Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?
   104th Congress 1st 
         Session
                                 SENATE                 Report
                                                        104-8
_______________________________________________________________________



 
                    PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT OF 1995

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 OF THE

                   COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
                          UNITED STATES SENATE


                             together with



                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                              TO ACCOMPANY

                                 S. 244

  TO FURTHER THE GOALS OF THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT TO HAVE FEDERAL 
AGENCIES BECOME MORE RESPONSIBLE AND PUBLICLY ACCOUNTABLE FOR REDUCING 
  THE BURDEN OF FEDERAL PAPERWORK ON THE PUBLIC AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES




February 14 (legislative day, January 30), 1995.--Ordered to be printed

                   COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

 WILLIAM V. ROTH, Jr., Delaware, 
             Chairman
JOHN GLENN, Ohio                     TED STEVENS, Alaska
SAM NUNN, Georgia                    WILLIAM S. COHEN, Maine
CARL LEVIN, Michigan                 FRED THOMPSON, Tennessee
DAVID PRYOR, Arkansas                THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut     CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii              JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota        BOB SMITH, New Hampshire
 Franklin G. Polk, Staff Director 
         and Chief Counsel
  Leonard Weiss, Minority Staff 
             Director
David F. Plocher, Minority Counsel
  Michal Sue Prosser, Chief Clerk



                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
  I. Purpose..........................................................1
 II. Summary..........................................................2
III. Need for Legislation.............................................4
 IV. Committee Action................................................32
  V. Section-by-Section Analysis.....................................34
 VI. Regulatory and Cost Impact......................................57
VII. Additional Views of Mr. Glenn...................................59
VIII.Changes to Existing Law.........................................61

 IX. Appendix--Summary of ``Best Practices''.........................93
                                                        Calendar No. 21
104th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE

 1st Session                                                      104-8
_______________________________________________________________________



                    PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT OF 1995

                                _______


February 14 (legislative day, January 30), 1995.--Ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________


  Mr. Roth, from the Committee on Governmental Affairs, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 244]

    The Committee on Governmental Affairs, to which was 
referred the bill (S. 244) to strengthen the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1980 and to reauthorize appropriations for the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, having considered 
the same, reports favorably the ``Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995'', with an amendment, and recommends that the bill, as 
amended, do pass.

                               I. Purpose

    The purpose of the ``Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995'' (S. 
244, as amended), is to:
          (1) Reaffirm the fundamental purpose of the Paperwork 
        Reduction Act of 1980--to minimize the Federal 
        paperwork burdens imposed on the public by Government;
          (2) Clarify that the Act applies to all Government-
        sponsored collections of information (including 
        disclosure requirements), eliminating any confusion 
        over the coverage of third-party paperwork burdens 
        (those imposed by one private party on another private 
        party due to a Federal regulatory mandate), caused by 
        the U.S. Supreme Court's 1990 decision in Dole v. 
        United Steel Workers of America;
          (3) Emphasize the fundamental responsibilities of 
        each Federal agency to minimize paperwork burdens and 
        foster paperwork reduction, by requiring a thorough 
        review of each proposed collection of information for 
        need and practical utility, the Act's fundamental 
        standards, agency planning to maximize the use of 
        information already available within Government or 
        already collected by the public, and improved 
        opportunity for public comment on a proposed paperwork 
        requirement;
          (4) Seek to reduce the paperwork burdens imposed on 
        the public through better implementation of the annual 
        Government-wide paperwork reduction goal of 5 percent;
          (5) Reauthorize appropriations for the Office of 
        Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the 
        Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for five years 
        (through FY 2000), at $8 million each year;
          (6) Enhance opportunities for public participation in 
        government decisions regarding paperwork burdens;
          (7) Establish policies to promote the dissemination 
        of public information on a timely and equitable basis, 
        and in useful forms and formats;
          (8) Strengthen agency accountability for managing 
        information resources in support of efficient and 
        effective accomplishment of agency missions and 
        programs; and
          (9) Improve OIRA and other central management agency 
        oversight of agency information resources management 
        (IRM) policies and practices.

                              II. Summary

    The ``Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995'' is substantially 
identical to S. 560, the ``Paperwork Reduction Act of 1994'', 
in the 103rd Congress. S. 560 passed the Senate by unanimous 
voice vote on October 6, 1994. The following day, the text of 
S. 560 was attached to a House-passed bill, H.R. 2561, by 
unanimous consent and returned to the House of Representatives. 
The House Government Operations Committee Chairman declined to 
clear either measure before the adjournment of the 103rd 
Congress.
    S. 560, as passed by the Senate, was a blending of S. 560, 
as introduced, and S. 681, the ``Paperwork Reduction 
Reauthorization Act of 1993''--the two Senate bills of the 
103rd Congress to reauthorize appropriations for IORA and amend 
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (as amended in 1986). S. 
560, as reported by the Committee on August 2, 1994, was the 
product of a year-long, bipartisan effort within the Committee, 
assisted by frequent consultation with staff of the General 
Accounting Office (GAO) and the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB), and the solicitation of public comment.
    While agreement was reached in the Second Session of the 
103rd Congress, the effort to adopt legislation to strengthen 
the Paperwork Reduction Act and reauthorize appropriations for 
OIRA has been on-going within the Committee since the 101st 
Congress. This sustained six-year effort within the Committee 
was supported by efforts of the Committee on Small Business on 
which several Members of the Committee also serve. That 
Committee conducted hearings that focused on testimony from 
representatives of the small business community regarding the 
burdens imposed by Federal paperwork requirements, especially 
the cumulative effects of such requirements, their perspective 
on the implementation of the 1980 Act, and recommendations for 
strengthening the Paperwork Reduction Act.
    S. 244 is premised on the Committee's continuing support 
for the purposes and principles which provide the foundation 
for the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980. While Committee 
oversight throughout the 1980s identified various 
implementational problems, the legislation's proposed 
amendments to the 1980 Act, as amended in 1986, build on and 
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 the 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 regard to the reduction of information collection 
burdens, the legislation maintains the Act's 1986 goal of an 
annual five percent reduction in public paperwork burdens. The 
legislation includes third-party disclosure requirements in the 
definition of collection of information to overturn the Supreme 
Court's decision, Dole v. United Steelworkers of America, 494 
U.S. 26 (1990). This will ensure that such third-party 
information collection and disclosure requirements are subject 
to the Act's paperwork review and clearance processes and its 
public protection provisions. 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 information collection upon public request. 
In combination with more general requirements, such as 
encouraging data sharing between the Federal Government and 
State, local, and tribal governments, the legislation strives 
to further the Act's goals of minimizing government information 
collection burdens, while maximizing the utility of government 
information.
    The legislation also adds further detail to strengthen 
other functional areas, such as statistical policy and 
information dissemination. The dissemination provisions, for 
example, delineate clear policies that were not articulated in 
the Act's previous references to dissemination. These 
provisions require OMB to develop government-wide 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 
reliance on a diversity of public and private sources of 
information to promote dissemination of government information, 
particularly in electronic formats.
    With regard to the Act's over-arching information resources 
management (IRM) policies, the legislation charges agency heads 
with the responsibility to carry out agency IRM activities to 
improve agency productivity, efficiency, and effectiveness. It 
makes program officials responsible and accountable for those 
information resources supporting their programs. The IRM 
mandate is strengthened by focusing on managing information 
resources in order to improve program performance, including 
the delivery of services to the public and the reduction of 
information collection burdens on the public.
    To improve accountability for agency IRM responsibilities, 
as well as enhance the potential to foster paperwork reduction, 
agency responsibilities under 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 develop a 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. With such 
improvements in information resources management, the reduction 
of information collection burdens on the public and maximizing 
the utility of government information will not otherwise occur.

                     III. Need for the Legislation

                              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 
different perspectives on how the government should manage its 
information activities. The Paperwork Reduction Act reflects, 
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).
    Arising out of recommendations of the 1977 Federal 
Paperwork Commission, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 
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. The Act's strategic approach to integrating these 
mandates was perceived as an effective means to reduce burden 
on the public.
    Fifteen years later, the Committee not only continues to 
believe very strongly in the Act's purposes and requirements, 
but also believes that more needs to be done both to further 
paperwork reduction and to strengthen IRM. Again, the key to 
success involves improving OMB leadership, strengthening agency 
management, and encouraging more effective public 
participation.
    Federal information collection burdens continue to mount. 
Not only OMB, but agencies too, must do more to reduce these 
burdens. A major purpose of S. 244, therefore, is to strengthen 
the Act's paperwork control requirements by: (1) Clarifying the 
scope of OMB review; (2) enhancing opportunities for public 
participation, and expanding the Act's public protection 
provisions; and (3) specifying agency paperwork reduction 
responsibilities. With these 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 government 
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 higher 
quality services 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 an acceptable 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 legislation is to 
revise the Act's IRM requirements to refocus the attention of 
Federal managers on the pressing need to use information 
technology to support programs efficiently and effectively. The 
Federal government's annual expenditure of approximately $25 
billion on information technology is seriously compromised by 
inadequate 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

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 has its origins in the 
Federal Reports Act of 1942. The Reports Act authorized the 
Bureau of the Budget (OMB's predecessor office) ``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 or the 
current law's focus on reducing information collection burdens 
on the public, and employing improved information resources 
management to do so, can be clearly traced to 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:

          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.--Information Resources 
        Management: A Report of the Commission on Federal 
        Paperwork, September 9, 1977, p. 9.

    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 review 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 mores 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 it other functions of regulation, 
        defense, enforcement and revenue collection more 
        effectively.
          Information resource 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.--ibid., p.16.

    The Commission's call for a new broader-based legislative 
approach was echoed by others, such as the President's Federal 
Data Processing Reorganization Project and the General 
Accounting Office (see Senate Report No. 96-930, pp. 109-111, 
for a list of GAO reports describing agency information 
management problems and recommended solutions). The consensus 
view was to simultaneously strengthen central policy management 
agency leadership and to improve the management of information 
resources in Federal agencies to attain the dual goals of 
reducing public paperwork burdens and making more effective use 
of the information collected by government. The result was the 
Paperwork Reduction Act (P.L. 96-511), which was 
enthusiastically signed into law in December 1980 by the 
outgoing President, Jimmy Carter. It was just as 
enthusiastically embraced 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, including those 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 types 
        of government-sponsored information 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 1980 Act's core objective of minimizing paperwork 
burdens imposed on the public was also strengthened by the 
Act's coverage of information collections contained in and 
associated with regulations. The Committee report accompanying 
the bill that became the 1980 Act applauded OMB ``efforts to 
oversee the information management and burden aspects of 
government regulations. This emphasis has great promise for 
minimizing the explosion of paperwork demands on the public 
because new regulations are causing the greatest growth in 
information requirements.'' Senate Report 96-930, September 8, 
1980 p. 8.
    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 government-wide policy and oversight functions in 
a new office within OMB, the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs.
    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 of 
        1949) 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 ADP Act'' of 1965 (P.L. 89-306, amending 
        the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 
        1949) 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.
    An additional function encompassed within this management 
framework established under the 1980 Act was oversight of the 
information management and burden aspects of government 
regulations. The Act emphasizes the linkage between oversight 
of the regulatory process and the closely related information 
management functions established by law. This linkage can be 
directly traced to the recognition of the Act's sponsors that 
new regulations are a principal source of new and expanded 
information collection requirements.
    This range of policies and requirements consolidated under 
the umbrella of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 
demonstrates Congress's resolve to establish a comprehensive 
approach equal to the task of managing information needed by 
the Government 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 on purpose, need and approach which 
contributed to the enactment of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1980, the Act's implementation has not been without 
controversy, especially with respect to the activities of OIRA. 
When the 1980 Act went into effect on April 1, 1981, OIRA was 
charged with additional responsibilities under President 
Reagan's executive order regarding regulatory review (Executive 
Order No. 12291, issued February 17, 1981). E.O. 12291 created 
a process for cost/benefit review of proposed agency 
regulations, which OMB integrated within OIRA as a complement 
to OIRA's responsibilities under the 1980 Act to review and 
approve proposed agency paperwork requirements (see 1981 and 
1982 testimony of then-OIRA Administrators, Hearings before the 
Subcommittee on Federal Expenditures, Research, and Rules of 
the Senate Comm. on Governmental Affairs, March 18, 1981, p. 
22, and April 14, 1982).
    With OMB taking an integrated approach to paperwork 
reduction and regulatory review, OIRA's implementation of the 
1980 Act became embroiled in a political debate about the 
Administration's regulatory policy. During the 1980s this 
controversy has periodically distracted the Committee from 
oversight of the core objective of the 1980 Act--rationalizing 
and minimizing the paperwork burdens being proposed by the 
various Executive departments and agencies as well as 
independent regulatory agencies. It complicated the 
consideration of legislation reauthorizing appropriations for 
OIRA between 1983 and 1986, and again between 1989 and 1992. A 
review of the Act's requirements, OMB's implementation of the 
Act, and this Committee's actions reflects this problematic 
history.
    Responding to the paperwork burden reduction goals included 
in the Act, OIRA reported success in the battle against ``red 
tape''--a 32 percent reduction by January 1984. This 
performance exceeded the Act's initial statutory goal of a 25 
percent reduction in paperwork burdens which government imposed 
on the American public.
    Despite success in minimizing paperwork burdens on the 
public, GAO reported several times that OMB was not making 
sufficient progress on implementing the full range of its 
statutory obligations under the Act, which GAO identified as 39 
discrete tasks some one-time actions others on-going 
responsibilities. For example, GAO noted that OMB did not issue 
policy guidance to agencies on information technology, 
statistical policy, records management, privacy, and 
information dissemination until it issued a comprehensive OMB 
circular, OMB Circular No. A-130, on December 12, 1985 (40 Fed. 
Reg. 52730, December 24, 1985). According to GAO, the principal 
reason for these missed implementation dates was OMB's 
concentration on the review of proposed paperwork agency 
burdens and the review of proposed regulations under the 
authority of Executive Order No. 12291.
    While GAO was critical of OIRA for the focus of its 
efforts, many in the private sector, especially the small 
business community, applauded OIRA's focus on proposed 
paperwork requirements and proposed regulations. It was their 
view that review of proposed paperwork requirements and 
regulations was the central mission of OIRA under both the 1980 
Act and Executive Order 12291.
    OIRA's concentration on paperwork clearance and regulatory 
review was also criticized in some quarters for the extent to 
which it was said to involve OIRA in substantive program 
decisions of Federal agencies. It was also alleged by some that 
individual interest groups had special access and opportunity 
to affect review decisions. These assertions were disputed in 
testimony and other submissions to the Committee by OIRA and 
those who maintained that OIRA was properly discharging its 
responsibilities under both the 1980 Act and Executive Order 
12291.
    These alleged improprieties and abuses by OIRA were 
addressed Committee during hearings conducted by the Committee 
and various of its subcommittees throughout the 1980s. For a 
comprehensive list of hearings in the Committee and in other 
Senate and House committees, see Senate Report No. 102-256, 
Appendices I & II, pp. 68-70.

