        information collection requests identified during the 
        preceding year and efforts made to preclude the 
        collection of duplicate information, including 
        designations of central collection agencies;
          [(6) a list of each instance in which an agency 
        engaged in the collection of information under the 
        authority of section 3507(g) and an identification of 
        each agency involved;
          [(7) a list of all violations of provisions of this 
        chapter and rules, regulations, guidelines, policies, 
        and procedures issued pursuant to this chapter;
          [(8) with respect to recommendations of the 
        Commission on Federal Paperwork--
                  [(A) a description of the specific actions 
                taken on or planned for each recommendation;
                  [(B) a target date for implementing each 
                recommendation accepted but not implemented; 
                and
                  [(C) an explanation of the reasons for any 
                delay in completing action on such 
                recommendations;
          [(9)(A) a summary of accomplishments in the 
        improvement of, and planned initiatives to improve, 
        Federal information resources management within 
        agencies;
                  [(B) a detailed statement with respect to 
                each agency of new initiatives to acquire 
                information technology to improve such 
                management; and
                  [(C) an analysis of the extent to which the 
                policies, principles, standards, and guidelines 
                issued and maintained pursuant to paragraphs 
                (5) and (6) of section 3505 of this title 
                promote or deter such new initiatives; and
          [(10) with respect to the statistical policy and 
        coordination functions described in section 3504(d) of 
        this title--
                  [(A) a description of the specific actions 
                taken, or planned to be taken, to carry out 
                each such function;
                  [(B) a description of the status of each 
                major statistical program, including 
                information on--
                          [(i) any improvements in each such 
                        program;
                          [(ii) any program which has been 
                        reduced or eliminated; and
                          [(iii) the budget for each such 
                        program for the previous fiscal year 
                        and the fiscal year in progress and the 
                        budget proposed for each such program 
                        for the next fiscal year; and
                  [(C) a description and summary of the long-
                range plans currently in effect for the major 
                Federal statistical activities and programs.
  [(b) The preparation of any report required by this section 
shall not increase the collection of information burden on 
persons outside the Federal Government.

[Sec. 3515. Administrative powers

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

[Sec. 3516. Rules and regulations

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

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

  [In development of information policies, plans, rules, 
regulations, procedures, and guidelines and in reviewing 
information collection requests, the Director shall provide 
interested agencies and persons early and meaningful 
opportunity to comment.

[Sec. 3518. Effect on existing laws and regulations

  [(a) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, the 
authority of an agency under any other law to prescribe 
policies, rules, regulations, and procedures for Federal 
information activities is subject to the authority conferred on 
the Director by this chapter.
  [(b) Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to affect or 
reduce the authority of the Secretary of Commerce or the 
Director of the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to 
Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1977 (as amended) and Executive 
order, relating to telecommunications and information policy, 
procurement and management of telecommunications and 
information systems, spectrum use, and related matters.
  [(c)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), this chapter 
does not apply to the collection of information--
          [(A) during the conduct of a Federal criminal 
        investigation or prosecution, or during the disposition 
        of a particular criminal matter;
          [(B) during the conduct of (i) a civil action to 
        which the United States or any official or agency 
        thereof is a party or (ii) an administrative action or 
        investigation involving an agency against specific 
        individuals or entities;
          [(C) by compulsory process pursuant to the Antitrust 
        Civil Process Act and section 13 of the Federal Trade 
        Commission Improvements Act of 1980; or
          [(D) during the conduct of intelligence activities as 
        defined in section 4-206 of Executive Order 12036, 
        issued January 24, 1978, or successor orders, or during 
        the conduct of cryptologic activities that are 
        communications security activities.
  [(2) This chapter applies to the collection of information 
during the conduct of general investigations (other than 
information collected in an antitrust investigation to the 
extent provided in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1)) 
undertaken with reference to a category of individuals or 
entities such as a class of licensees or an entire industry.
  [(d) Nothing in this chapter shall be interpreted as 
increasing or decreasing the authority conferred by Public Law 
89-306 on the Administrator of the General Services 
Administration, the Secretary of Commerce, or the Director of 
the Office of Management and Budget.
  [(e) Nothing in this chapter shall be interpreted as 
increasing or decreasing the authority of the President, the 
Office of Management and Budget or the Director thereof, under 
the laws of the United States, with respect to the substantive 
policies and programs of departments, agencies and offices, 
including the substantive authority of any Federal agency to 
enforce the civil rights laws.

[Sec. 3519. Access to information

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

[Sec. 3520. Authorization of appropriations

  [(a) Subject to subsection (b), there are authorized to be 
appropriated to the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs to carry out the provisions of this chapter, and for no 
other purpose, $5,500,000 for each of the fiscal years 1987, 
1988, and 1989.
  [(b) No funds may be appropriated pursuant to subsection (a) 
unless such funds are appropriated in an appropriation Act (or 
continuing resolution) which separately and expressly states 
the amount appropriated pursuant to subsection (a) of this 
section. No funds are authorized to be appropriated to the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, or to any other 
officer or administrative unit of the Office of Management and 
Budget, to carry out the provisions of this chapter, or to 
carry out any function under this chapter, for any fiscal year 
pursuant to any provision of law other than subsection (a) of 
this section.
  [(c) Funds appropriated pursuant to subsection (a) may not be 
used to carry out any function or activity which is not 
specifically authorized or required by this chapter, but funds 
so appropriated may be used for necessary expenses of a 
function or activity which is so authorized or required, such 
as hire of passenger motor vehicles and services authorized by 
section 3109 of title 5, United States Code. For the purposes 
of this subsection, the review of a rule or regulation is 
specifically authorized or required by this chapter only to the 
extent that such review is for the sole purpose of reviewing an 
information collection request contained in, or derived from, 
such rule or regulation.]

         CHAPTER 35--COORDINATION OF FEDERAL INFORMATION POLICY

Sec.
3501. Purposes.
3502. Definitions.
3503. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
3504. Authority and functions of Director.
3505. Assignment of tasks and deadlines.
3506. Federal agency responsibilities.
3507. Public information collection activities; submission to Director; 
          approval and delegation.
3508. Determination of necessity for information; hearing.
3509. Designation of central collection agency.
3510. Cooperation of agencies in making information available.
3511. Establishment and operation of Government Information Locator 
          Service.
3512. Public protection.
3513. Director review of agency activities; reporting; agency response.
3514. Responsiveness to Congress.
3515. Administrative powers.
3516. Rules and regulations.
3517. Consultation with other agencies and the public.
3518. Effect on existing laws and regulations.
3519. Access to information.
3520. Authorization of appropriations.

Sec. 3501. Purposes

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

Sec. 3502. Definitions

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

Sec. 3503. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs

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

Sec. 3504. Authority and functions of Director

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

Sec. 3505. Assignment of tasks and deadlines

  (a) In carrying out the functions under this chapter, the 
Director shall--
          (1) in consultation with agency heads, set an annual 
        Governmentwide goal for the reduction of information 
        collection burdens by at least 10 percent, and set 
        annual agency goals to--
                  (A) reduce information collection burdens 
                imposed on the public that--
                          (i) represent the maximum practicable 
                        opportunity in each agency; and
                          (ii) are consistent with improving 
                        agency management of the process for 
                        the review of collections of 
                        information established under section 
                        3506(c); and
                  (B) improve information resources management 
                in ways that increase the productivity, 
                efficiency and effectiveness of Federal 
                programs, including service delivery to the 
                public;
          (2) with selected agencies and non-Federal entities 
        on a voluntary basis, initiate and conduct pilot 
        projects to test alternative policies, practices, 
        regulations, and procedures to fulfill the purposes of 
        this chapter, particularly with regard to minimizing 
        the Federal information collection burden; and
          (3) in consultation with the Administrator of General 
        Services, the Director of the National Institute of 
        Standards and Technology, the Archivist of the United 
        States, and the Director of the Office of Personnel 
        Management, develop and maintain a Governmentwide 
        strategic plan for information resources management, 
        that shall include--
                  (A) a description of the objectives and the 
                means by which the Federal Government shall 
                apply information resources to improve agency 
                and program performance;
                  (B) plans for--
                          (i) reducing information burdens on 
                        the public, including reducing such 
                        burdens through the elimination of 
                        duplication and meeting shared data 
                        needs with shared resources;
                          (ii) enhancing public access to and 
                        dissemination of, information, using 
                        electronic and other formats; and
                          (iii) meeting the information 
                        technology needs of the Federal 
                        Government in accordance with the 
                        purposes of this chapter; and
                  (C) a description of progress in applying 
                information resources management to improve 
                agency performance and the accomplishment of 
                missions.
  (b) For purposes of any pilot project conducted under 
subsection (a)(2), the Director may waive the application of 
any regulation or administrative directive issued by an agency 
with which the project is conducted, including any regulation 
or directive requiring a collection of information, after 
giving timely notice to the public and the Congress regarding 
the need for such waiver.