            d. 1986 oira reauthorization--public law 99-591

    The authorization for appropriations for the Office of 
information and Regulatory Affairs expired on September 30, 
1983. Those with unabated concerns regarding OIRA's regulatory 
reviews responsibilities under the authority of Executive Order 
12291 focused attention of some Members of the Committee on 
these issues.
    The 1986 legislation reauthorizing appropriations for OIRA 
and making amendments to the 1980 Act were complicated by these 
on-going concerns regarding OIRA's regulatory review activities 
among some Members of the Committee. First, an agreement within 
the Committee on a bipartisan reauthorization bill was linked 
to an agreement with the Reagan Administration regarding new 
administrative procedures to insure agency and public access to 
the regulatory review process. (See, Senate Report No. 99-347, 
pp. 14-15, July 31, 1986)
    Second, the Committee agreement was also linked to the 
Reagan Administration's support of a statutory clarification 
designed to overcome a legal opinion issued by the Department 
of Justice which had been used by agencies to avoid adhering to 
the Act's requirements.
    Third, the 1986 legislation contained provisions to address 
the concerns flowing from OIRA's concurrent responsibilities 
for review and approval of proposed agency paperwork 
requirements under the authority of the 1980 Act and its review 
of proposed agency regulations under Executive Order 12291. The 
1986 amendments modified the 1980 Act to require disclosure of 
written communications between OIRA and agencies or the public 
regarding paperwork proposals, and to include in the record 
paperwork clearance decisions by OIRA.
    The 1986 legislation built upon the foundation of the 1980 
Act by:
          Establishing an annual five percent paperwork burden 
        reduction goal,
          Requiring agencies to provide the public with more 
        information about paperwork proposals,
          Requiring OIRA to identify initiatives to reduce 
        paperwork burdens associated with Federal grant 
        programs, and
          Revising the definition of ``information collection 
        request'' to include ``collection of information 
        requirement.'' This definitional change ensured that 
        collections of information specifically contained in 
        rules would be governed by all aspects of the Act's 
        paperwork clearance process (and not in a limited way, 
        as argued in a 1982 Department of Justice memorandum).
    (See, Senate Report No. 99-347, p. 52 (July 31, 1986))
    With regard to IRM and other information functions, the 
1986 amendments also built upon the 1980 Act by:
          Defining the term ``information resources 
        management'';
          Providing new requirements and deadlines for IRM 
        plans and policies;
          Requiring the appointment of a professional 
        statistician to carry out a broadened array of OMB's 
        statistical policy functions;
          Revising the scope of the Act's information 
        technology provisions;
          Strengthening OMB responsibilities for information 
        security and dissemination; and
          Mandating steps to make government information more 
        accessible to the public.
    Finally, the 1986 amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1980 required Senate confirmation of the OIRA Administrator. 
This was a further demonstration by the Committee of the 
importance that it accorded to OIRA's functions and in the 
Committee's oversight of those functions.

               e. dole v. united steelworkers of america

    In 1990, the Paperwork Reduction Act faced its most serious 
challenge when the Supreme Court limited the reach of Act's 
authority in Dole v. United Steelworkers of America, 494 U.S. 
26 (1990). This decision became a lightning rod in the debate 
between those criticizing OIRA's paperwork review and 
regulatory review activities and those supporting a strong 
review process for proposed paperwork burdens.
    Dole involved an OIRA paperwork clearance disapproval of 
several paperwork requirements implementing provisions in the 
OSHA Hazard Communication (HAZCOM) Standard. The HAZCOM 
Standard requires employers to inform employees of hazardous 
chemicals in the workplace. After lengthy litigation over the 
OSHA rule and OIRA's role in the clearance of the associated 
paperwork requirements, 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 collections or disclosure 
requirements. Former Senator Lawton Chiles of Florida, the 
sponsor of the Senate bill that became the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1980, filed an amicus brief which argued that the Act 
was intended to reach all Federally-sponsored paperwork 
burdens, irrespective of their format. The Court held that the 
plain meaning of the statute's words could not support such a 
finding. Those segments of the public most burdened by Federal 
paperwork requirements, especially the small business 
community, became alarmed that the protections afforded the 
public by the 1980 Act could be circumvented by simply 
recasting the proposed paperwork burden as a third-party 
paperwork requirement, i.e., one imposed by a private party on 
another private party, even if directed to do so by a Federal 
agency regulation. In the view of the advocates of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act, the Supreme Court had created a 
potentially enormous loophole that could be readily exploited 
by an agency simply by recasting the form of a proposed 
paperwork burden.
    In late 1990, the Committee reached an agreement with the 
Bush Administration with respect to a bill (S. 1742) to 
reauthorize appropriations for OIRA and to amend the Paperwork 
Reduction Act. At the same time, the principal Committee 
proponents of S. 1742 sought to obtain the issuance of a new 
Executive Order to provide expanded public access to the OMB 
regulatory review process. Unfortunately, the 1990 
reauthorization bill, S. 1742, did not pass because the full 
Senate failed to agree. For comments of Members of the 
Committee, see, statements of Senators Glenn and Roth, Cong. 
Record S17608-17610 (October 27, 1990); Senate Hrg. 102-821, 
``Nominations of Francis S. Hodsoll and Edward J. Mazur,'' 
Hearing before the Senate Comm. on Governmental Affairs, p. 17, 
October 30, 1991, and statement of Senator Roth, Cong. Record 
S795-799 (January 31, 1992).
    OIRA reauthorization was not achieved during the 102nd 
Congress, largely because of a renewal of the regulatory review 
controversy. Committee oversight of the regulatory review role 
of the Council on Competitiveness, chaired by Vice President 
Dan Quayle, gave rise to legislation from the Committee to 
require extensive disclosures to the public during the course 
of the regulatory review process (S. 1942, the ``Regulatory 
Review Sunshine Act''; Senate Hrg. 102-1135, ``The Role of the 
Council on Competitiveness in Regulatory Review,'' Hearing 
before the Senate Comm. on Governmental Affairs, October 24 and 
November 15, 1991; and Senate Report No. 102-256, February 25, 
1992; see also the statement of Senator Roth, introducing S. 
2172, the ``Regulatory Improvement and Accountability Act,'' 
January 31, 1992, Cong. Record S795-799).
    On January 21, 1993, President Clinton announced an 
initiative to develop a new Executive Order on Regulatory 
Planning and Review to replace Executive Order 12291. The new 
Executive Order was expected to address the public disclosure 
issues that had prevented the Committee from taking action on 
pending legislation, S. 1139 sponsored by Senator Nunn. That 
bill, like S. 244, focused on strengthening the Paperwork 
Reduction Act and would have reauthorized appropriations for 
OIRA, matters distinct from the controversy regarding OIRA's 
conduct of its regulatory review responsibilities under 
Executive Order 12291.

                      d. 1994 legislation--s. 560

    Legislative efforts in the 103rd Congress began with the 
introduction of two bills to reauthorize appropriations for 
OIRA and amend the Paperwork Reduction Act--S. 560 and S. 681. 
Discussions among the primary Committee sponsors of the two 
bills, Senators Nunn and Roth, and Senators Glenn and Levin, 
respectively, and with officials of the Clinton Administration 
suggested that a renewed cooperative efforts could produce a 
bill adopting many of the features of each measure.
    Prospects for achieving an OIRA reauthorization were 
subsequently improved when President Clinton issued the 
promised Executive Order on ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' 
(Executive Order No. 12866, September 30, 1993). This order 
superseded President Reagan's two regulatory review orders 
(E.O. 12291 and E.O. 12498). Executive Order 12866 maintained 
OMB review of proposed agency regulatory actions, but also 
established ``sunshine'' requirements that mitigated concerns 
of some members of the Committee and some in the public about 
fairness and public accountability.
    The new regulatory review order on its issuance received 
broad-based support from state and local officials, business, 
and public interest groups and concern over OIRA regulatory 
review subsided. Efforts to reauthorize OIRA appropriations and 
adopt amendments to strengthen the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1980 then proceeded, with the three major issues being 
additional efforts to foster paperwork reduction, improve 
information technology management, and advance information 
dissemination.
    With more than fourteen years of experience under the 1980 
Act, it is clear that implementation of the information 
resources management (IRM) provisions of the Act should be 
modified and strengthened to meet the challenged of the 
Information Age. To continue to achieve the fundamental 
objectives of the 1980 Act, amendments are needed to strengthen 
each functional IRM area: IRM policy; IRM utilization to 
minimize paperwork burden; information dissemination; 
statistics; records management; information security and 
privacy; and information technology management.
    First, with regard to the minimization and reduction of 
paperwork burdens on the public, continuous improvement is 
essential, given increased Government needs for information and 
sustained growth of statutorily-based and regulatorily-based 
information collections. Increased OMB attention to specific 
annual paperwork reduction goals will help focus attention on 
this important task by senior agency managers. Increased 
emphasis on agency responsibilities to minimize paperwork 
burdens on the public, and earlier opportunity for public 
comment, will lead to more thorough agency review of proposed 
information collections before their submission to OIRA. 
Finally, the disparate treatment of information disclosure and 
third-party information collection requirements, introduced by 
the Dole decision needs to be corrected to prevent a potential 
for substantially weakening the Act's future effectiveness.
    The Act's IRM provisions are also in need of adjustment for 
a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the 
availability of new information technology. Over the past 14 
years, GAO reports and subcommittee hearings have pointed out 
that OIRA has given insufficient emphasis to its IRM 
responsibilities. 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--for example, 
those presented by the recommendations of the Vice President's 
National Performance Review (NPR) and National Information 
Infrastructure (NII) initiatives.
    Given these opportunities, the Act's provisions for public 
participation are doubly important. The Committee continues to 
believe that:

          A key to successful information resources management 
        is public participation and comment on the development 
        and implementation of information policy. Effective 
        public comment at the front end of decision processes 
        is particularly beneficial. Public participation in 
        itself is a resource which should be tapped by agency 
        official planning and designing collection of 
        information. Senate Report 96-930, p. 16.

To strengthen and expand opportunities for more meaningful 
public comment and participation, a number of the Act's 
provisions need amendment.
    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 
management 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 minimizing burden. 
Without this effort, government information activities will be 
too wasteful and too burdensome, and the American public will 
have confirmed their worst views regarding government's demands 
for and subsequent use of information obtained from the public.
    The Committee believes that information obtained by 
government is a valuable and useful resource to government and 
society, if 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 improved IRM 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), released at the 
Committee's May 19, 1994, hearing; 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, recognizing that improved IRM could be a powerful 
tool to rationalize, minimize, and reduce paperwork burdens 
imposed on the public. The 1980 Act called for the efficient 
and effective management of information and related resources, 
like other government resources. The management structure 
required by the Act was intended to insure that agency IRM 
activities be given more attention and visibility from top 
management. In most agencies, however, management continues to 
overlook the importance of these activities, particularly with 
regard to their supporting the fulfillment of agency policies 
and programs. Consequently, during the period the law has been 
in effect, most agencies have made little progress in improving 
the management of their information resources.
    Furthermore, within the past decade, the public has grown 
accustomed to the benefits of using information technology to 
reduce the burden and improve the cost, quality, and timeliness 
of product and service delivery. 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 spent at least $25 billion on information 
systems in 1993, and more than $200 billion over the last 12 
years. 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.
    GAO's information management transition reports in 1988 and 
1992 underscored how agencies lack critical information needed 
to analyze programmatic issues, control costs, and measure 
results (``Information Management and Technology Issues,'' GAO/
OCG-93-5TR, December 1992; ``Information Technology Issues,'' 
GAO/OCG-89-6TR, November 1988). Examples of Federal agency 
systems failures documented by GAO over the past 10 years 
include:
          The outlay of millions of dollars of unauthorized 
        student loans because of poor information tracking;
          Over $1 billion of mistaken Medicare payments;
          The release of highly sensitive data on law 
        enforcement informants through mismanagement of 
        security; and
          Inadequate financial data on agencies' basic 
        operations that frustrates financial management and 
        auditing.
    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 organization's ability to define how new 
information systems support its mission, meet customer needs, 
or respond more quickly to change.
    Without action by Federal executives, the gap between 
public expectations 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 technology. Most Federal managers will continue to operate 
without the financial and 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 
information systems that simply add on another automated layer 
of bureaucracy.
    Given both these risks and the potential for improvement, 
business as usual is simply no longer a tenable option for 
Federal executives. 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 (``Reengineering 
through Information Technology'', Accompanying Report of the 
National Performance Review, September 1993). And the specific 
performance planning and reporting requirements of the 
Government Performance and Results Act (P.L. 103-62) point to a 
time in the very near future when agency managers 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 the Committee reported in 1980:

          The purpose of aggregating these [information 
        management] functions within the single office [OIRA] 
        is to establish a government-wide policy framework for 
        ``information resources management''. . . . The 
        Committee strongly believes the application of this 
        policy framework for information resources management 
        will result in financial savings to the government . . 
        . and a substantial reduction in paperwork burden on 
        the public.--Senate Report 96-930, pp. 7-8.