Sec. 3506. Federal agency responsibilities

  (a)(1) The head of each agency shall be responsible for--
          (A) carrying out the agency's information resources 
        management activities to improve agency productivity, 
        efficiency, and effectiveness; and
          (B) complying with the requirements of this chapter 
        and related policies established by the Director.
  (2)(A) Except as provided under subparagraph (B), the head of 
each agency shall designate a senior officialwho shall report 
directly to such agency head to carry out the responsibilities of the 
agency under this chapter.
  (B) The Secretary of the Department of Defense and the 
Secretary of each military department may each designate a 
senior official who shall report directly to such Secretary to 
carry out the responsibilities of the department under this 
chapter. If more than one official is designated for the 
military departments, the respective duties of the officials 
shall be clearly delineated.
  (3) The senior official designated under paragraph (2) shall 
head an office responsible for ensuring agency compliance with 
and prompt, efficient, and effective implementation of the 
information policies and information resources management 
responsibilities established under this chapter, including the 
reduction of information collection burdens on the public. The 
senior official and employees of such office shall be selected 
with special attention to the professional qualifications 
required to administer the functions described under this 
chapter.
  (4) Each agency program official shall be responsible and 
accountable for information resources assigned to and 
supporting the programs under such official. In consultation 
with the senior official designated under paragraph (2) and the 
agency Chief Financial Officer (or comparable official), each 
agency program official shall define program information needs 
and develop strategies, systems, and capabilities to meet those 
needs.
  (b) With respect to general information resources management, 
each agency shall--
          (1) manage information resources to--
                  (A) reduce information collection burdens on 
                the public;
                  (B) increase program efficiency and 
                effectiveness; and
                  (C) improve the integrity, quality, and 
                utility of information to all users within and 
                outside the agency, including capabilities for 
                ensuring dissemination of public information, 
                public access to government information, and 
                protections for privacy and security;
          (2) in accordance with guidance by the Director, 
        develop and maintain a strategic information resources 
        management plan that shall describe how information 
        resources management activities help accomplish agency 
        missions;
          (3) develop and maintain an ongoing process to--
                  (A) ensure that information resources 
                management operations and decisions are 
                integrated with organizational planning, 
                budget, financial management, human resources 
                management, and program decisions;
                  (B) in cooperation with the agency Chief 
                Financial Officer (or comparable official), 
                develop a full and accurate accounting of 
                information technology expenditures, related 
                expenses, and results; and
                  (C) establish goals for improving information 
                resources management's contribution to program 
                productivity, efficiency, and effectiveness, 
                methods for measuring progress towards those 
                goals, and clear roles and responsibilities for 
                achieving those goals;
          (4) in consultation with the Director, the 
        Administrator of General Services, and the Archivist of 
        the United States, maintain a current and complete 
        inventory of the agency's information resources, 
        including directories necessary to fulfill the 
        requirements of section 3511 of this chapter; and
          (5) in consultation with the Director and the 
        Director of the Office of Personnel Management, conduct 
        formal training programs to educate agency program and 
        management officials about information resources 
        management.
  (c) With respect to the collection of information and the 
control of paperwork, each agency shall--
          (1) establish a process within the office headed by 
        the official designated under subsection (a), that is 
        sufficiently independent of program responsibility to 
        evaluate fairly whether proposed collections of 
        information should be approved under this chapter, to--
                  (A) review each collection of information 
                before submission to the Director for review 
                under this chapter, including--
                          (i) an evaluation of the need for the 
                        collection of information;
                          (ii) a functional description of the 
                        information to be collected;
                          (iii) a plan for the collection of 
                        the information;
                          (iv) a specific, objectively 
                        supported estimate of burden;
                          (v) a test of the collection of 
                        information through a pilot program, if 
                        appropriate; and
                          (vi) a plan for the efficient and 
                        effective management and use of the 
                        information to be collected, including 
                        necessary resources;
                  (B) ensure that each information collection--
                          (i) is inventoried, displays a 
                        control number and, if appropriate, an 
                        expiration date;
                          (ii) indicates the collection is in 
                        accordance with the clearance 
                        requirements of section 3507; and
                          (iii) contains a statement to inform 
                        the person receiving the collection of 
                        information--
                                  (I) the reasons the 
                                information is being collected;
                                  (II) the way such information 
                                is to be used;
                                  (III) an estimate, to the 
                                extent practicable, of the 
                                burden of the collection; and
                                  (IV) whether responses to the 
                                collection of information are 
                                voluntary, required to obtain a 
                                benefit, or mandatory; and
                  (C) assess the information collection burden 
                of proposed legislation affecting the agency;
          (2)(A) except for good cause or as provided under 
        subparagraph (B), provide 60-day notice in the Federal 
        Register, and otherwise consult with members of the 
        public and affected agencies concerning each proposed 
        collection of information, to solicit comment to--
                  (i) evaluate whether the proposed collection 
                of information is necessary for the proper 
                performance of the functions of the agency, 
                including whether the information shall have 
                practical utility;
                  (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's 
                estimate of the burden of the proposed 
                collection of information;
                  (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and 
                clarity of the information to be collected; and
                  (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of 
                information on those who are to respond, 
                including through the use of automated 
                collection techniques or other forms of 
                information technology; and
          (B) for any proposed collection of information 
        contained in a proposed rule (to be reviewed by the 
        Director under section 3507(d)), provide notice and 
        comment through the notice of proposed rulemaking for 
        the proposed rule and such notice shall have the same 
        purposes specified under subparagraph (A) (i) through 
        (iv); and
          (3) certify (and provide a record supporting such 
        certification, including public comments received by 
        the agency) that each collection of information 
        submitted to the Director for review under section 
        3507--
                  (A) is necessary for the proper performance 
                of the functions of the agency, including that 
                the information has practical utility;
                  (B) is not unnecessarily duplicative of 
                information otherwise reasonably accessible to 
                the agency;
                  (C) reduces to the extent practicable and 
                appropriate the burden on persons who shall 
                provide information to or for the agency, 
                including with respect to small entities, as 
                defined under section 601(6) of title 5, the 
                use of such techniques as--
                          (i) establishing differing compliance 
                        or reporting requirements or timetables 
                        that take into account the resources 
                        available to those who are to respond;
                          (ii) the clarification, 
                        consolidation, or simplification of 
                        compliance and reporting requirements; 
                        or
                          (iii) an exemption from coverage of 
                        the collection of information, or any 
                        part thereof;
                  (D) is written using plain, coherent, and 
                unambiguous terminology and is understandable 
                to those who are to respond;
                  (E) is to be implemented in ways consistent 
                and compatible, to the maximum extent 
                practicable, with the existing reporting and 
                recordkeeping practices of those who are to 
                respond;
                  (F) contains the statement required under 
                paragraph (1)(B)(iii);
                  (G) has been developed by an office that has 
                planned and allocated resources for the 
                efficient and effective management and use of 
                the information to be collected, including the 
                processing of the information in a manner which 
                shall enhance, where appropriate, the utility 
                of the information to agencies and the public;
                  (H) uses effective and efficient statistical 
                survey methodology appropriate to the purpose 
                for which the information is to be collected; 
                and
                  (I) to the maximum extent practicable, uses 
                information technology to reduce burden and 
                improve data quality, agency efficiency and 
                responsiveness to the public.
  (d) With respect to information dissemination, each agency 
shall--
          (1) ensure that the public has timely, equal, and 
        equitable access to the agency's public information, 
        including ensuring such access through--
                  (A) encouraging a diversity of public and 
                private sources for information based on 
                government public information,
                  (B) in cases in which the agency provides 
                public information maintained in electronic 
                format, providing timely, equal, and equitable 
                access to the underlying data (in whole or in 
                part); and
                  (C) agency dissemination of public 
                information in an efficient, effective, and 
                economical manner;
          (2) regularly solicit and consider public input on 
        the agency's information dissemination activities;
          (3) provide adequate notice when initiating, 
        substantially modifying, or terminating significant 
        information dissemination products; and
          (4) not, except where specifically authorized by 
        statute--
                  (A) establish an exclusive, restricted, or 
                other distribution arrangement that interferes 
                with timely and equitable availability of 
                public information to the public;
                  (B) restrict or regulate the use, resale, or 
                redissemination of public information by the 
                public;
                  (C) charge fees or royalties for resale or 
                redissemination of public information; or
                  (D) establish user fees for public 
                information that exceed the cost of 
                dissemination, except that the Director may 
                waive the application of this subparagraph to 
                an agency, if--
                          (i) the head of the agency submits a 
                        written request to the Director, 
                        publishes a notice of the request in 
                        the Federal Register, and provides a 
                        copy of the request to the public upon 
                        request;
                          (ii) the Director sets forth in 
                        writing a statement of the scope, 
                        conditions, and duration of the waiver 
                        and the reasons for granting it, and 
                        makes such statement available to the 
                        public upon request; and
                          (iii) the granting of the waiver 
                        would not materially impair the timely 
                        and equitable availability of public 
                        information to the public.
  (e) With respect to statistical policy and coordination, each 
agency shall--
          (1) ensure the relevance, accuracy, timeliness, 
        integrity, and objectivity of information collected or 
        created for statistical purposes;
          (2) inform respondents fully and accurately about the 
        sponsors, purposes, and uses of statistical surveys and 
        studies;
          (3) protect respondents' privacy and ensure that 
        disclosure policies fully honor pledges of 
        confidentiality;
          (4) observe Federal standards and practices for data 
        collection, analysis, documentation, sharing, and 
        dissemination of information;
          (5) ensure the timely publication of the results of 
        statistical surveys and studies, including information 
        about the quality and limitations of the surveys and 
        studies; and
          (6) make data available to statistical agencies and 
        readily accessible to the public.
  (f) With respect to records management, each agency shall 
implement and enforce applicable policies and procedures, 
including requirements for archiving information maintained in 
electronic format, particularly in the planning, design and 
operation of information systems.
  (g) With respect to privacy and security, each agency shall--
          (1) implement and enforce applicable policies, 
        procedures, standards, and guidelines on privacy, 
        confidentiality, security, disclosure and sharing of 
        information collected or maintained by or for the 
        agency;
          (2) assume responsibility and accountability for 
        compliance with and coordinated management of sections 
        552 and 552a of title 5, the Computer Security Act of 
        1987 (40 U.S.C. 759 note), and related information 
        management laws; and
          (3) consistent with the Computer Security Act of 1987 
        (40 U.S.C. 759 note), identify and afford security 
        protections commensurate with the risk and magnitude of 
        the harm resulting from the loss, misuse, or 
        unauthorized access to or modification of information 
        collected or maintained by or on behalf of an agency.
  (h) With respect to Federal information technology, each 
agency shall--
          (1) implement and enforce applicable Governmentwide 
        and agency information technology management policies, 
        principles, standards, and guidelines;
          (2) assume responsibility and accountability for 
        information technology investments;
          (3) promote the use of information technology by the 
        agency to improve the productivity, efficiency, and 
        effectiveness of agency programs, including the 
        reduction of information collection burdens on the 
        public and improved dissemination of public 
        information;
          (4) propose changes in legislation, regulations, and 
        agency procedures to improve information technology 
        practices, including changes that improve the ability 
        of the agency to use technology to reduce burden; and
          (5) assume responsibility for maximizing the value 
        and assessing and managing the risks of major 
        information systems initiatives through a process that 
        is--
                  (A) integrated with budget, financial, and 
                program management decisions; and
                  (B) used to select, control, and evaluate the 
                results of major information systems 
                initiatives.

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

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

Sec. 3508. Determination of necessity for information; hearing

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

Sec. 3509. Designation of central collection agency

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

Sec. 3510. Cooperation of agencies in making information available

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

Sec. 3511. Establishment and operation of Government Information 
                    Locator Service

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

Sec. 3512. Public protection

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

Sec. 3513. Director review of agency activities; reporting; agency 
                    response

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

Sec. 3514. Responsiveness to Congress

  (a)(1) The Director shall--
          (A) keep the Congress and congressional committees 
        fully and currently informed of the major activities 
        under this chapter; and
          (B) submit a report on such activities to the 
        President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of 
        Representatives annually and at such other times as the 
        Director determines necessary.
  (2) The Director shall include in any such report a 
description of the extent to which agencies have--
          (A) reduced information collection burdens on the 
        public, including--
                  (i) a summary of accomplishments and planned 
                initiatives to reduce collection of information 
                burdens;
                  (ii) a list of all violations of this chapter 
                and of any rules, guidelines, policies, and 
                procedures issued pursuant to this chapter;
                  (iii) a list of any increase in the 
                collection of information burden, including the 
                authority for each such collection; and
                  (iv) a list of agencies that in the preceding 
                year did not reduce information collection 
                burdens by at least 10 percent pursuant to 
                section 3505, a list of the programs and 
                statutory responsibilities of those agencies 
                that precluded that reduction, and 
                recommendations to assist those agencies to 
                reduce information collection burdens in 
                accordance with that section;
          (B) improved the quality and utility of statistical 
        information;
          (C) improved public access to Government information; 
        and
          (D) improved program performance and the 
        accomplishment of agency missions through information 
        resources management.
  (b) The preparation of any report required by this section 
shall be based on performance results reported by the agencies 
and shall not increase the collection of information burden on 
persons outside the Federal Government.

Sec. 3515. Administrative powers

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

Sec. 3516. Rules and regulations

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

Sec. 3517. Consultation with other agencies and the public

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

Sec. 3518. Effect on existing laws and regulations

  (a) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, the 
authority of an agency under any other law to prescribe 
policies, rules, regulations, and procedures for Federal 
information resources management activities is subject to the 
authority of the Director under this chapter.
  (b) Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to affect or 
reduce the authority of the Secretary of Commerce or the 
Director of the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to 
Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1977 (as amended) and Executive 
order, relating to telecommunications and information policy, 
procurement and management of telecommunications and 
information systems, spectrum use, and related matters.
  (c)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), this chapter 
shall not apply to obtaining, causing to be obtained, 
soliciting, or requiring the disclosure to third parties or the 
public, of facts or opinions--
          (A) during the conduct of a Federal criminal 
        investigation or prosecution, or during the disposition 
        of a particular criminal matter;
          (B) during the conduct of--
                  (i) a civil action to which the United States 
                or any official or agency thereof is a party; 
                or
                  (ii) an administrative action or 
                investigation involving an agency against 
                specific individuals or entities;
          (C) by compulsory process pursuant to the Antitrust 
        Civil Process Act and section 13 of the Federal Trade 
        Commission Improvements Act of 1980; or
          (D) during the conduct of intelligence activities as 
        defined in section 4-206 of Executive Order No. 12036, 
        issued January 24, 1978, or successor orders, or during 
        the conduct of cryptologic activities that are 
        communications security activities.
  (2) This chapter applies to obtaining, causing to be 
obtained, soliciting, or requiring the disclosure to third 
parties or the public, of facts or opinions during the conduct 
of general investigations (other than information collected in 
an antitrust investigation to the extent provided in 
subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1)) undertaken with reference to 
a category of individuals or entities such as a class of 
licensees or an entire industry.
  (d) Nothing in this chapter shall be interpreted as 
increasing or decreasing the authority conferred by Public Law 
89-306 on the Administrator of the General Services 
Administration, the Secretary of Commerce, or the Director of 
the Office of Management and Budget.
  (e) Nothing in this chapter shall be interpreted as 
increasing or decreasing the authority of the President, the 
Office of Management and Budget or the Director thereof, under 
the laws of the United States, with respect to the substantive 
policies and programs of departments, agencies and offices, 
including the substantive authority of any Federal agency to 
enforce the civil rights laws.

Sec. 3519. Access to information

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

Sec. 3520. Authorization of appropriations

  There are authorized to be appropriated to the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs to carry out the provisions 
of this chapter such sums as may be necessary.
          * * * * * * *
  ADDITIONAL VIEWS ON OVERTURNING THE DOLE VS. UNITED STEELWORKERS OF 
                            AMERICA DECISION

    Although there is bipartisan agreement on many of the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act Reauthorization, we 
must take issue with one controversial provision that the 
majority has unfortunately included in H.R. 830. That provision 
would overturn a decision by the Supreme Court in Dole vs. 
United Steelworkers of America, 494 U.S. 26 (1990), which held 
that the Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply to Federal 
requirements regarding third party notification. An amendment 
by Ranking Member Cardiss Collins to delete this provision was 
narrowly defeated by a vote of 26 to 18.
    The case arose out of a 1987 Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration Hazard Communication Standard that required 
employers to inform employees of hazardous chemicals in the 
workplace.
    Certain businesses objected to the requirements to notify 
their workers of hazardous chemicals at the work site, and went 
to the Office of Management and Budget to plead their case. 
Unlike the initial regulations that were developed after public 
comment, the OMB actions were done in secret. The business 
leaders convinced OMB to cancel the new regulations using the 
Paperwork Reduction Act as its authority.
    The Steelworkers, who represented workers at both chemical 
plants and construction sites sued. Under OMB's ruling 
construction workers using paint thinned with benzene would not 
be told that breathing the paint fumes could cause liver 
damage. Nor would they be told that the fumes from welding 
cadmium coated reinforcement rods would cause prostate damage. 
Foundry workers making iron railings would not know that the 
dust from the sand used to cool the molds cause lung damage.
    The case eventually reached the Supreme Court. In a 7-2 
decision, the Court ruled that OMB had improperly interfered in 
the notification requirements. The Court ruled that the Act was 
limited to Federal requirements to report information to the 
Government. Requirements for notifying third parties were not 
covered by the Act.
    H.R. 830, however, overturns this decision by explicitly 
amending the law to cover third party notifications. We 
strongly disagree with these provisions.
    The intent of the Paperwork Reduction Act is clear. There 
are too many forms that individuals and small businesses must 
fill out. Requiring OMB and agencies themselves to be sensitive 
to this problem, and to take actions to relieve paperwork 
burden, is a sensible goal.
    The Act was never intended as a mechanism to deny workers 
their rights to know about the hazards they face in the 
workplace. The simple posting of a sign in a work site can 
hardly be called a paperwork burden. The objective to the sign 
was motivated by the contents of the sign, not its paperwork 
burden. Some businesses simply wanted to keep their workers in 
the dark.
    The workplace notification regulations were not the only 
example of OMB interference in agency notification 
requirements. During the 1980's, disclosure requirements 
relating to aspirin labeling for Reye's syndrome were held up 
between 1981 and 1986, in part, due to problems with OMB 
clearance.
    Reversing the Dole decision is one more example of how the 
Contract with America puts business ahead of people. The 
proponents of this provision have determined that the burden to 
business of informing their employees about dangers at the 
workplace exceed the workers' right to know. We disagree. 
Moreover, even were such an issue subject to debate, the 
decision should be made when substantive laws on the subject 
are enacted. The Paperwork Reduction Act should not be a tool 
for overturning agency policy decision that are unrelated to 
paperwork burdens.