    Through the Paperwork Reduction Act, 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.'' ``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 managing information technology) 
already established through various laws.
    The Act's OMB/agency IRM structure was to establish an 
identifiable line of accountability for information management 
activities between the OMB Director and individual agencies and 
within agencies. Not only would this structure enable agencies 
to better manage their information resources, but also it would 
enable 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 a 
variety of other functions, such as personnel and procurement. 
The common result was that these already developed functions 
took precedence over the (newly coordinated) IRM 
responsibilities, which meant that subordinate officials 
continued to manage IRM activities, as before. Investments in 
information technology also continued to be managed as before--
isolated projects not evaluated or coordinated to assure 
compatibility among systems let alone priority to or actual 
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 need for an 
effective and integrated IRM strategy for the Federal 
Government became even more critical. As GAO repeatedly 
reported, OIRA's limited resources resulted in the delegation 
of IRM tasks to GSA and insufficient oversight of the operating 
agencies. (See Senate Report 98-576, pp. 6, 8; Senate Report 
101-487, p. 39.)
    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 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:
    S. 244 maintains OMB's central IRM role. The OIRA 
Administrator should still prescribe government-wide IRM 
policies and guidance (with support from other central 
management agencies), should still oversee agency 
implementation, and should still 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, S. 244 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, the legislation 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 head create a permanent 
senior-level agency IRM steering committee. Neither the 
functional responsibilities nor the management accountability 
are new creations under this legislation. The 1980 Act, as well 
as other information management laws, vest these duties in 
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 on IRM best practices. ``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.

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 1995, 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 not resulted in a reduction of the total paperwork 
burden on the public. New statutory requirements, and the 
regulatorily implementation of these new laws, have frequently 
established new information requirements. 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 
cumulative paperwork burdens and more faithful implementation 
of the Act.
    First, despite the Act's mandate, cumulative government-
sponsored paperwork burdens on the public continue to be a real 
and serious problem. At Committee 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 May 19, 
1994, 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. William Hunt of 
GAO said at that same hearing that, according to OMB's 
tabulations, the American public spends more than 6.5 billion 
hours every year filling out government forms and complying 
with paperwork regulations.
    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% in 1982 and 10% 
in 1983). Within several years, however, the paperwork problem 
proved to be more intractable. OMB's government-wide 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 the burden imposed 
by existing information collections. 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 
(Testimony of William Hunt, Director, Federal Management Issues 
Group, General Government Division, GAO, May 19, 1994).
    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 maintains the Act's five percent annual burden 
reduction goal 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.
    A second set of paperwork control issues involves the 
substance of OMB's paperwork clearance decision-making. As has 
already been discussed, witnesses before this Committee and 
other Committees have asserted that in past administrations OMB 
used the paperwork clearance process to affect the policies and 
substantive requirements of agency decisions, particularly in 
the areas of public health and safety, and environmental 
protection.
    Other witnesses have questioned the validity of these 
accusations. The only consistently common view has been that 
OIRA and the agencies are expected by the Committee to 
conscientiously conduct the process of reviewing proposed 
paperwork burdens pursuant to the standards and procedures 
specified in the 1980 Act and the 1986 amendments.
    The Committee is mindful of these criticisms of the 
paperwork clearance process. Support from the Committee on 
OIRA's role in particular clearance decisions has not always 
been unanimous. And the Committee wishes to stress again its 
special role in exercising oversight of OIRA's activities 
regarding the clearance of proposed paperwork requirements. As 
the Committee has noted, and supported with action, previously:

          The Congress itself has the responsibility and must 
        ultimately ensure that the authority granted to the 
        Director of OMB by this Act over both Executive branch 
        and independent regulatory agencies and the override 
        authority is not abused. As the history of the original 
        Federal Reports Act demonstrates, the Congress has the 
        prerogative and capability to change those authorities. 
        (S. Rpt. 96-930, p. 16)

    Despite concerns with the past, the Committee is united in 
its continuing belief in the need for, and the requirements of, 
the paperwork clearance process, as well as the need for it to 
remain comprehensive and without loopholes.
    It is because of the Committee's commitment to this goal 
that the current legislation overturns Dole v. United 
Steelworkers of America. The Supreme Court's 1990 decision held 
that the Paperwork Reduction Act's paperwork clearance process 
for agency information ``collections'' does not cover agency 
information ``disclosure'' requirements. Former Senator Lawton 
Chiles of Florida, the sponsor of the legislation that became 
the 1980 Act filed an amicus brief urging the Court that the 
Act was intended to reach such Government-sponsored third-party 
paperwork burdens, those imposed by one private party on 
another private party. The Court found that the plain meaning 
of the Act's statutory language did not support such a holding. 
The need for a comprehensive and conclusive process for the 
review of agency information activities that burden the public 
requires the Committee to clarify the Act to overturn the 
Court's holding.
    Moreover, while Dole did not immediately unleash a flood of 
paperwork on the American people, as some feared, at least two 
agencies did use the decision to avoid OMB review. At the 
request of Senator Glenn, then chairman of the Committee, GAO 
studied the impact of the Court decision. 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. While the Committee believes OMB missed an 
opportunity by not issuing guidance to agencies on Dole, as 
recommended by GAO, the best solution now is to statutorily 
preclude the possibility of 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.
    Conclusively reestablishing the comprehensive paperwork 
clearance process should not be interpreted as expanding OMB's 
statutory authority to review and control agency decisions 
beyond that provided by the Act. The Committee reaffirms its 
1980 position that OMB not use the Act to undertake regulatory 
reform issues that ``go beyond the scope of information 
management and burden'' (Senate Rpt. 96-930, pp. 8-9). Given 
past controversies, the Committee urges OMB to be vigilant in 
its use of its authorized statutory powers.
    For these reasons, and as in 1986, the current legislation 
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.
    In this regard, a statement by the OIRA Administrator at 
the Committee's May 19, 1994, hearing is encouraging:

          A significant challenge . . . is to develop 
        mechanisms to make government information, particularly 
        information in electronic formats, more easily 
        accessible to the public and easier to share among 
        agencies so that the information collection burden on 
        the public can be minimized.

    S. 244, as amended, seeks to improve the law to more 
clearly address the benefits as well as the burdens of 
Federally-sponsored collections of 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'' from 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, S. 244, 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 government-wide goal for the 
reduction of information collection burdens by at least five 
percent 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 to 
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. S. 244, 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 it is to be publicly 
available and include an explanation of the OMB decision. 
Further, communications between the Office of the OMB Director, 
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 of 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 information collected 
by Federal agencies. This will require additional attention be 
paid to establishing common standards for data exchange and for 
interoperability 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 1986 amendments to 
the Act, dissemination has emerged as a particularly important 
functional information area due to new opportunities for 
improve dissemination of and public access to government-held 
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 this reason, and as 
described below, the Committee believes it is important to 
provide a more detailed statement of dissemination policies in 
statute.
    S. 244, therefore, provides a statutory 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. OMB has an 
obligation to promote public access to government information 
through the development and oversight of government-wide 
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 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 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. Finally, 
agencies must fulfill legal requirements for dissemination, 
such as use of the Government Printing Office's Sales and 
Depository Library Programs. Multiple access points and 
multiple formats simply serve to enhance dissemination of 
government information to the public.
    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. As better standards for organizing and accessing 
databases are developed, agencies need to work toward common 
protocols that will make direct public access a practical 
reality. This goal of creating a means for agencies and the 
public to obtain, and not merely locate, government-held 
information should guide the development of GILS.
    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, and 
in response to complaints from the statistical community, the 
1986 amendments required OMB to appoint a professional 
statistician to the position of Chief Statistician to carry out 
OIRA's statistical policy responsibilities.
    S. 244 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.
    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, S. 244 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.
    S. 244 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 recent 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 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 government-
wide 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 will provide leadership in identifying statistical 
priorities and in identifying and recommending corresponsing 
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 OMB 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.--Senate Report 96-930, pp. 100-101.

    During the early years of the Act's implementation, 
however, OMB largely ignored this function, allowing GSA and 
subsequently the National Archives and Records Administration 
(NARA) (created in 1985), to deal with the executive agencies. 
Not until 1993 revision to OMB Circular No. A-130 did OMB 
provide significant policy guidance to agencies on records 
management (see also, A-130, Appendix IV).
    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-line 
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 future records may well 
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.
    S. 244 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. As noted in past testimony before the Committee by 
representatives of the Association of Records Managers and 
Administrators, 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, reports clearance, and 
computer security functions.
    S. 244 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).

    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 the technology to 
support government operations has been a historical problem. As 
described in a July 1980 letter from the Comptroller General, 
the management of automatic data processing equipment (ADPE) 
was characterized by: (1) confusion of policy roles between OMB 
and GSA; (2) overly complex and costly software that too often 
fails to meet user needs, is inefficient, or simply does not 
work; and (3) 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 ADP Act were not 
changed, the Comptroller General stated that, by reemphasizing 
the Brooks ADP Act, the 1980 Paperwork Reduction Act 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 recommendation, the Comptroller General 
listed 70 GAO reports describing deficiencies in agency 
information management activities, with 31 dealing specifically 
with information technology problems (see Senate Report 96-930, 
pp. 99-110).
    Since the passage of the Act, agencies have continued to 
spend more and more on information technology (now over $25 
billion a year). 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.
    ``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 the latest report by GAO describing ways 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. Based 
on the findings of that report, Gene Dodaro, Assistant 
Comptroller General for Accounting and Information Management, 
testified before the Committee on May 19, 1994, and recommended 
that the Paperwork Reduction Act be amended in the following 
ways:
          Clarify that line managers--both senior executives 
        and program managers--are accountable for effectively 
        managing information and accountable for achieving 
        meaningful results from technology investments.
          Require agencies to implement practices to ensure 
        that information technology investments effectively 
        support agency missions. Information technology 
        investments must be driven by business plans and 
        effective controls over these investments need to be in 
        place.
          Encourage agencies to redesign business practices and 
        supporting systems before making major investments in 
        upgrading or replacing existing systems.
          Require agencies to establish performance measures to 
        evaluate the effectiveness of information technology 
        support for agency missions. These measures should be 
        developed consistent with the requirements of the 
        Government Performance and Results Act.
          Require agencies to integrate information technology 
        operations and decisions into organization-wide 
        planning, budgeting, financial management, human 
        resources management, and program decisions. Technology 
        decisions should not be separate activities, but rather 
        should be integrated into an agency's overall planning 
        and decision-making structure.
    The recommendations were presented by GAO at the 
Committee's hearing on May 19, 1994 and were well received by 
many Members of the Committee. Further, it should be noted that 
some of the provisions of S. 244 will strengthen the 1980 Act's 
information technology management provisions by implementing 
some of the GAO's recommendations.

Conclusion

    Based on the record compiled by this Committee, during both 
this Congress and preceding attempts to amend the Paperwork 
Reduction Act and reauthorize appropriations for the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, there is ample evidence of 
the need to reauthorize OIRA 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. S. 244 
accomplishes these purposes and the Committee strongly endorses 
its enactment.

                          IV. Committee Action

    S. 244, the ``Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995'' was 
introduced on January 19, 1995, by Senator Nunn, for himself, 
Senator Roth, Senator Glenn, Senator Bond, Senator Bumpers, and 
17 other Senators from both sides of the aisle. S. 244 is 
substantially identical to S. 560 as ordered reported 
unanimously by the Committee on August 2, 1994 and subsequently 
passed by the Senator on October 6, 1994.
    S. 560 combined the provisions of the two bills from the 
103rd Congress, S. 560 and S. 681. Both bills made amendments 
to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 and provided a 
reauthorization of appropriations for the Office of Information 
and Regulatory Affairs, but approached those common purposes 
differently.
    S. 560, the ``Paperwork Reduction Act of 1993,'' was 
introduced on March 10, 1993, by Senator Nunn, for himself, 
Senator Bumpers, Senator Roth, Senator Danforth, and 22 other 
Senators. The bill focused on minimizing and rationalizing the 
paperwork burdens imposed on the public by Government-sponsored 
paperwork burdens. It sought to make Federal agencies more 
responsible and accountable for the paperwork requirements 
which they proposed. Simultaneously, S. 560 sought to empower 
the public regarding participation in the review of proposed 
regulations and the policing of agency compliance with the 
requirements of the Act. A major provision of S. 560 was 
amendments to the 1980 Act to make explicit that third-party 
paperwork burdens are subject to the Act, thus closing the 
serious loophole created by the Supreme Court's 1990 decision 
in Dole v. United Steelworkers of America.  S. 560 was based on 
S. 1139, legislation from the 102nd Congress, also introduced 
by Senator Nunn. S. 1139 reflected many of the provisions 
Senator Nunn, and other Members from both sides of the aisle, 
advocated on behalf of the small business community as 
amendments to S. 1742 during the 101st Congress.
    S. 681, the ``Paperwork Reduction Reauthorization Act of 
1993,'' was introduced on March 31, 1993, by Senator Glenn, for 
himself, and Senators Levin and Akaka. In addition to 
amendments strengthening the paperwork reduction aspects of the 
1980 Act, this bill emphasized amendments designed to improve 
Government-wide information resources management (IRM) by 
strengthening OMB's policymaking authorities and 
responsibilities and making corresponding modifications to the 
IRM responsibilities of the individual Federal agencies. S. 681 
also established public accountability procedures for executive 
branch regulatory review. S. 681 was based on S. 1044, from the 
102nd Congress, which was in turn based on S. 1742, from the 
101st Congress.
    On May 19, 1994, the Committee held its major hearing in 
the 103rd Congress to consider legislation to reauthorize 
OIRA's appropriations, strengthen the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1980, and review OIRA's implementation of the 1980 Act as 
well as its regulatory review activities under President 
Clinton's Executive Order 12866 (Successor to E.O. 12291 and 
E.O. 12498 under the Reagan and Bush Administrations). 
Testimony included comments and discussion regarding a 
Committee staff draft that blended many of the provisions of S. 
681 with those of S. 560.
    Witnesses at the May 19, 1994, hearing were: Gene L. 
Dodaro, Assistant Comptroller General, Accounting and 
Information Management Division, U.S. General Accounting 
Office, accompanied by Jack L. Brock, Director, IRM Policies 
and Issues Group, Accounting and Information Management 
Division, and William M. Hunt, Director, Federal Management 
Issues Group, General Government Division; Sally Katzen, 
Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 
Office of Management and Budget; C. Boyden Gray, Chairman, 
Citizens for a Sound Economy; Robert E. Coakley, Executive 
Director, Council on Regulatory and Information Management, and 
Lorraine Lavet, Director of Domestic Policy, U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce (Co-Chairs, Paperwork Reduction Act Coalition); David 
C. Vladeck, Director, Public Citizen Litigation Group; and Gary 
D. Bass, Executive Director, OMB Watch.
    In addition to the record of this hearing in the 103rd 
Congress, the Committee relied upon the five hearings conducted 
by the Committee and its Subcommittee on Government Information 
and Regulation during the 101st Congress and the 102nd 
Congress. These include: Nomination of S. Jay Plager to be 
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs (S. Hrg. 101-    , June 14, 1988); Reauthorization of 
the Paperwork Reduction Act (S. Hrg. 101-166, June 12 and 16 
1989, by the Subcommittee on Government Information and 
Regulation); Reauthorization of OMB's Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs (S. Hrg. 101-588, February 21 and 22, 1990); 
Nomination of James F. Blumstein to be Administrator of the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (S. Hrg. 101-1176, 
October 23, 1990); and Nominations of Francis S. Hodsoll and 
Edward J. Mazur (S. Hrg. 102-821, October 30, 1991).
    The Committee also had the benefit of the records from two 
hearings conducted by the Committee on Small Business, 
focussing on the small business community's assessment of 
agency implementation of the 1980 Act as well as 
recommendations for strengthening the Act. These include: 
``Implementation of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980'' (S. 
Hrg. 101-315, September 7, 1989) and ``Restraining Paperwork 
Burdens on Small Business: Implementation of the `Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1980' and Recommendations to Make it More 
Effective'' (S. Hrg. 102-592; June 25, 1991).
    S. 244 was considered by the Committee during a mark-up on 
February 1, 1995.
    During the mark-up, the Committee considered and adopted by 
voice vote an amendment offered by Chairman Roth for Senator 
Cohen, Senator Glenn, Senator Nunn, and himself. This amendment 
deleted some of the bill's detail regarding the IRM 
responsibilities of OMB, OIRA, and the individual departments 
and agencies. The objective of the amendment was to refocus the 
Act's IRM policy guidance away from process and procedures and 
toward results-oriented standards. The amendment also 
eliminated several unnecessary references to existing law 
relating to the acquisition of information technology (IT) 
(e.g., the existing cross-references in the Paperwork Reduction 
Act to the delegation of procurement authority under the Brooks 
ADP Act). The amendment was offered and accepted with the 
expectation that the Committee was likely to be considering 
later during the 104th Congress legislation making further 
modifications to the Act's IRM provisions and other legislation 
relating to IT planning and Acquisition.
    Following adoption of the IRM/IT amendment, the Committee, 
by unanimous roll-call vote, ordered S. 244 reported favorably 
to the Senate.