                                   Cardiss Collins.
                                   Frank Mascara.
                                   Collin Peterson.
                                   Louise Slaughter.
                                   Bob Wise.
                                   Paul E. Kanjorski.
                                   Major R. Owens.
                                   Henry A. Waxman.
                                   Edolphus Towns.
                                   Carrie P. Meek.
  ADDITIONAL VIEWS ON INFORMATION DISSEMINATION PROVISION OF H.R. 830

    The information dissemination provisions of H.R. 830 are 
principally contained in Sec. 3506(d). Most of these provisions 
had their historical and intellectual origins with work done by 
the Committee on Government Operations during the last ten 
years. In 1986, the Committee issued a report that was prepared 
by the Subcommittee on Government Information, Justice, and 
Agriculture chaired by Rep. Glenn English. House Report 99-
560--``Electronic Collection and Dissemination of Information 
by Federal Agencies: A Policy Overview''--was the first 
comprehensive look at the policy problems presented by the 
electronic information revolution.
    In 1990, the Committee reported the Paperwork Reduction and 
Federal Information Resources Management Act of 1990 (H.R. 
3696) that included language setting information dissemination 
policy rules. That work was done by Rep. Bob Wise, who then 
chaired the Subcommittee on Government Information, Justice, 
and Agriculture, building on the foundation established in the 
1986 report. H.R. 3695 passed the House at the end of the 101st 
Congress, but the Senate took no action.
    The legislative report that accompanied H.R. 3695 contained 
an extensive discussion of the information dissemination 
language. Although some of the text has been changed, much of 
the policy remains identical. As a result, it is worth 
restating here much of that legislative history material. The 
material remains relevant to the current bill.
    H.R. 830 includes language establishing statutory policies 
on the dissemination of information by federal agencies.\1\ 
This language has been added to the Paperwork Reduction Act for 
three basic reasons.
    \1\ The information dissemination provisions in the legislation 
originated with work done by the Committee in 1986. See Committee on 
Government Operations, ``Electronic Collection and Dissemination of 
Information by Federal Agencies: A Policy Overview,'' H.R. Report No. 
99-560, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. (1986) [hereinafter cited as ``1986 
Information Policy Report''].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    First, the dissemination of information by federal agencies 
is an essential governmental function. The laws establishing 
and regulating federal agencies contain many general \2\ and 
specific provisions requiring agencies to make records 
available to the public. The collection and dissemination of 
information is the principal mission of some agencies \3\ and 
is necessary for the proper performance of others. Other 
dissemination activities are regular agency functions as well.
    \2\ There are, for example, general requirements in the 
Administrative Procedure Act for public disclosure. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 551 
et seq. (1988). See especially the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 
Sec. 552; Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552a (1988).
    \3\ See, e.g, 7 U.S.C. Sec. 2201 (1988) (establishing that one of 
the duties of the Department of Agriculture is ``to acquire and to 
diffuse among the people of the United States useful information on 
subjects connected with agriculture, rural development, aquaculture, 
and human nutrition); 15 U.S.C. Sec. 77f(d) (1988) (providing that the 
Securities and Exchange Commission shall issue regulations providing 
that information in securities registration statements shall be made 
available to the public); 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1 (1988) (providing that the 
general duties of the Bureau of Labor Statistics are ``to acquire and 
diffuse among the people of the United States useful information on 
subjects connected with labor * * * its relation to capital, the hours 
of labor, the earnings of laboring men and women, and the means of 
promoting their material, social, intellectual, and moral 
prosperity.''). For other examples, see ``1986 Information Policy 
Report'' at 13-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In fact, the federal government is the largest single 
producer, consumer, and disseminator of information in the 
United States.\4\ The flow of information from the federal 
government to its citizens is essential to the successful 
functioning of the democratic process and to the proper 
operation of the national economy.\5\
    \4\ See Office of Management and Budget, ``Management of Federal 
Information Resources,'' 59 Fed. Reg. 37906 (July 25, 1994) (Circular 
A-130).
    \5\ ``The `public's right-to-know' about the business of government 
is a fundamental principle of our democratic government and open 
society.'' ``Federal Information Dissemination Policies and 
Practices,'' Hearings before the Government Information, Justice, and 
Agriculture Subcommittee of the House Committee on Government 
Operations, 101st Cong., 1st Sess. 110 (1989) (testimony of Jerry J. 
Berman, Benton Foundation Fellow and Director, Information Technology 
Project, American Civil Liberties Union.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Every segment of American society needs some government 
information to function. These include the federal government 
itself, every type of business and industry, libraries \6\ and 
schools, newspapers and television, state and local 
governments, and ordinary citizens.
    \6\ See ``Federal Information Dissemination Policies and 
Practices,'' Hearings before a Subcommittee of the House Committee on 
Government Operations, 101st Cong, 1st. Sess. (April 18, 1989) 284-305 
(testimony of Harold B. Shill, Evansdale Librarian, West Virginia 
University). 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Government information is used in many different ways. 
Voters may use almost any type of federal information to help 
make political decisions. Federal, State and local agencies use 
federal statistical and economic data to make social, economic, 
fiscal, and management decisions. Corporations rely on census 
information to make strategic business decisions. Contractors 
want to know what products and services the government needs. 
Most Americans rely daily on weather information from the 
National Weather Service.
    Federal information is also a valuable economic commodity. 
The large and growing private information industry functions in 
part by taking public government data, adding value to it, and 
reselling it to others. There are thousands of private sector 
information products and services based in whole or in part on 
government information.\7\ The nonprofit sector--including 
libraries and public interest groups--provides similar products 
and services.
    \7\ See id. at 240-260 (testimony of Kenneth Allen, Senior Vice 
President, Information Industry Association).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The government's obligation to make data available to the 
public is in no way diminished by the ability of users to make 
a profit by reselling the information. While the private sector 
cannot relieve the government of its dissemination 
responsibilities, private dissemination of government 
information helps to make government information available to 
more users.
    The press, libraries, public interest groups, nonprofit 
organizations, and the publishing industry and other components 
of the private information industry play an important role in 
meeting the information needs of the American public. American 
information products and services are valued throughout the 
world, and the private information industry contributes 
positively to our Nation's trade balance.\8\
    \8\ Id. at 242 (testimony of Kenneth Allen, Senior Vice President, 
Information Industry Association).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Second, legislation is needed because of actions taken in 
the executive branch. Over the last few years, the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Management 
and Budget has become the central information policy maker for 
the federal government. In December 1985, OMB first issued 
Circular A-130 on the management of federal information 
resources. There have been several later versions of the 
Circular.\9\ A key part of the circular sets out policies 
governing the collection and dissemination of information by 
federal agencies.\10\
    \9\ For the current version, see Office of Management and Budget, 
``Management of Federal Information Resources,'' 59 Fed. Reg. 37906 
(July 25, 1994) (Circular A-130).
    \10\ Circular A-130 has been controversial from its inception. See, 