                     V. Section-by-Section Analysis

Section 1. Short Title

    This section establishes the short title of the bill as the 
``Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995''.

Section 2. Revision of Act

    This legislation is drafted as a recodification of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, as previously amended in 1986, 
which is codified at chapter 35, title 44, United States Code. 
The bill is drafted in the format of a recodification of the 
entire Chapter at the recommendation of Senate Legislative 
Counsel due to the number of proposed changes to current law. 
The recodified Chapter includes changes that range from 
substance to style. It includes 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 1980 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. It is the 
intent of the Committee that the Act's prior legislative 
history remain unchanged and continue to be viewed an important 
explanation of the Congressional intent underpinning the Act's 
provisions. To the extent S. 244 modifies provisions in current 
law, it is done strictly 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 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 government information 
activities. It also adds the purpose of improving the 
responsibility and accountability of the Office of Management 
and Budget and other Federal agencies to the Congress and to 
the public for effectively implementing the requirements of the 
Act.

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 a collection of information (e.g., the resources 
expended for reviewing instructions; acquiring, installing, and 
utilizing technology to 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 from current law is 
intended by the use of these examples. The Committee wants to 
cover all burdens associated with an 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 phases 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 clearance of a 
proposed collection of information pursuant to sections 3506 
and 3507, determinations of ``need'' pursuant to section 3508, 
and the protections afforded directly to the public by section 
3512.
    Whether a ``collection of information'' is conducted for or 
simply 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 information disclosure requirements are 
within the scope of the Act.
    To the extent that the debate over the Dole decision has 
involved charges that overturning the decision would amount to 
legislatively authorizing substantive regulatory review, the 
Committee notes that the Act, as stated in section 3518(e) of 
current law, is not to be ``interpreted as increasing or 
decreasing the authority . . . [of the President or the OMB 
Director] with respect to the substantive policies and programs 
of [agencies]''. As the Court noted in Dole regarding OSHA's 
Hazard Communication Standard, which was reviewed by OIRA under 
the 1980 Act, ``The promulgation of a disclosure rule is a 
final agency action that represents a substantive regulatory 
choice.'' Such an agency regulatory action does not mean that 
OMB could not or should not review the information collection 
aspects of that regulatory choice. As reflected by the 
inclusion of the provisions in section 3507(d) (section 3504(h) 
in current law), the Paperwork Reduction Act was meant to and 
does reach information collections contained in or derived from 
regulations. The nature of a collection of information as a 
regulatory requirement cannot in itself be allowed to shield 
the collection from the OMB Director's authority provided by 
the 1980 Act, including section 3508.
    OMB's concurrent authority to review and approve proposed 
agency collections of information under the 1980 Act and to 
review proposed agency regulations under presidential executive 
orders has engendered confusion regarding the relationship 
between an agency rulemaking decision made under the agency's 
program statutes and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and 
OMB's authority to review proposed collections of information 
emanating from such agency rules. Concern has been repeatedly 
expressed by some Committee Members and others that the 
exercise of OMB's paperwork review and approval authority 
should not be permitted to displace agency substantive 
decisions. Others urge that the standard applicable to OMB's 
exercise of its authority under the Act is that OMB's paperwork 
review process not unduly displace agency substantive 
decisions. In reporting S. 244, however, the Committee 
concludes that third-party information collections are no more 
``substantive'' than other information collections and should 
be once again included 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, or 
identical reporting or recordkeeping 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 compliance is mandatory, voluntary, or 
needed to obtain a contract or a benefit made available by 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 singular 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 
Committee floor amendment to the original 1980 legislation.
    In 1982, the Department of Justice issued a legal opinion 
that ``information collection request'' referred only to 
paperwork requirement not specifically contained in a rule and 
that ``collection of information requirement'' referred only to 
a collection of information which was contained in a proposed 
rule. An effect of the opinion was to question whether the 
Act's three-year limit on approvals of ``information collection 
requests'' applied to ``collection of information 
requirements'' contained in rules promulgated pursuant to 
notice and comment procedures.
    In 1984 and again in 1986, the Committee deliberated on 
this issue and rejected the Justice Department's 
interpretation, and in 1986, Congress amended the Act to 
include the term ``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 
confusion created by the existence of these two terms by 
substituting a comprehensive definition for ``collection of 
information''.
    The Committee does not intend these words and definitional 
changes to be construed as narrowing or otherwise limiting 
provisions in current law or as altering the legislative 
history of the Act. At each point in the Committee's 
deliberations on these issues, i.e., in 1984, 1986, 1990, 1994 
and 1995, the Committee endeavored to craft a clearance process 
that covered all types of information collections, while 
preserving the integrity of the rulemaking process. The 
Committee does not intend these word and definitional changes 
to limit provisions in current law or to alter the legislative 
history explaining the deliberations of the Committee and the 
Congress regarding the Paperwork Reduction Act, including its 
relationship to the Administrative Procedure 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.
    The reason for the redefinition of the term is that current 
law merely provides separate lists of management activities 
(planning, budgeting, organizing, etc.) and information life 
cycle functions (i.e., the stages that information goes through 
from its initial creation or collection through final 
disposition). While the current law's definition tracks the 
life cycle of information, it lacks an adequate explanation of 
the context or purpose for IRM as a concept. Eliminating the 
two parallel lists, and rooting the IRM concept in agency 
mission and performance objectives establishes an outcome-based 
means by which to direct and evaluate IRM activities.
    With this revised definition, IRM more clearly involves the 
process of: (1) defining in a systematic way the information 
resources (from actual data or information to associated 
resources) needed to effectively accomplish an agency's 
missions, goals, and objectives; and (2) managing information 
resources throughout the information life cycle to efficiently 
and economically meet the defined information needs. The goal 
is to provide reliable, accurate, complete, and timely 
information needed by top agency and program managers to 
accomplish the missions of the agency, and at the same time 
reduce information collection burdens on the public and 
minimize the costs to the Government of information activities. 
Critical to this approach are:
          Individuals skilled in carrying out the various IRM 
        functions working with program and top agency managers 
        to develop and operate information systems and provide 
        related information resources needed to support agency 
        missions.
          Application of the management activities of planning, 
        budgeting, directing, controlling, and evaluating to 
        the information resources.
          Management of information resources throughout the 
        information life cycle.
    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 ADP 
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 ADP Act, the term covers computer and 
telecommunications equipment and services. Throughout the 
Paperwork Reduction 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 
the term ``collection of information'' 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. It 
application in the Act, as amended by this legislation, is 
primarily in the context of ``dissemination'' of information 
for 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 disclosed to or for an agency, or 
to the public or third parties on behalf of an agency.
    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 
creation of the position of OMB Deputy Director for Management 
(DDM) in the 1990 Chief Financial Officers Act. 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 and affirms the 
status of the DDM as the OMB official designated by statute to 
coordinate and supervise the general management function of 
OMB.
    The section also contains a provision highlighting the 
importance of selecting an OIRA Administrator and various 
employees of OIRA with full recognition of the professional 
qualifications needed to administer the full range of statutory 
responsibilities established by the Act.

Sec. 3504. Authority and functions of Director

    Section 3504 specifies OMB's IRM authority and functions 
under the 1080 Act. The amendments to existing law 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, while 
continuing to recognize the OMB Director's responsibility and 
accountability of the overall performance of the executive 
agencies.
    S. 244 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. Consistent with the bill's 
objective of structural streamlining, section 3504(h) in 
current law (dealing with OMB clearance of a collection of 
information contained in a proposed rule--an element of the so-
called Kennedy Amendment to the original 1980 legislation) is 
moved, without substantive change, to section 3507(d), the 
primary location for the Act's provisions relating clearance of 
proposed collections of information by OMB.
            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 government-wide policies 
and guidelines; and (2) overseeing agency use of information 
resources to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of 
government operations to fulfill agency missions, including the 
delivery of services to the public.
            Subsec. (b)
    Subsection (b), the general IRM policy functions, is 
amended to refer to ``information resources management policy'' 
instead of ``information policy.'' the specific requirements 
are then updated and streamlined--again, with the principal 
objective being to improve 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)
    This subsection is amended to improve its fit with other 
related sections of the Act, e.g., paperwork burden reduction 
goals in section 3505, agency responsibilities in section 3506, 
and the authority to review and approve a proposed collection 
of information pursuant to section 3507. One new requirement is 
added to highlight the need to reduce the burdens associated 
with government procurement-related paperwork. It 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. Finally, OIRA is to oversee agency 
development of burden estimates; i.e., to ensure consistency 
among agencies in burden estimation.
            Subsec. (d)
    This subsection establishes new provisions to provide 
specific guidance for the management of information 
dissemination functions. Under existing law, these were only 
referenced generally (e.g., sec. 3504(a)). While the Act's life 
cycle approach previously conveyed an expectation of OMB 
oversight of agency information dissemination function, 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 government-wide 
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. The emerging 
electronic information age demands that the Federal government 
proactively strive to provide public services in new formats 
and use new technologies to more efficiently and effectively 
perform government functions.
            Subsec. (e)
    OMB's statistical policy and coordination duties are 
spelled out in more 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 government-wide 
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 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 that Act, the subsection is amended to focus 
IORA oversight on the pressing need of agency computer security 
planning to address ``risk'' and to afford security protections 
commensure with the risk involved. Increasingly networked 
information environments are creating additional challenges 
regarding both security and privacy.
            Subsec. (h)
    OMB's information technology or IT (previously referred to 
as ``automatic data processing'' or ``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 government-wide goal for the reduction of information 
collection burdens by at least five percent as well as agency-
specific goals for paperwork reduction 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, 
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 government-wide 
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 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 primary 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 activities in a 
manner that improves agency productivity, efficiency, and 
effectiveness, while complying with the Act's requirements and 
related implementing 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 assuring agency compliance with the Act, 
including the minimization, rationalization, and reduction of 
paperwork burdens on the public. Subsection (c) specifically 
identifies this office as the office that is to review and 
certify proposed collections of information for subsequent 
review and approval by OMB. 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. The 
strategic plans developed under the Government Performance and 
Results Act should provide the foundation for IRM plans. Both 
the strategic plan and IRM plan should be reflected in the 
agency's budget request. Implementation of the strategic plan 
and the IRM plan should also be part of the agency's 
performance assessments under the Government Performance and 
Results Act.
            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, to be executed by the office established 
under subsection (a) operating independently of the office 
having program responsibility, to evaluate proposed 
collections. The 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 35069(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 use of information technology (including 
        alternative 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.
    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 of 1980 (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; how 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
          Uses information technology (including 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.'' The Committee notes that 
each agency remains subject to the requirements of the under 
the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552).
    1. 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. The goal in this paragraph is 
to enunciate clearly the obligation of Federal agencies to 
ensure effective public access to 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.
    2. Subsection 3506(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 forth four basic principles 
to which agencies must adhere in order to achieve the 
dissemination objectives of this legislation. These principles 
prohibit, except where specifically authorized by statute: (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.
    These restrictions are needed to promote First Amendment 
values, maintain the long-standing prohibition on copyright in 
works of the Federal government, and encourage sound agency 
information dissemination policies. These restrictions apply to 
every Federal agency, unless a statute under which a particular 
agency carries out its information dissemination functions 
specifically directs a different policy. Agencies should review 
their existing policies and practices to ensure that none of 
them violate these fundamental prohibitions.
            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 information 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, regulation, 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 (or disapproved) 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.
    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'' desribing 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.
    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).
    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).
            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 and 
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 two years. Section 3507(b), in 
current law, permits such an inferred approval for only one 
year. The expansion to two years is made for the following 
reason: Consistent with the establishment of an extensive 
agency clearance process (delineated in section 3506(c)) and 
the expenditure of time and resources associated with that 
process, there should be an increased incentive for agencies to 
comply fully with that requirement and equally for OMB to not 
lightly discount that effort.
            Subsec. (d)
    The requirements of current law at section 3504(h) with 
regard to OMB clearance of information collections contained in 
a proposed rule (subject to notice and comment), 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 no 
substantive changes are proposed. 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 any 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 was 
        ``unreasonable''; 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 the Director of OMB or 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 new sec. 3507(h)) 
or ``any communication relating to a collection of information 
which has not been approved under this chapter, 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 not inform OMB of 
unauthorized ``bootleg'' collections. This language is not 
intended, however, to create a second, internal OMB record of 
public comment to OMB regarding agency information collection 
proposals.
            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. At the 
same time the Act's had a specific 3-year limit on OMB's 
approvals, which required agencies to re-submit information 
collections for reapproval upon their expiration. This is the 
``sunset'' feature of the 1980 Act and was to apply to all 
paperwork requirements. Procedures for such reapprovals were 
subsequently adopted by OMB and are codified at 5 CFR 1320.14. 
This subsection prescribes a statutory framework for conducting 
such reviews of a previously approved collection of information 
for which there is a demonstrable continuing need.
    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). This procedure has basically been OIRA's 
practice since 1983, under 5 CFR 1320.14.
    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 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. The Committee does note, however, that in the 
fourteen years of the Act's implementation, OMB has only once 
used this subsection to delegate paperwork clearance 
responsibility, that is, to the Federal Reserve Board. As 
recommended by GAO and the National Performance Review (NPR), 
OIRA may wish to consider possible candidates for additional 
delegations, particularly as agencies develop clearance 
capabilities, as required under the bill's amendments to 
section 3506. However, the Committee cautions OMB to carefully 
assess those agency capabilities so as to avoid any diminution 
in the vigorous review of proposed paperwork burdens which is 
still required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980. The 
delegation provision is only intended to help OMB focus its 
paperwork clearance scrutiny where it is most needed. The 
delegation must not be used to permit the paperwork burdens 
being proposed by individual agencies to evade thorough and 
impartial review. Moreover, notwithstanding delegation, OMB 
must be vigilant to look for opportunities to minimize proposed 
paperwork burdens that are only possible by considering the 
information collection activities of other agencies, (e.g., 
duplication across agencies).
            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 of review for OMB 
paperwork clearance decision--``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 
Director'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 
for 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.
    The Committee's intent regarding this standard of review 
for all collections of information under the Act remains 
unchanged. This is the standard of review that the Director is 
to continue to use in all clearance decisions. (See, Senate 
Report 96-930, p. 49; and Statement of Senator Kennedy, Dec. 
15, 1980, 126 Cong. Rec. S16700).