e.g., comments of Rep. Glenn English, Chairman, Subcommittee on 
Government Information, Justice and Agriculture (May 15, 1985) 
reprinted in ``Electronic Collection and Dissemination of Information 
by Federal Agencies,'' Hearings before a Subcommittee of the House 
Committee on Government Operations, 99th Cong., 1st Sess. 467 (1985). 
See also ``OMB's Proposed Restrictions on Information Gathering and 
Dissemination by Agencies,'' Hearing before a Subcommittee of the House 
Committee on Government Operations, 99th Cong., 1st Sess. (1985). Later 
versions cured most of the significant defects of the original 1985 
circular.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    All of this policy guidance was issued under the authority 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act and other statutes. But the Act 
currently contains no detailed dissemination provisions.\11\ 
Until now, Congress has not provided specific directions for 
OMB's policy making efforts on information dissemination. H.R. 
830 will fill the statutory gap, provide a clear congressional 
direction for dissemination policy, clarify the relationship 
between OMB and the agencies, and require OMB to revise its 
controversial guidance.
    \11\ See, e.g., 44 U.S.C. Sec. 3504(a) (1988) (referring to 
``dissemination of information'' in a list of OMB functions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Third, changes in information technology have increased the 
need for legislative direction. Federal agencies are currently 
planning or operating many large electronic information 
systems. These systems raise many questions that are simply not 
addressed by current laws. The Paperwork Reduction Act is one 
of those laws. The dissemination amendments made by H.R. 830 
will bring the Act more squarely into the electronic 
information age by encouraging federal agencies to disseminate 
information in electronic formats. H.R. 830 will also make 
federal dissemination policies more uniform.
    Both H.R. 830 and the Freedom of Information Act reflect 
the policy that the public has a right to copy and use 
government information not required to be kept secret to 
protect a legitimate public or private interest. Permitting 
public use of government information is an important element of 
the American system of government.
    The FOIA and the Paperwork Reduction Act take different 
approaches to fulfilling public needs for government 
information. The FOIA is an access statute. It requires 
agencies to accept and consider requests for information from 
the public. Information that is not exempt from disclosure must 
be released. Without a proper request for information, the FOIA 
imposes few public disclosure requirements on agencies.\12\
    \12\ Subsections (a)(1) and (a)(2) of the FOIA impose limited 
publication and affirmative disclosure obligations on agencies. 5 
U.S.C. Sec. 552(a)(1), (a)(2) (1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 830 focuses on dissemination of information by 
agencies. ``Dissemination'' refers to the distribution of 
government information to the public through printed documents 
or through electronic and other media, independent of a legal 
obligation to respond to a request from the public for the 
information. An agency's obligation to disseminate information 
is distinct from its obligation to provide access to the 
information. While related in purpose and sometimes in 
practice, the functions can be analyzed separately.
    The dissemination obligations supplement but do not replace 
the provisions of the FOIA and other laws specifically 
requiring the disclosure of public information. There is no 
conflict between existing statutory access principles and 
procedures on the one hand and dissemination requirements in 
H.R. 830 on the other.
    To the extent that public needs are not fulfilled by an 
agency's dissemination activities, the access provisions of the 
FOIA may be used to fulfill those needs. Thus, a person unable 
to use an agency information product on CD-ROM can still 
request the information under the FOIA on paper, magnetic tape, 
or other electronic media. Also, information released under the 
FOIA is still subject to the dissemination requirements in H.R. 
830.
    However, an agency cannot rely on the FOIA's access 
provisions to fulfill general dissemination obligations. If an 
agency has an affirmative obligation to disseminate 
information, if cannot fulfill that obligation simply by 
entertaining access requests under the FOIA.
    Improvements in the operations of the FOIA will result from 
a better understanding of technology by the agencies and an 
even-handed application of the letter and spirit of the FOIA. 
There are few judicial precedents that interfere with such 
access. The ``leading'' case that permits withholding of 
electronic records has been discredited in an earlier Committee 
report.\13\ The case has rarely been followed, and the effect 
of H.R. 830 is to overturn whatever remains of the holding that 
a government database is not an agency record and not available 
under the FOIA. H.R. 830 imposes a positive obligation on 
agencies to consider the benefits of disseminating 
electronically information that is published on paper.
    \13\ See the discussion of SDC v. Mathews, 542 F.2d 1116 (9th Cir. 
1976), in ``1986 Information Policy Report'' at 27-36. Cases like SDC 
v. Mathews and Dismukes v. Interior, 603 F. Supp 760 (D.D.C. 1984) were 
probably incorrectly decided because of a lack of judicial 
understanding of modern information technology and the failure of the 
parties to explore the underlying problems with exclusive government 
control over data formats. Regardless of the status of these cases 
under the FOIA, the emphasis in H.R. 830 on making information 
available in a manner that promotes the usefulness of the data to the 
public eliminates thee ability of agencies to deny access to existing 
electronic copies of data that must be released in hard copy formats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The dissemination amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act 
underscore the importance of public access to electronic 
records in support of the existing principles of the FOIA. 
These amendments encourage and direct agencies considering 
requests for electronic records to make the records available 
in accordance with the letter and the spirit of both the FOIA 
and the Paperwork Reduction Act.
    Also, direct dissemination by agencies of electronic 
records as provided in this bill may reduce the number of FOIA 
requests for access by encouraging affirmative dissemination. 
Data disseminated by agencies in useful formats will be less 
likely to be requested under the FOIA. Nevertheless, the FOIA 
will always be available as an alternative mechanism to meet 
public access requests for information, separate from any 
dissemination activity by an agency.
    H.R. 830 amends Sec. 3502 of title 44 by adding paragraph 
(12) defining the term ``public information'' as ``any 
information, regardless of format, that an agency discloses, 
disseminates, or makes available to the public;''
    The concept of ``public information'' is fundamental to the 
information dissemination provisions of H.R. 830. The objective 
of the definition is to minimize disputes over what government 
information is subject to dissemination. The definition turns 
on an easily-made factual determination rather than on a 
complex legal one. ``Public information'' is information that 
an agency has in fact made public.
    The scope of the information provisions of H.R. 830 is 
clearer when contrasted with the scope of the Freedom of 
Information Act. Under the FOIA, agencies must make 
determinations of disclosability only when requests are 
received from the public. The FOIA may require agencies to 
undertake a page by page review of documents to distinguish 
between information that must be disclosed and information that 
may be withheld.
    No such page by page review is required under H.R. 830. The 
bill generally obligates agencies to provide for the 
dissemination of information. Fulfilling this objection for 
identifiable sets of information known to the public will be a 
sufficient task. To comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 
agencies need not review information that has not already been 
determined to be public. H.R. 830 will not require that 
agencies take steps on their own to separate disclosable 
information from nondisclosable information in information 
systems that are not currently public. However, agencies are 
encouraged to separate and disseminate all disclosable 
information.
    Looked at from another perspective, all agency information 
may be requested under the FOIA. Some of that information must 
be disclosed and some can be withheld. Not all information that 
must be disclosed under the FOIA is identifiable at any given 
time. The class of information subject to the dissemination 
obligations of H.R. 830 is not the same as the class of 
information subject to disclosure under FOIA. However, once an 