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 work 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 Committee notes that an original objective of FILS was 
to enable federal agencies and the public to identify 
duplicative or related collections of information. The 
Committee intends that this objective be preserved under the 
new system established by the amendments to this section.
    In addition, 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 government-wide 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).
    These provisions govern the establishment and operation of 
a government-wide system of systems that will provide multiple 
avenues for public access to government information by pointing 
to specific agency information holdings. To make this possible, 
agencies systems must be compatible. Thus, agency GILS 
information should be available to the public through the 
Government Printing Office Locator System (established pursuant 
to P.L. 103-40) in addition to any other required methods, as 
well as any other methods agencies may choose to efficiently 
and effectively provide public and agency access to GILS. 
Planning for GILS should also include attention to ways in 
which the system can be a model, if not ultimately an actual 
mechanism, for providing access to underlying agency 
information.

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. Thus, the Act's 
public protection provisions once again apply to third-party 
paperwork burdens (including disclosures) as result of the 
clarification to the definition of the term ``collection of 
information'' in section 3502(3) and other amendments to 
address the Supreme Court's decision Dole v. United 
Steelworkers of America.
    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. 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 more 
effective 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. In carrying out this responsibility, the 
OMB is to consult with:
          The General Services Administration (GSA) to ensure 
        attention to information technology and other IRM 
        functional areas in which GSA plays a role through its 
        Information Resources Management Service (IRMS) and the 
        Federal Information Resources Management Regulation 
        (FIRMR);
          The National Archives and Records Administration 
        (NARA) to ensure attention to records management 
        issues;
          The National Institute of Standards and Technology 
        (NIST) to ensure attention to technical standards 
        issues; and
          The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to ensure 
        that greater attention is given to the training and 
        retention of qualified IRM professionals.
    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. It is also expected that the OMB Director and the OIRA 
Administrator will report to Congress at such other times as 
events warrant.
    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.

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 OIRA 
Administrator to review any collection of information to 
determine if any 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. A purpose of the 
section is to encourage the public to identify unapproved or 
``bootleg'' paperwork requests and thereby encourage the better 
agency compliance with the Act.
    The section is also amended to make word changes for 
purposes of consistency and clarity.

Sec. 3518. Effect on existing laws and regulations

    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

    Section 3520 authorizes annual OIRA appropriations of 
$8,000,000 for five years, i.e., fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 
1999 and 2000.
    The section is also revised to strike subsection (c), which 
was added in 1986.

Section 3. Effective date

    The effective date of the ``Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995'' and the amendments which it makes to existing law, is 
June 30, 1995. This delayed 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 (or other third-party collections of 
information) for OMB clearance. This delayed effective date is 
also intended to provide agencies time to include the display 
of a valid OMB control number pursuant to section 3512.
    Without this transaction period, disclosure requirements 
currently deemed not to be subject to the Act due to the 1990 
Supreme Court decision in Dole v. United Steelworkers of 
America would immediately become unenforceable under the Act's 
public protection provision, section 3512. This could confuse 
the public and disrupt agency activities dependent upon such 
disclosure or third-party collections of information.

                     VI. Regulatory and Cost Impact

    Rule 26.11b of the Standing Rules of the Senate requires 
the report accompanying each bill or joint resolution of a 
public character to contain an evaluation of the regulatory 
impact of the legislation. The evaluation must include an 
estimate of the number of individuals and businesses who would 
be regulated and a determination of the groups and classes of 
such individuals and businesses; a determination of the 
economic impact of such regulation on affected individuals, 
consumers, and businesses; a determination of the impact on the 
personal privacy; and a determination of the amount of 
additional paperwork that will result from the regulations to 
be promulgated pursuant to the legislation.
    S. 244, as amended, strengthens Federal agency management 
policies and practices to improve the efficient and effective 
management of information resources in support of agency 
missions, including the reduction of information collection 
burdens on the public and improvements in information security 
and privacy protection. Accordingly, the legislation would not 
result in any additional regulation, increased economic impact, 
adverse impact on personal privacy, or additional paperwork on 
any individuals or businesses. Quite the contrary, the 
legislation should result in fewer regulations, less paperwork, 
better privacy and security protections, more useful government 
information, and less costs to both the public and the 
government.
    In compliance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee was provided the 
following cost estimate of the cost of S. 244, as amended, as 
prepared by the Congressional Budget Office.

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                  Washington, DC, February 3, 1995.
Hon. William V. Roth, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on Governmental Affairs,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 244, the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995.
    Enactment of S. 244 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,
                                    Robert D. Reischauer, Director.
    Enclosure.

               congressional budget office cost estimate

    1. Bill number: S. 244.
    2. Bill title: Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
    3. Bill status: As ordered reported by the Senate Committee 
on Governmental Affairs on February 1, 1995.
    4. Bill purpose: S. 244 would authorize the appropriation 
of $8 million for each of fiscal years 1996 through 2000 for 
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). S. 244 also would 
redefine and clarify many of the responsibilities of OIRA and 
would expand federal agencies' roles in efforts to improve the 
management of information.
    5. Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The following 
estimate assumes the amounts authorized in S. 244 will be 
appropriated. The estimate of outlays for OIRA is based on the 
historical spending patterns of OMB. Provisions of S. 244 
clarifying the role of federal agencies in information 
management are not expected to result in significant additional 
costs.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      1996       1997       1998       1999       2000  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorization of                                                        
 appropriations..          8          8          8          8          8
Estimated outlays          7          8          8          8          8
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The costs of this bill fall within budget function 800.
    6. Comparison with spending under current law: OIRA's 1995 
appropriation is $5.8 million. If the full amount authorized by 
S. 244 were appropriated, the 1996 funding level would 
represent an increase of $2.2 million over the 1995 funding 
level.
    7. Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.
    8. Estimated cost to State and local governments: None.
    9. Estimate comparison: None.
    10. Previous CBO estimate: None.
    11. Estimate prepared by: Susanne S. Mehlman.
    12. Estimate approved by: Paul N. Van de Water, Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                 VII. ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR GLENN

    The Paperwork Reduction Act is a vitally important law. It 
is essential to reducing the burdens of government red-tape on 
the public--a goal all should support. It also provides a 
framework for managing government information resources--an 
equally important goal given the $25 billion the government is 
now spending each year on information technology.
    S. 244 refines the Act's provisions to better fulfill these 
important purposes. The legislation is based on 15 years of 
oversight of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 and reflects 
careful deliberations by the Committee. I support the bill 
wholeheartedly and will urge my colleagues to vote for it when 
it is taken up by the full Senate.
    Support for the original Act and for the current 
legislation should not, however, lead anyone to overlook the 
problems that have frustrated full implementation of the law. I 
set forth my individual views in the Committee report solely 
because I believe the report downplays those problems. Fifteen 
years of Committee oversight have produced a record replete 
with criticisms, largely directed at OMB, for unbalanced 
implementation of the Act. Slighting statistics, records 
management, information technology management, privacy and 
security, and other aspects of information resources 
management, OMB devoted itself to a paperwork clearance and 
regulatory review process that occasioned repeated charges of 
interferences with substantive agency decision-making. I 
believe that this record should not be obscured and that last 
year's Committee report (Senate Report No. 103-392) more 
accurately described this history.
    This record involves much more than grousing by disgruntled 
special interest groups or partisan rhetoric in debates among 
Members. For example, GAO reports detailed inadequacies in OMB 
IRM and paperwork practices (e.g., GGD-83-35, IMTEC-84-24, 
PEMD-89-19FS, IMTEC-92-13FS, PEMD-93-3); congressional 
committees described the impact of OMB decisions (e.g., ``OMB 
Review of CDC Research: Impact of the Paperwork Reduction 
Act,'' House Energy and Commerce Committee, 1986); courts 
questioned the role of OMB in reviewing agency rules (Public 
Citizen Health Research Group v. Rowland, D.C. Cir. 1985); and 
others have documented problems, such as a correlation between 
Reyes Syndrome deaths and regulatory delays in which OMB 
appears to have played a role (``Reduction of Deaths After Drug 
Labelling for Risk of Reye's Syndrome,'' The Lancet, vol. 340, 
p. 1042, October 24, 1992).
    The only previous legislation enacted into law to 
reauthorize appropriations for the Act (P.L. 99-500/99-591, 
October 1986) contained a number of provisions included by this 
Committee precisely to address these problems: For example, 
Senate confirmation of the OIRA Administrator (44 U.S.C. 
3503(b)); new requirements and deadlines for IRM initiatives 
(44 U.S.C. 3505 (5) and (6), 3506(c) and 3514(a)(9)); the 
required appointment of a professionally qualified statistician 
to be Chief Statistician (44 U.S.C. 3504(d)); public disclosure 
of communications with OIRA about paperwork matters (44 U.S.C. 
3507(h)); and limitations on the use of appropriations to 
functions specified by the Act (44 U.S.C. 3520 (b) and (c)). 
These amendments to the 1980 Act were not made in a vacuum or 
for no reason. They were made to address serious criticisms of 
OMB's implementation of the Act.
    We undermine our own legislative and oversight record if in 
our fear of undermining our law we shy away from honestly 
assessing the tradeoffs occasioned by the creation of a strong 
centralized review process in OMB. I support the OMB management 
process and I believe it should be strong. But, I will not 
shrink from fulfilling my responsibility to be vigilant in 
oversight, asking hard questions and searching for better ways 
to fulfill statutory purposes.
    Last year's report was, again, I believe, more accurate 
about the Act's history, blemishes and all. I regret that this 
year's report obscures that record.

                                                        John Glenn.

                     VIII. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

    In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, 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 with no change 
proposed is shown in roman):

                           UNITED STATES CODE

                TITLE 44--PUBLIC PRINTING AND DOCUMENTS

          * * * * * * *

         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 [Federal] Government Information 
          Locator [System] 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 purpose of this chapter [is] are to--
    (1) [to] minimize the [Federal] paperwork burden for 
individuals, small businesses, educational and nonprofit 
institutions, Federal contractors, State, [and] local and 
tribal governments, and other persons resulting from the 
collection of information by or for the Federal government;
    [(2) to minimize the cost to the Federal Government of 
collecting, maintaining, using, and disseminating information;] 
[Note.--See (5) below.]
    [(3) to] (2) ensure the greatest possible public benefit 
from and maximize the [usefulness] utility of information 
created, collected, maintained, used, shared and disseminated 
by or for the Federal Government;
    [(4) to] (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, 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;
    [(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] [Note.--See (10) below.]
    [(6) to] (8) ensure that the creation, collection, 
maintenance, use, [and] 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 [T]title 5[, United States Code, known as the 
        Privacy Act.];
          (B) security of information, including the Computer 
        Security Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-235); and
          (C) access to information, including section 552 of 
        title 5;
    (9) ensure the integrity, quality, and utility of the 
Federal statistical system;
    (10) ensure that information technology is acquired, used, 
and managed to improve performance of agency missions, 
including the reduction of information collection burdens on 
the public; and
    (11) improve the responsibility and accountability of the 
Office of Management and budget and all other Federal agencies 
to Congress and to the public for implementing the information 
collection review process, information resources management, 
and related policies and guidelines established under this 
chapter.

Sec. 3502. Definitions

    As used in this chapter--
    (1) the term ``agency'' means any executive department, 
military department, Government corporation, Government 
controlled corporation, or other establishment in the executive 
branch of the Government (including the Executive Office of the 
President), or any independent regulatory agency, but does not 
include--
          (A) the General Accounting Office[,];
          (B) Federal Election Commission[,];
          (C) the governments of the District of Columbia and 
        of the territories and possessions of the United 
        States, and their various subdivisions[,]; or
          (D) Government-owned contractor-operated facilities, 
        including laboratories engaged in national defense 
        research and production activities;
    [(2) the 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;] 
        [Note.--See definition for ``information technology'' 
        below.]
    [(3)] (2) the term ``burden'' means [the] 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;
    [(4)] (3) the term ``collection of information''--
          (A) means the obtaining, causing to be obtained, [or] 
        soliciting, or requiring the disclosure to third 
        parties or the public, 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] or for an agency, regardless of form or 
        format, calling for either--
                  [(A)] (i) 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)] (ii) answers to questions posed to 
                agencies, instrumentalities, or employees of 
                the United States which are to be used for 
                general statistical purposes; and
          (B) shall not include a collection of information 
        described under section 3518(c)(1);
    [(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 inform;]
    [(8)] (4) 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)] (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;
    [(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)] (7)  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))] 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;
    [(14)] (8) the term ``information system[s]'' means 
[management information systems] 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));
    [(15)] (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;
    [(16)] (11) 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]
    (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
    [(17)] (13) the term ``recordkeeping requirement'' means a 
requirement imposed by or for 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 
resources management policy [and shall report directly to the 
Director].
    (c) The Administrator and employees of the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs shall be appointed with 
special attention to professional qualifications required to 
administer the functions of the Office described under this 
chapter. Such qualifications shall include relevant education, 
work experience, or related professional activities.

Sec. 3504. Authority and functions of Director

    (a)(1) The Director shall oversee the use of information 
resources to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of 
governmental operations to serve agency missions, including 
service delivery to the public. In performing such oversight, 
the Director shall--
          (A) develop [and implement], coordinate and oversee 
        the implementation of Federal information resources 
        management policies, principles, standards, and 
        guidelines; and
          (B) [shall] provide direction and oversee--
                  (i) the review [and approval of information 
                collection requests] of the collection of 
                information and the reduction of the 
                [paperwork] information collection burden[,];
                  (ii) agency dissemination of and public 
                access to information[,];
                  (iii)  [Federal] statistical activities[,];
                  (iv) records management activities[,];
                  (v) privacy [and], confidentiality, security 
                [of records], disclosure, and [agency] sharing 
                [and dissemination] of information[,]; and
                  (vi) the acquisition and use of [automatic 
                data processing, telecommunications, and other 
                information technology for managing information 
                resources] information technology.
    (2) The authority of the Director under this [section] 
chapter shall be exercised consistent with applicable law.
    (b) [The] With respect to general information resources 
management policy, [functions of] the Director shall 
[include]--
          (1) [developing and implementing uniform and 
        consistent] develop and oversee the implementation of 
        uniform information resources management policies, [and 
        overseeing the development of information management] 
        principles, standards, and guidelines [and promoting 
        their use];
          (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;
          [(2)] (3) [initiating and reviewing] initiate and 
        review proposals for changes in legislation, 
        regulations, and agency procedures to improve 
        information resources management 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.]
          (4) oversee the development and implementing 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) [The information collection request clearance and 
other paperwork control functions of the Director shall 
include--] With respect to the collection of information and 
the control of paperwork, the Director shall--
          (1) [reviewing and approving information collection 
        requests proposed by agencies] review proposed agency 
        collections of information, and in accordance with 
        section 3508, [(2)] determine[ing] whether the 
        collection of information by or for an agency is 
        necessary for the proper performance of the functions 
        of the agency, including whether the information [will] 
        shall 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;] 
                [Note.--Subparagraph (3) moved to 
                3506(c)(1)(B).]
          [(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.]
          (2) coordinate the review of the collection of 
        information associated with Federal procurement and 
        acquisition by the Office of Information and Regulatory 
        Affairs with the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, 
        with particular emphasis on applying information 
        technology to improve the efficiency and effectiveness 
        of Federal procurement and acquisition and to reduce 
        information collection burdens on the public;
          (3) minimize the Federal information collection 
        burden, with particular emphasis on those individuals 
        and entities most adversely affected;
          (4) maximize the practical utility of and public 
        benefit from information collected by or for the 
        Federal Government; and
          (5) establish and oversee standards and guidelines by 
        which agencies are to estimate the burden to comply 
        with a proposed collection of information.
    (d) With respect to information dissemination, the Director 
shall develop and oversee the implementation of policies, 
principles, standards, and guidelines to--
          (1) apply to Federal agency dissemination of public 
        information, regardless of the form or format in which 
        such information is disseminated; and
          (2) promote public access to public information and 
        fulfill the purposes of this chapter, including through 
        the effective use of information technology.
    [(d)] (e) [The] With respect to 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;]
          (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) [reviewing] ensure that budget proposals of 
        agencies [to assure that the proposals] are consistent 
        with [such long-range plans] system-wide priorities for 
        maintaining and improving the quality of Federal 
        statistics and prepare an annual report on statistical 
        program funding;
          [(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)] (3) [developing and implementing Government-
        wide] 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 
                dissemina- tion[,];
                  (D) timely release of statistical data; and
                  (E) such statistical data sources as may be 
                required for the administration of Federal 
                programs;
          [(5)] (4) evaluate[ing] statistical program 
        performance and agency compliance with [Government-
        wide] Governmentwide 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]
          (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[ing] a chief statistician who is a 
        trained and experienced professional statistician to 
        carry out the functions described [in paragraphs (1) 
        through (6) of] 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.
    [(e)] (f) [The] With respect to records management, 
[functions of] the Director shall [include]--
          (1) provide[ing] 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 resources management 
        policies, principles, standards, and guidelines 
        established under this chapter;
          (2) review[ing] compliance by agencies with--
                  (A) the requirements of chapters 29, 31, and 
                33 of this title; and
                  (B) [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.]
          (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.
    [(f)] (g) [The] With respect to privacy and security, 
[functions of] the Director shall [include]--
          (1) [developing and implementation] develop and 
        oversee the implementation of policies, principles, 
        standards, and guidelines on [information disclosure 
        and confidentiality, and on safeguarding the security] 
        privacy, confidentiality, security, disclosure and 
        sharing of information collected or maintained by or 
        [on behalf of] for agencies;
          [(2) providing agencies with advice and guidance 
        about information security, restriction, exchange, and 
        disclosure; and]
          [(3)] (2) [monitoring] oversee and coordinate 
        compliance with sections 552 and 552a of title 5, the 
        Computer Security Act of 1987 (40 U.S.C. 759 note), 
        [United States Code,] 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.
    [(g)] (h) [The Federal automatic data processing (including 
telecommunications) functions of the Director shall include--] 
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) [developing and implementing] develop and 
                oversee the implementation of policies, 
                principles, standards, and guidelines for 
                [automatic data processing (including 
                telecommunications)] information technology 
                functions and activities of the Federal 
                Government, including periodic evaluations of 
                major information systems; and
                  (B) oversee[ing the establishment] 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[ing] the effectiveness of, and compliance 
        with, directives issued [pursuant to] under section 110 
        and 111 of [such] the Federal Property and 
        Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 757 and 
        759) [and reviewing proposed determinations under 
        section 111(e) of such Act];
          [(3) providing advice and guidance on the acquisition 
        and use of 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;]
          (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 initiates 
                to improve agency performance and the 
                accomplishment of agency missions; and
          [(4)] (5) promote[ing] the use of [automatic data 
        processing (including telecommunications) equipment] 
        information technology by the Federal Government to 
        improve the [effectiveness of the use and dissemination 
        of data in the operation of Federal programs; and] 
        productivity, efficiency, and effectiveness of Federal 
        programs, including through dissemination of public 
        information and the reduction of information collection 
        burdens on the public.
          [(5) initiating and reviewing proposals for changes 
        in 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.]
    [Note.--Existing subsection 3504(h) was moved to subsection 
3507(d) and revised.]
    [(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 in 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 by 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 to disapprove a collection of information requirement 
contained in an agency rule, together with the reasons for such 
decision.]
    [(7) The authority of the Director under this subsection is 
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;] [Note.--See (1)(A) below.]
    (1) in consultation with agency heads, set an annual 
Governmentwide goal for the reduction of information collection 
burdens by at least five percent, and set annual agency goals 
to--
          (A) reduce information collection burdens imposed on 
        the public that--
                  (i) represent the maximum practicable 
                opportunity in each agency; and
                  (ii) are consistent with improving agency 
                management of the process for the review of 
                collections of information established under 
                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) 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; [Note.--See section 3511.]
          [(C) identify areas of duplication in information 
        collection requests and develop a schedule and methods 
        for eliminating duplication; [Note.--See (3)(B)(i) 
        below.]
          [(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;]
    (2) with selected agencies and non-Federal entities on a 
voluntary basis, 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;
    (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; [Note.--See (1)(B) above.]
          [(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, 
        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 of 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 [Note See (3)(B)(iii) below.]
          [(F) submit to the President and the Congress 
        legislative proposals to remove inconsistencies in laws 
        and practices involving privacy, confidentiality, and 
        disclosure of information;]
    (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.
        [(4) 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
          [(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;] [Note.--
        See (1)(A) above.]
        1(5) maintain a comprehensive set of information 
        resources management policie and]
    (6) with 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 of 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.]

3506. Federal agency responsibilities

    (a)(1) The head of each [Each] agency shall be responsible 
for--
    (A) carrying out [its] the agency's information resources 
management activities [in an efficient, effective, and 
economical manner,] to improve agency productivity, efficiency, 
and effectiveness; and
        (B) [for] complying with the [information policies, 
        principles, standards, and guidelines prescribed] 
        requirements of this chapter and related policies 
        established by the Director.
    [(b)](2)(A) Except as provided under subparagraph (B), the 
[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 the military departments, and the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense, officials] who shall report directly to 
such agency head to carry out the responsibilities of the 
agency under this chapter.
    (B) The Secretary of the Department of Defense and the 
Secretary of each military department may each designate a 
senior official who shall report directly to such Secretary to 
carry out the responsibilities of the department under this 
chapter. If more than one official is [appointed] 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.
    [(c) Each agency shall--]
          [(1) systematically inventory its major information 
        systems and periodically review its information 
        resources management activities;][Note.--See (b)(3)(D) 
        and (b)(4) below.]
          [(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;] [Note.--See (c)(1)(C) below.]
          [(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);] [Note.--See (h)(2) below.]
          [(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;] [Note.--See 
        (a)(1)(B) above.]
          [(7) periodically evaluate and, as needed, improve 
        the accuracy, completeness, and reliability of data and 
        records contained within Federal information systems; 
        and] [Note.--See (b)(3)(D) below.]
          [(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.] [Note.--See (b)(2) below.]
    [(d) The head of each agency shall establish such 
procedures as necessary to ensure the compliance of the agency 
with the requirements of the Federal Information Locator 
System, including necessary screening and compliance 
activities.]
    (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 estimation 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;
    [Note.--Subparagraph (c)(1)(B) in existing subparagraph 
3504(c)(3) moved and changed as follows:]
                  [3] (B) ensure[ing] that [all information 
                collection requests] each information 
                collection--
                          [A] (i) [are] is inventoried, 
                        displays a control number and, [when] 
                        if appropriate, an expiration date;
                          [B] (ii) indicates the [request] 
                        collection is in accordance with the 
                        clearance requirements of section 3507; 
                        and
                          [C] (iii) contains a statement to 
                        inform the person receiving the 
                        [request] collection of information--
                                  (I) [why] the reasons the 
                                information is being 
                                collected[,];
                                  (II) [how it] 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 
                                [request] 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 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) reduced 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 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, and
                  (B) 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; and
          (3) 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 exceeds the cost of 
                dissemination.
    (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 date 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 achieving 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 coordinate 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 1989 
        (40 U.S.C. 759 note), identify and afford security 
        protections commensurate with the risk and magnitude of 
        the harm resulting from loss, misuse, or unauthorized 
        access to or modification of information collected or 
        maintained by or on behalf of an agency.
    (h) With respect of 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) ensure responsibility for miximizing the value 
        and assessing and managing the risks of major 
        information systems 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 [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;]
          (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);
          [(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] [Note.--
        See (C) and (D) below.]
                  (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;
          [(3)] (2) 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.] 
        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 as provided under subsection (j).
    [(b)] (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[, 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.] 
provide the notification under paragraph (1), within 60 days 
after receipt or publication of the notice under subsection 
(a)(1)(D), wherever is later. [Note.--See (e)(1) below for 
decisions being publicly available.]
    (3) If the Director does not notify the agency of [an 
extension,] a denial[,] or approval within the [sixty] 60-
day[s] period [(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,] 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 [one] 2 years.
    [Note.--Subsection 3507(d) is existing subsection 3504(h) 
moved and revised as follows:]
    (d)(1) For any proposed collection of information contained 
in a proposed rule--
          [(h)(1)] (A) [As] 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 [requirement and upon request, information] 
        and any information requested by the Director necessary 
        to make the determination required [pursuant to] under 
        this subsection[.]; and
    [(2)] (B) [Within sixty] 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 
[requirement] contained in the proposed rule[.];
    [(3)] (2) When a final rule is published in the Federal 
Register, the agency shall explain--
          (A) how any collection of information [requirement] 
        contained in the final rule responds to the comments, 
        if any, filed by the Director or the public[,]; or
          (B) [explain why it rejected those comments.] the 
        reasons such comments were rejected.
    [(4)] (3) [The Director has no authority to disapprove any 
collection of information requirement specifically contained in 
an agency rule, if he] If the Director has received notice and 
failed to comment on [the] an agency rule within [sixty] 60 
days [of] after the notice of proposed rulemaking[.], the 
Director may not disapprove any collection of information 
specifically contained in an agency rule.
    [(5)] (4) [Nothing] No provision in this section shall be 
construed to prevent[s] the Director, in [his] the Director's 
discretion--
          (A) from disapproving any [information collection 
        request] collection of information 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] 60 days [of] after the 
        publication of the final rule that the agency's 
        response to [his] the Director's comments filed 
        [pursuant to] under paragraph (2) of this subsection 
        was unreasonable[.]; or
          (D) from disapproving any collection of information 
        [requirement where] contained in a final rule, if--
                  (i) the Director determines that the agency 
                has substantially modified in the final rule 
                the collection of information [requirement] 
                contained in the proposed rule [where]; and
                  (ii) the agency has not given the Director 
                the information required [in] under paragraph 
                (1)[,] with respect to the modified collection 
                of information [requirement], at least [sixty] 
                60 days before the issuance of the final rule.
    [(6) The Director shall make publicly available any 
decision to disapprove a collection of information requirement 
contained in an agency rule, together with the reasons for such 
decision.] [Note.--See (e)(1) below.]
    [(7) The authority of the Director under this subsection is 
subject to the provisions of section 3507(c).] [Note.--See (f) 
below.]
    [(8)] (5) This subsection shall apply only when an agency 
publishes a notice of proposed rulemaking and requests public 
comments.
    [(9)] (6) [There shall be no judicial review of any kind of 
the Director's decision] The decision by the Director to 
approve or not [to] act upon a collection of information 
[requirement] 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.
    [Note.--Existing subsection 3507(h) is moved to subsections 
(e)(2) and (e)(3) and changed as follows:]
    [(h)] (2) Any written communication [to] between the Office 
of the Director, the Administrator of the Office of Information 
and Regulatory Affairs, or [to] any employee [thereof] of the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs [from any] and an 
agency or person not employed by the Federal Government [or 
from an agency] concerning a proposed [information collection 
request] collection of information [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.
    (3) This subsection shall not require the disclosure of--
          (A) any information which is protected at all times 
        by procedures established for information which has 
        been specifically authorized under criteria established 
        by an Executive order or an Act of Congress to be kept 
        secret in the interest of national defense or foreign 
        policy[.]; or
          (B) any communication relating to a collection of 
        information which has not been approved under this 
        chapter, the disclosure of which could lead to 
        retaliation or discrimination against the communicator.
    [(c)] (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] any disapproval by the Director, in whole 
        or in part, of a proposed [information collection 
        request] collection of information of [an independent 
        regulatory] that agency[,]; or
          (B) an exercise of authority under [section 3504(h) 
        or 3509] subsection (d) of section 3507 concerning 
        [such an] that agency[, may be voided, if the agency by 
        a majority vote of its members overrides the Director's 
        disapproval or exercise of authority].
    (2) The agency shall certify each [override] vote to void 
such disapproval or exercise to the Director, and [shall] 
explain the reasons for [exercising the override authority] 
such vote. [Where the override concerns an information 
collection request, the] The Director shall without further 
delay assign a control number to such [request] collection of 
information, and such [override] vote to void the disapproval 
or exercise shall be valid for a period of [three] 3 years.
    [(d)] (g) The Director may not approve [an information 
collection request] a collection of information for a period in 
excess of [three] 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.
    [(e)] (i)(1) If the Director finds that a senior official 
of an agency designated [pursuant to] under section 
3506[(b)](a) is sufficiently independent of program 
responsibility to evaluate fairly whether proposed [information 
collection requests] 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 [requests] 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 
[information collection requests] 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.
    [(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.] [Note.--See 3507(a)(3) above.]
    [(g)] (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 [If] an agency head 
determines that--
          (A) a collection of information--
                  [(1)] (i) is needed prior to the expiration 
                of [the sixth-day period for the review of 
                information collection requests established 
                pursuant to subsection (b),] such time periods; 
                and
                  [(2)] (ii) is essential to the mission of the 
                agency[,]; and
          [(3)] (B) the agency cannot reasonably comply with 
        the provisions of this chapter within such [sixth-day] 
        time periods because--
                  [(A)] (i) public harm [will] is reasonably 
                likely to result if normal clearance procedures 
                are followed[,]; or
                  [(B)] (ii) an unanticipated event has 
                occurred and the use of normal clearance 
                procedures [will] is reasonably likely to 
                prevent or disrupt the collection of 
                information related to the event or [will] is 
                reasonably likely to cause a statutory or 
                court-ordered 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].
    (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 [information collection 
request] collection of information a control number. Any 
collection of information conducted [pursuant to] under this 
subsection may be conducted without compliance with the 
provisions of this chapter for a maximum of [ninety] 90 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.] [Note.--Subsection (h) was moved to 
subsections (e)(2) and (e)(3) above.]