agency has received a request under the FOIA and determined 
that information must be disclosed, the information is subject 
to the dissemination obligations of H.R. 830 because it has 
been released.\14\
    \14\ The dissemination obligations for information disclosed under 
the FOIA does not require a separate dissemination program for each 
document. Each disclosed document is eligible for dissemination, but an 
agency should apply reasonable and practical judgment. It might make 
little sense to disseminate unorganized agency memoranda released under 
the FOIA with occasional deletions of exempt material. On the other 
hand, a dissemination program might be worthwhile following the 
disclosure of an identifiable set of documents of general public 
interest or a continuing series of agency decisions, policy documents, 
or information products. The economy and efficiency of agency 
operations are another factor to be considered when these decisions are 
made.
    In practice, FOIA and dissemination activities can be related. If 
an agency receives a significant number of FOIA requests for the same 
records, the agency may choose to disseminate the information. This may 
reduce the case-by-case handling of FOIA requests and be cheaper and 
more efficient for everyone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Dissemination obligations are limited to those classes of 
information already publicly disclosable because of a law, 
agency rule or regulation, or existing agency policy or 
practice. Thus, no dissemination obligation arises with respect 
to information classified in the interest of national defense 
or foreign policy, information subject to restrictions under 
the Privacy Act of 1974, sensitive law enforcement 
investigatory data, or other information withheld from 
disclosure to protect other recognized public or private 
interests.
    For example, an agency's personnel record system contains 
some information that can be disclosed publicly and some that 
is not available for public release. H.R. 830 creates no 
independent obligation to separate out these two classes of 
information for purposes of dissemination. If an identifiable 
set of public information has already been separated and 
disclosed (e.g., an agency telephone directory), then the 
agency must fulfill the dissemination obligations of H.R. 830 
by considering effective dissemination methods.
    By contrast, an agency with an obligation to collect 
securities or tariff filings and to make those documents 
publicly available is clearly dealing with public information 
under the definition. Even if a portion of the filings is not 
public, the dissemination obligation attaches to the remainder 
if the class of public information can be identified and is 
routinely released.
    The obligation to consider alternate dissemination methods 
does not preordain any specific result. For example, an agency 
that publishes a printed telephone directory may reasonably 
decide that public sale of the printed directory is adequate to 
meet public needs. H.R. 830 does not mandate that an agency 
publish such a directory as an online database or on a CD-ROM 
disk. The judgment about the best way to meet public needs for 
the information is an agency decision to be made in accordance 
with the agency's mission and with the standards in H.R. 830.
    The definition provides that information is public 
information regardless of format. This means that information 
is public information no matter what kind of medium is used 
during creation or storage. Information on paper, microfiche, 
magnetic tape, floppy disk, CD-ROM, or other media qualifies if 
it otherwise falls within the definition. If an agency 
maintains the same public information in both paper and 
electronic formats, the dissemination obligation arises with 
respect to the information in both formats.
    Thus, an agency cannot fulfill its dissemination 
obligations by only considering public needs for a paper 
product. If an agency publishes information on paper, it must 
also consider disseminating the same information 
electronically. This may be accomplished by the release of a 
copy of a database on magnetic tape or floppy disk. The bill 
does not require agencies to provide online access to every 
database containing public information. Similarly, if an agency 
publishes an information product electronically, it should 
consider the need to disseminate the same information on paper 
to meet public needs not addressed by the electronic product.
    An agency may consider how the availability of a product in 
one format affects the need to disseminate the information in 
other formats. An agency may reach a different result for the 
dissemination of paper and electronic information. For each 
distinct product or service, the agency must make an 
independent evaluation.
    The term ``public information'' generally refers to 
recorded information. Information conveyed orally within an 
agency is not within the scope of the definition.
    H.R. 830 encourages a diversity of public and private 
sources for information based on government public information. 
This language recognizes several important principles. First, 
government information is both a public good and an unregulated 
commodity. Any person may obtain uncopyrighted public 
information from the federal government and reuse, resell, or 
redisseminate it as they see fit.\15\
    \15\ Government information is not subject to copyright. 17 U.S.C. 
Sec. 105 (1982). This was a deliberate choice made by the Congress to 
keep government data as free as possible of potential restrictions on 
dissemination. The policy in H.R. 830 is fully consistent with the 
Copyright Act. The information dissemination provisions of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act support the same policy objectives. See the 
discussion of government information and copyright law in ``1986 
Information Policy Report'' at 23-36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Support for a diversity of sources for government 
information is an essential feature of the structure of 
government information activities. The First Amendment to the 
Constitution, Copyright Act of 1976, Freedom of Information 
Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, and other laws are consistent 
in supporting a completely free marketplace in government 
information. In a democratic society, the government should not 
exclusively control how its own information can be used or 
interpreted.
    Second, both the public and private sectors play a 
necessary, legitimate, and distinct role in disseminating 
government information. By redisseminating government 
information, the press, libraries, nonprofit organizations, 
public interest groups, and the private information industry 
help the government meet the needs of public users by providing 
information products and services that the government cannot 
support or that are beyond the bounds of government activities. 
At times, the private sector, libraries, and nonprofit 
organization provide essential products or services to the 
government that the government is unable to provide for itself. 
A diversity of information sources for government information, 
and not a monopoly, best serves the public interest.
    Third, the public benefits from having multiple sources for 
government information. Agencies should encourage a diversity 
of providers but may not abdicate any of their responsibilities 
to disseminate information because of the existence of a 
competing public or private sector product or service. One 
simple way to promote a diversity of sources is to provide 
electronic copies of agency databases in ways that will make it 
easier for public, private, and nonprofit organizations to 
redistribute the data.
    H.R. 830 identifies several categories of dissemination 
activities that are prohibited, unless specifically authorized 
by statute. The prohibited conduct interferes with public 
access to government information.
    First, no agency may establish an exclusive, restricted, or 
other distribution arrangement that interferes with timely, and 
equitable availability of public information to the public. The 
purpose of this provision is to prohibit agencies from 
establishing unfair monopoly distribution arrangements for 
public information.
    The underlying policy is that public information should be 
disseminated to all and that no agency can or should grant 
itself or any other person a franchise over public information. 
No agency may give any user or class of users an unfair 
advantage in the dissemination of public information. This is 
fully consistent with the policy against copyright of federal 
government information in section 105 of the Copyright Act.\16\
    \16\ The inability of the federal government to copyright 
information in the United States does not necessarily mean that the 
government cannot copyright information abroad. Nothing in H.R. 830 
limits the ability of the federal government to copyright information 
in other countries, However, the federal government may not impose any 