Sec. 3508. Determination of necessity for information; hearing

    Before approving a proposed [information collection 
request] collection of information, the Director shall 
determine whether the collection of information by [an] the 
agency is necessary for the proper performance of the functions 
of the agency, including whether the information [will] 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 the 
proper performance of the functions of the agency, 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] 
the designation may not obtain for itself information for the 
agency 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] to 
designate under this section is subject to the provisions of 
section 3507(c)(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 [pursuant to an information 
collection request] by a collection of information if the 
disclosure is not inconsistent with [any] 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 [Federal] Government 
                    Information Locator [System] Service

    [(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.]
    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 (hereinafter 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, [or] 
provide, or disclose information to or for  any agency or 
person if the [information collection request] collection of 
information subject to this chapter [involved]--
        [was made after December 31, 1981, and]
                  (1) does not display a [current] valid 
                control number assigned by the Director[,]; or
                  (2)  fails to state that [such request is not 
                subject to this chapter] 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) [The Director shall,] In consultation with the [advice 
and assistance of the] Administrator of General Services, [and] 
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  [selectively review, at least once every three years, 
the] periodically review selected agency information resources 
management activities [of each agency to ascertain their 
adequacy and efficiency.] to ascertain the efficiency and 
effectiveness of such activities to improve agency performance 
and the accomplishment of agency missions. [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 review 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)] (b) Each agency [which receives a report pursuant to 
subsection (b)] having an activity reviewed under subsection 
(a) shall, within [sixty] 60 days after receipt of [such] a 
report on the review, [prepare and transmit] provide a written 
plan 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.] 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 [its] congressional 
        committees fully and currently informed of the major 
        activities under this chapter[,]; and
          (B) [shall] submit a report [thereon] 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; and
                  (iii) a list of any increase in the 
                collection of information burden, including the 
                authority for each such collection;
          (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.
    [(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;] 
[Note.--See 2(A)(i) above.]
    [(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;] [Note.--See 2(A)(ii) above.]
    [(8) with respect to recommendations of the Commission on 
Federal Paperwork--
          [(A) a description of the specifics 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; [Note.--See (2)(D) 
above.]
    [(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 program.] [Note.--See (2)(B) 
        above.]
    (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 [development of] developing information resources 
management policies, plans, rules, regulations, procedures, and 
guidelines and in reviewing [information collection requests] 
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, a 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 [conferred on] of the Director [by] 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 
[does] shall 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 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 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] the responsibilities of the Comptroller 
General. For [this] 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

    (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] $8,000,000 for each of the fiscal 
years [1987, 1988, and 1989] 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000.
    (b)(1) 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.
    (2) 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.]

                              IX. Appendix

         ``best practices'' in strategic information management

    Confronting continuing failures and problems in agency 
management of information technology, and rather than 
continuing to analyze the causes of failure as GAO has done in 
most of its IRM reports, GAO decided to learn how leading 
organizations, private or public, consistently apply 
information technology to improve mission performance. GAO 
performed case studies of the information management practices 
of senior management teams in 10 leading organizations who had 
been recognized by peers and independent researchers for their 
progress in managing information to improve service quality, 
reduce costs, and increase workforce productivity and 
effectiveness. GAO's resulting report, entitled ``Executive 
Guide: Improving Mission Performance Through Strategic 
Information Management and Technology'' (GAO/AIMD-94-115, May 
1994) was released at the Committee's May 19 hearing.
    At that same hearing. OIRA Administrator, Sally Katzen, 
stated:

          [OMB is] working with GAO on its project to improve 
        the Federal government's information resources 
        management by identifying and disseminating practices 
        from organizations that have proven to be successful in 
        applying information technology to improve mission 
        performance.

    Ms. Katzen also pointed out that OMB and GAO were 
developing an evaluation guide to explain how to assess whether 
agencies are applying GAO's ``best practices'' and the related 
policy principles of the revised OMB Circular No. A-130 
(Transmittal No. 2, July 15, 1994, 59 Fed. Reg. 37906, July 25, 
1994).
    Following the release of the report, Senator Glenn, 
Chairman of the Committee, and Senator Roth, Ranking Republican 
Member, wrote to the heads of Federal agencies and offices to 
commend the GAO report to their attention. Some of their 
responses are as follows:

          I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate 
        the GAO team which researched and wrote this report. It 
        is an exceptionally positive, important, and practical 
        step towards improving management practices in general, 
        and IRM management in particular, throughout the 
        Federal Government. I encourage all Federal agencies to 
        make full use of the opportunity this report 
        provides.--Henry G. Cisneros, Secretary, Department of 
        Housing and Urban Development.
          Thank you for the opportunity to comment on what is 
        being called a landmark document . . . published 
        recently by the General Accounting Office (GAO). I 
        applaud the efforts of the GAO team that conducted the 
        research for this project. . . This report consolidates 
        a series of proven best practices, critical to building 
        a modern IRM infrastructure, into a single reference 
        document, which can serve a solid starting point in a 
        reengineering effort.--Janet Reno, Attorney General, 
        Department of Justice.
          The Department has followed the subject GAO study 
        with great interest . . . There is a growing literature 
        on business process reengineering and strategic 
        planning, but none as finely targeted to the management 
        of IRM change in Federal agencies as this report.--
        Wendy R. Sherman, Assistant Secretary for Legislative 
        Affairs, Department of State.
          I was impressed by the scope and relevance of the 
        recommended actions in the report. The GAO has done a 
        great service to the federal information management 
        community by issuing this document.--J. Brian Atwood, 
        Administrator, Agency for International Development.
          The issuance of this excellent report is very timely 
        for us at the National Archives. . . . The GAO report 
        immediately became required reading for all of our top 
        managers and has been discussed around our meeting 
        table as the ``best guide to best practices 
        available''.--Trudy Huskamp Peterson, Acting Archivist, 
        National Archives and Records Administration.
          The GAO report constitutes a superb blueprint to 
        federal agencies and provides a valuable guide with 
        which to structure technical change while, at the same 
        time, pointing out the pitfalls agencies need to 
        avoid.--Richard Y. Roberts, Commissioner, Securities 
        and Exchange Commission.

    Following is a summary of the GAO report:
    Federal agencies spent at least $25 billion on information 
technology in 1993, and more than $200 billion over the last 12 
years. Despite this huge expenditure, it is unclear what the 
public has received for its money. At the same time, critical 
information is 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.
    GAO's information management transition reports in 1988 and 
1992 underscored how agencies lack critical information needed 
to analyze programmatic issues, control costs, and measure 
results.\1\ In GAO reports to Congress in the last 10 years, 
GAO documented numerous examples of federal agency systems 
failures.
    \1\ ``Information Management and Technology Issues'' (GAO/OCG-93-
5TR, December 1992), ``Information Technology Issues'' (GAO/OVG-89-6TR, 
November 1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Many federal agencies have an approach to information 
management characterized by (1) a short-term focus that 
emphasizes the status quo, (2) line management that is not 
engaged in, accountable for, or knowledgeable of information 
management issues, and (3) a largely paper-oriented planning 
process that is tied to existing ways of doing business. To 
many agencies, strategic management is a well-orchestrated 
paper chase responding to personal agendas and short-term 
crises, rather than an integrated institutionalized process 
that focuses on producing results for the public and 
effectively accomplishing missions.
    Most agencies also live with loose, undisciplined, and 
opaque processes for selecting and controlling investments, and 
these investment results are rarely evaluated against projected 
benefits. More often than not, information management decisions 
are made in response to crises, without first examining how to 
simplify and redesign embedded, complex mission processes. In 
short, the emphasis lies on conforming to existing processes--
which are rarely reevaluated--rather than focusing on results.
    For most federal agencies--even those with serious 
improvement programs in place--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) an outdated or poorly 
defined set of skill requirements. These problems weaken an 
organization's ability to define how new information systems 
support its mission, meet customer needs, or respond more 
quickly to environmental change.
    Given both the risks of the status quo and the potential 
for improvement, business as usual is simply no longer a 
tenable option for federal executives. The Administration's 
dramatic goals, ranging from setting customer service standards 
for all federal agencies to making targeted improvements in 
major areas, cannot be achieved without successful information 
management. For example, improvements from reengineering agency 
business processes with the aid of information technology 
account for over 40 percent of the estimated savings over the 
next 5 years projected by the National Performance Review.
    Strategic information management (i.e., managing 
information and information technology to maximize improvements 
in mission performance) is one critical, integrated part of any 
general management framework. It will be a crucial initiative 
for all federal agencies as they move to implement the 
Government Performance and Results Act, which is focused on 
results-oriented management.
    Strategic information management typically involves 
defining a mission based on customer segments and needs; 
establishing core work processes that accomplish the mission; 
understanding the key decisions that guide mission delivery 
processes; supporting those decisions with the right 
information available to the right people at the right time; 
and using technology to collect, process, and disseminate 
information in ways that improve the delivery of products, 
goods, and services to customers. The following table 
illustrates critical issues senior executives are faced with in 
each of these areas.

Mission.....................  How is the mission defined and tied to    
                               customer needs?                          
                              What are the explicit goals, strategies,  
                               and performance indicators?              
                              Are processes, systems, and people        
                               properly aligned to achieve the mission? 
                              What are the right strategic information  
                               systems projects to work on and is there 
                               adequate return?                         
Work Processes..............  What are the core management and business 
                               processes?                               
                              Which processes are highest cost and most 
                               customer sensitive?                      
                              Which processes present the most          
                               significant opportunities and risks for  
                               improvement?                             
Decisions...................  How are the right people involved in      
                               decisions at the right time?             
                              How are processes working to organize     
                               decision-making?                         
                              Which key decisions support mission       
                               accomplishment?                          
                              How is the organization learning from its 
                               choices over time?                       
Information.................  How accurate, reliable, secure, and timely
                               is information?                          
                              How valuable and useful is information to 
                               make decisions?                          
                              How are performance measurement data being
                               captured?                                
                              How well integrated are financial,        
                               management, and mission data?            
Technology..................  Are information technology alternatives   
                               being fully considered?                  
                              How are the most appropriate technologies 
                               identified?                              
                              Are technologies in line with relevant    
                               industry standards?                      
                              How well integrated and interconnected are
                               technology assets?                       
                                                                        

    GAO found that senior managers in leading organizations 
used a consistent set of practices to improve mission 
performance through strategic information management. Senior 
management made a personal commitment to improve by (1) 
recognizing the need to fundamentally change information 
management, (2) creating line management ownership to 
incorporate information management into business planning, and 
(3) taking specific actions to maintain momentum over time. The 
practices worked because, over time, they institutionalized new 
ways of doing business that are required to capture the value 
of information and information technology. They are also most 
effective when implemented together as mutually reinforcing 
activities.
    The fundamental practices identified at these leading 
organizations are grouped according to three key functions 
critical to building a modern information resources management 
infrastructure: (1) deciding to work differently, (2) directing 
resources toward high-value uses, and (3) supporting 
improvement with the right skills, roles, and responsibilities. 
Following is a list of the practices:

                            decide to change

    (1) Recognize and communicate the urgency to change 
information resources management practices.
    (2) Get lien management involved and create ownership.
    (3) Take action and maintain momentum.

                             direct change

    (4) Anchor strategic planning in customer needs and mission 
goals.
    (5) Measure the performance of key mission delivery 
processes.
    (6) Focus on process improvement in the context of an 
architecture.
    (7) Manage information systems projects as investments.
    (8) Integrate the planning, budgeting, and evaluation 
processes.