domestic restrictions on information that are inconsistent with H.R. 
830 in order to preserve rights under foreign copyright laws. Assuring 
unrestricted domestic use is a higher priority than preserving foreign 
copyright rights or foreign commercial opportunities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The prohibition against exclusive distribution arrangements 
recognizes that an agency may use a contractor or cooperative 
agreement to operate an information dissemination system on 
behalf of the agency. An agency contractor may receive public 
information from or on behalf of the agency and then 
disseminate the information to others under the contract. While 
such distribution arrangements have monopoly elements, they are 
acceptable if the distribution does not interfere with timely 
or equal availability of public information to the public.
    In other words, a contractor may operate an information 
dissemination system on behalf of an agency if the contractor 
disseminates information to the public on the same terms 
(including a price no higher than the agency could charge) that 
the agency would if the agency operated the system itself. The 
bill is not intended to prevent agencies from using contractors 
to operate information systems if the public is not in any way 
disadvantaged as a result. The data must remain available to 
the public as provided in H.R. 830 and other laws.
    No agency contractor may be permitted to make use of 
information--other than for legitimate agency purposes--before 
the information is made available to other public users. No 
agency contractor may be permitted to discriminate among public 
users or to deny, delay, or otherwise limit access or charge 
higher prices to users who may be competitors with the 
contractor in the commercial marketplace for agency 
information.
    Second, no agency may restrict or regulate the use, resale, 
or redissemination of public information products or services 
by the public. Except where a statute specifically authorizes 
such as restriction, public information may continue to be 
used, republished, resold, extracted, and redisseminated in any 
way by any person.
    This prohibition is also fully consistent with the policy 
against federal government copyright in section 105 of the 
Copyright Act. The federal government has expressly disclaimed 
the ability to control the republication and reuse of its 
information. The language in H.R. 830 underscores that policy 
and strengthens it by prohibiting copyright-like controls, 
licensing agreements, and any other agency actions that have 
the effect of restricting use or redisclosure of public 
information.
    Many companies republish government data on paper or 
electronically. They are free to do so and to resell government 
data, in whole or in part, at any price that the public is 
wiling to pay. An agency may not justify restrictions on public 
data on the grounds that the information will be misquoted, 
misunderstood, or misused. These are consequences of the free 
marketplace in speech and ideas that is at the heart of 
American democracy. Similarly, an agency may not withhold 
public data because it is incomplete, embarrassing to the 
agency, or part of a larger value-added agency product or 
service.
    The evils of government restrictions on use of public 
information--including political control of speech and higher 
prices--are considerably worse than anything that could result 
from any use of public information. Agencies may, of course, 
take lawful actions to ameliorate any potential negative 
consequences that result from the way in which others use 
government information.
    Third, agencies are prohibited from charging fees or 
royalties for resale or redissemination of public information. 
Any person who has acquired public information may use it, sell 
it, or otherwise disseminate it without paying any additional 
fees or royalties to the government. Public information may be 
used, sold, or redisseminated whether or not the person paid 
any fees to the government to obtain the information. This 
prohibition is also fully consistent with the policy against 
federal government copyright in section 105 of the Copyright 
Act.
    The prohibitions against restrictions and against royalties 
follow directly from the statutory limitation against 
government copyright. Copyright is the mechanism available to 
authors to prevent others from using or reselling their work. 
Since the government has disclaimed the ability to copyright 
its own information, it has also disclaimed the ability to 
restrict use of data and to charge royalties. The prohibitions 
in H.R. 830 are simply in furtherance of federal copyright 
policy that has been in place since the beginning of the 
century.
    Fourth, agencies are prohibited from establishing user fees 
for public information products that exceed the cost of 
dissemination. This is consistent with a previous finding and 
recommendation made by the Committee in 1986.\17\ While current 
user fee policies for other goods and services may support 
other types of price structures, information products can only 
be priced at cost of dissemination.\18\ The government should 
not treat its information dissemination activities as general 
revenue sources. It is the policy of H.R. 830 that the 
government should not make a profit by selling public 
information collected and compiled at taxpayer expense to the 
American public.\19\
    \17\ ``1986 Information Policy Report'' at 10, 12.
    \18\ ``1986 Information Policy Report'' at 10, 12, 40-43. See also 
the January 12, 1990, opinion by the Comptroller General regarding the 
pricing of information services by the Library of Congress. GAO found 
that the User Fee Statute, 31 U.S.C. Sec. 9701, did not support fees 
for information based on a subscriber's use of data. GAO noted that the 
enforcement of licensing agreements that reimburse an agency for lost 
sales appear questionable in light of the policy of the Copyright Act. 
If there was ever any doubt on this point, either before or after the 
GAO decision, H.R. 830 resolves the matter definitely.
    \19\ Agencies specifically authorized by statute to set fees for 
information products on an alternate basis may continue to do so. An 
example of another statute that specifically authorize fees is 44 
U.S.C. Sec. 1708 (authorizing the Public Printer to set charges at cost 
plus 50 percent). The User Fee Statute, 31 U.S.C. Sec. 9701, does not 
qualify. See also the remarks of Rep. Glenn English, 132 Cong. Rec. 
H9464 (October 8, 1986) (daily edition) (describing statutes providing 
alternate fees for purposes of the Freedom of Information Act).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Costs of data creation, collection, processing, and similar 
functions are not recoverable from public users. Typically, 
these costs would be incurred by the government whether or not 
the information is disseminated to the public. Thus, if the 
government produces a CD-ROM that it uses itself, the entire 
cost of organizing the data, formatting and mastering the CD-
ROM, writing software and manuals, and any other overhead costs 
are not recoverable from the public. Even if only a single CD-
ROM is used for archival purposes by the government, none of 
these costs is recoverable.
    When an agency offers different information products, the 
fees for each product should be based on the cost of providing 
that product. Costs that cannot be clearly identified with an 
individual product should be allocated in a reasonable manner. 
Any unrecoverable expenses associated with dissemination within 
the agency, to other agencies, to other governmental entities, 
or under a fee waiver may not be recovered from public users.
    The cost of dissemination pricing standard does not affect 
fees chargeable under the Freedom of Information Act or by the 
Government Printing Office. In both cases, a specific alternate 
fee structure is expressly authorized by law.
    New language in H.R. 830 would allow the Director of OMB to 
waive the cost of dissemination pricing standard. This 
authority is dangerous and could easily be misused. For 
example, unfavorable information could be given a high price to 
make it difficult to obtain. Information could be highly priced 
to allow favored agencies or private companies to make large 
profits by making competing government products very expensive. 
It is to be hoped that the Director of OMB will use the 
authority very sparingly, if at all.
    One protection that is afforded by H.R. 830 is the 
prohibition against restrictions on use, resale, or 
redissemination. If a particular information product is highly 
and unfairly priced, the first purchaser will be able to copy 
the information and resell it to others at a lower price. Since 
government information cannot by copyrighted, a high price 
cannot be sustained artificially. This will help curb any 
temptation to use information as a source of revenue.

                                   Bob Wise.
                                   Gary Condit.