                             support change

    (9) Establish customer/supplier relationships between line 
and information management professionals.
    (10) Position a Chief Information Officer as a senior 
management partner.
    (11) Upgrade skills and knowledge of line and information 
management professionals.
    GAO described the practices as follows:

Practice 1.--Recognize and communicate the urgency to change 
        information resources management practices

    Without senior executives recognizing the value of 
improving information resources management, meaningful change 
is slow and sometimes nearly impossible. Significantly 
increasing the rate of change requires new techniques, new 
processes, and new ways of doing business. Given the competing 
demands on senior managers, building a sustainable level of 
commitment to and involvement in a process improvement program 
requires a thorough understanding and recognition of 
information technology's critical role.
    Senior executives usually decide to change for one reason--
strong pressure to cut costs to increase service quality. As 
such, they are forced to assess ways of achieving cost 
reductions of service improvements, including improving mission 
benefits captured from information systems investments. Many 
find their information systems are both a large, uncontrolled 
area of expenditure and a neglected tool. Once the decision to 
change this situation is made, top management typically 
communicates goals for improvement with a clear, concise vision 
or principle statement that describes how information 
technology will be used to improve mission performance.

Practice 2.--Get line management involved and create ownership

    Line ownership and accountability starts with the chief 
executive. In every one of the successful organizations 
studied, the chief executive played a strong leadership role in 
strategic information management. The executives realized that 
getting line managers to work differently meant putting them in 
charge of the change process. Consequently, the executives 
moved to set clear expectations and reinforce responsibility 
for information management decisions and results with line 
managers who deal directly with the customer. Where mission 
goals require work process innovation and information systems 
that cut across program or functional lines, accountability 
must also be aligned with the decisionmaking authority 
necessary to raise issues above existing stovepipes.
    Increasing line managers' accountability and involvement 
works because it immediately focuses information management 
decisionmaking and systems development activities on measurable 
mission outcomes of strategic importance. Such a focus ensures 
more realistic benefits projections, greater attention to 
improving performance, and more extensive and intensive line 
actions to realize benefits throughout the life of a project. 
Without such accountability, it is too easy for the line 
organization to delegate decisionmaking irresponsibly, accept 
project delays, or fail to discern the loss of projected 
benefits.
    Because the term of office of political appointees is 
limited, they should work with a committed cadre of senior 
executives to provide management continuity and agency 
ownership of major information management and technology 
projects.

Practice 3.--Take action and maintain momentum

    A willingness to take action and maintain momentum is the 
difference between lip service and real improvement. 
Recognizing a problem and creating ownership are only the first 
steps toward action. Because of the barriers that exist to 
improving information resources management, leading 
organizations give considerable attention to initiating the 
change process and ensuring that it maintains momentum.
    Perhaps the most important starting point is educating line 
management. Unless all line managers begin to understand how 
information management can make a difference in their 
performance, only marginal change will occur. Carefully picked 
and placed champions also create daily pressure to change by 
removing bottlenecks and resolving thorny operational issues 
that can easily shall an improvement initiative, particularly 
in public sector organizations. Finally, incentives become the 
tangible representation of the organization's level of interest 
in changing. Education, champions, and incentives all work 
because they address the root causes that inhibit change--
ignorance, lack of focus, and lack of interest. Without 
addressing these root causes, even improvement efforts that get 
a good start tend to fade quickly.
    Agency heads and deputies lacking background and experience 
with information systems projects need to educate themselves 
about how such projects can and should be used as a lever to 
achieve performance improvement. Only with such an education 
are they likely to make information management a key part of 
their strategic business plans and recognize the importance of 
identifying and encouraging department and program champions to 
help them succeed.

Practice 4.--Anchor strategic planning in customer needs and mission 
        goals

    At the leading organizations, strategic business and 
information system plans are almost always tightly linked and 
predicated on satisfying explicit, high-priority customer 
needs. This emphasis on customer needs helps an organization 
understand the source, nature, and priority of demands on its 
resources. Without a customer focus, an organization risks 
missing its real needs and ignoring what matters to key 
stakeholders. With it, corresponding mission goals can be more 
easily developed to satisfy each demand, and the needs of 
customer groups can be prioritized and matched with specific 
products or services. This allows the organization to set 
mission performance goals for improving service delivery or 
product responsiveness, costs, or quality--based on customer 
needs.
    Successful information systems are not only defined as the 
ones delivered on time and within budget, but as ones that also 
produce meaningful improvements in cost, quality, or timeliness 
of service. Following a customer-driven approach provides 
accurate, detailed descriptions of requirements and 
specifications, which are needed to drive the design and 
development of supporting information systems.

Practice 5.--Measure the performance of key mission delivery processes

    Successful organizations rely heavily upon performance 
measures to operationalize mission goals and objectives, 
quantify problems, evaluate alternatives, allocate resources, 
track progress, and learn from mistakes. Performance measures 
also measure whether information systems projects are really 
making a difference. Good measures define the information 
needed to perform a mission well and allow organizations to 
learn objectively and consistently over time. As noted in the 
passage of the Government Performance and Results Act, without 
performance measures, managers often have great difficulty 
getting results from information systems because they cannot 
define their needs precisely.
    The standard measurement practices followed by the 
successful organizations focus on benefits, costs, and risks. 
In most cases, this includes program outcomes, resource 
consumption, and the elapsed time (i.e., cycle time) of 
specific work processes, activities, or transactions. Once the 
right measures are chosen, they act as a common focus for 
management to target problem areas, highlight successes, and 
generally increase the rate of performance improvement through 
enhanced learning. Business plans identify measurable outcomes 
and outputs expected from major information systems projects.

Practice 6.--Focus on process improvement in the context of an 
        architecture

    Accomplishing order-of-magnitude improvements in 
performance nearly always requires streamlining or redesigning 
critical work processes. Consequently, information systems 
initiatives must be focused on process improvement and guided 
by an organizational architecture.\2\ Information systems 
projects that do no consider business process redesign 
typically fail or reach only a fraction of their potential. 
Those that ignore technology usually leave significant 
opportunities on the table. Using business process 
reengineering to drive information systems initiatives can lead 
to order-of-magnitude customer satisfaction and/or cost 
savings, rather than the marginal efficiency gains normally 
associated with initiatives that use technology to do the same 
work, the same way, only faster.
    \2\ Architectures explicitly define common standards and rules for 
both data and technology, as well as mapping key processes and 
information flows. For additional information refer to ``Strategic 
Information Planning: Framework for Designing and Developing System 
Architectures'' (GAO/IMTEC-92-51, June 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Rapidly evolving new technologies (e.g., networks or 
imaging) that have organization-wide impact need to be 
integrated into redesigned work processes systematically (i.e., 
architectural management). To maximize the benefits of process 
improvements across an entire enterprise and reduce risks, 
certain shared standards and rules for processes, data, and 
machines (i.e., organizational architectures) are vital.

Practice 7.--Manage information systems projects as investments

    Successful organizations manage information systems 
projects primarily as investments, rather than expenses. As 
information management capability increases, projects are 
viewed more as mission improvement projects and less as 
information technology efforts. Senior management teams become 
personally involved in project selection, control, and 
evaluation. The basis of decision-making is an explicit set of 
criteria assessing the mission benefits, risks, and cost of 
each project. Quantitative and qualitative cost, benefit, and 
risk analyses--typically modeling sensitivities of project 
outcomes to various risk factors--underpin the criteria.
    The investment focus systematically reduces inherent risks 
while maximizing benefits of complex projects. It does so by 
concentrating top management's attention on assessing and 
managing risk and regulating the tradeoffs between continued 
funding of existing operations and developing new performance 
capabilities. These tradeoffs, as well as conflicts between 
competing programs, surface during annual budget 
decisionmaking. With a disciplined process, organizations can 
identify early, and avoid, investments in projects with low 
potential to provide mission benefits. They can help make 
explicit links between project outcomes and program needs in 
complex and often ambiguous budget debates. Line accountability 
for improved performance is also reinforced. This typically 
means larger successes, fewer failures, and more significant 
information systems contributions to organizational goals.
    Conversely, without a centralized process to select, 
control, and evaluate information systems projects as 
investments, organizations confront a number of difficult 
problems--significant unmanaged risk, unexamined low-value or 
redundant projects that consume scarce resources, mismatches 
between systems maintenance and strategic priorities for 
improving mission performance, design flaws that can 
unexpectedly increase complexity, and outsourcing decisions 
that put the organization at risk.

Practice 8.--Integrate the planning, budgeting, and evaluation 
        processes

    Successful organizations pay close attention to integrating 
the planning, budgeting, performance measurement, and 
architectural management processes, so that they never lose 
sight of critical information systems projects and treat them 
consistently throughout sometimes disparate management 
processes.\3\ This helps force the linkage of information 
systems efforts to the mission, provides tight controls during 
implementation, and allows regular assessment to ensure that 
benefits accrue.
    \3\ This concept of management process integration also directly 
underpins the threefold requirement of the Government Performance and 
Results Act for performance measures, strategic planning, and 
performance-based budgeting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This integration of once-separate processes is the real 
test of whether an organization's information management 
approach is truly strategic and thus will be able to improve 
consistently over time. Without links to planning, budgeting 
becomes a reactive exercise to priorities of the moment that 
are not weighed adequately against those of the future. Without 
links to performance measurement, mistakes are not discovered 
or are repeated in planning. And without links to budgeting, 
plans can be mere paper exercises in rationalization. Credible 
plans and budgets need to identify the long-term benefits of 
information technology projects, how they will be funded over 
the years, and how the savings and benefits will be realized 
over time.

Practice 9.--Establish customer/supplier relationships between line and 
        information management professionals

    The best-designed management processes in the world cannot 
work without defining roles and relationships (i.e., knowing 
who is going to do what). Establishing customer/supplier 
relationships internally between line managers and information 
management support professionals enables the organization to 
maximize the benefits of new management processes. Line 
management in successful organizations typically behaves as a 
customer of support professionals or organizational units by 
asserting control over information system project funding and 
direction. Key line responsibilities include identifying 
specific mission goals, the core processes required to 
accomplish them, key decisions that guide work processes, and 
the critical information needed to support decision-making.
    Information management professionals, then, act as 
suppliers, working to support efforts to meet a management 
objective, make a critical decision, or solve a business 
problem. Supplier functions can include traditional 
responsibilities for producing and servicing information 
systems. But they increasingly emphasize investment advisory 
services and strategic architectural design and management. The 
new focus is on achieving specific mission goals and 
objectives, rather than satisfying sometimes unrelated user 
requirements.

Practice 10.--Position a Chief Information Officer as a senior 
        management partner

    Positioning a Chief Information Officer (CIO) as a senior 
management partner is critical to building an organization-wide 
information management capability.\4\ By creating a customer/
supplier relationship at the highest levels, it helps line 
executives change how information is managed organization-wide. 
CIO positions have, in some cases, become untenable or 
controversial largely because they are overemphasized, 
inappropriately staffed, lack adequate authority, and/or are 
unable to focus solely on strategic information management 
issues. A CIO is not a substitute for institutionalized 
information management processes. Neither is it a panacea for 
resolving thorny problems that stem from top management 
disengagement, as is clearly illustrated by federal agencies' 
experiences with Designated Senior Officials for Information 
Resources Management under the Paperwork Reduction Act. 
Selection of an effective CIO is critical and difficult. 
Qualified professionals need a combination of leadership 
ability, technical skills, business process understanding, and 
communication skills.
    \4\ Determining the balance of decision-making authority between 
corporate and mission levels on information management issues is a 
complex issue--one that depends largely on the degree of similarity 
between missions. Most organizations we studied operated on the 
presumption that, unless some significant shared corporate benefit was 
justified, decisions took place at the mission level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A CIO serves as a bridge between top management, line 
management and information management support professionals. 
This includes focusing and advising senior management on high-
value issues, decisions, and investments. Equally vital is 
taking a strong role in working with the line managers to (1) 
design and manage an organization-wide architecture and (2) 
clearly articulate how information management will play a 
pivotal role in mission improvement. Finally, the CIO is 
usually accountable for serving line management with low-cost, 
high-quality information technology products and services. Over 
time, a successful CIO evolves from serving only as head of the 
information management unit to becoming a strategic adviser and 
architect--a vital member of the top management team.

Practice 11.--Upgrade skills and knowledge of line and information 
        management professionals

    Strengthening the skills and capabilities of line and 
information management units is the final part of the formula 
for building strategic information management capabilities. 
Lasting improvements in information management are impossible 
without upgrading the knowledge and skills of executives and 
managers.
    First, it ensures that line executives gain a better 
understanding of information resources management, while 
helping information managers to acquire greater knowledge of 
the line unit's mission, goals, and problems. Second, it brings 
skills and knowledge up-to-date. In the rapidly evolving world 
of information technology, remaining current is critical. 
Organizations that fail to improve themselves continuously 
become literally trapped in antiquated skill bases, which then 
become an anchor inhibiting the organization's ability to 
change. For instance, every year information systems get easier 
to use and interact with. However, this ease of use is only 
possible with ever more complex decision logic and data flows. 
Operating and maintaining these progressively sophisticated 
systems requires continuously higher skill levels. Similarly, 
increased levels of complexity also demand more systematic, 
controlled planning, design, and development.
    This fundamental is especially important in the federal 
government where so much technology acquisition is contracted 
out. The chance of a breakdown between an agency and its 
contractors is great when the agency does not have competent 
information management professionals to assist line management 
in evaluating and supervising contractor performance.
    While meaningful short-term benefits can accrue within a 
year or two, these fundamentals are not quick fixes. They take 
significant effort and commitment to implement. In the case 
study organizations, new performance levels were achieved by 
consistently applying the fundamental practices over time, 
usually a period of 2 to 5 years. In addition, the practices 
were usually pursued in the context of other mutually 
reinforcing management improvement initiatives (e.g., total 
quality management).
    Implementing these practices in the federal environment is 
not only possible, but is already beginning in several 
agencies. Though barriers exist--perceived and real--each 
practice is consistent with existing elements of federal 
regulations.

  getting started in applying the fundamental practices: recommended 
                     actions for senior executives

    To take comprehensive, quick, and practical steps toward 
improving strategic information management, federal agency 
executives should consider doing the following:
          Take a personal leadership role in establishing 
        strategic information management and designate a 
        champion to lead day-to-day improvement efforts.
          Make senior managers responsible for effectively 
        implementing a strategic information management 
        improvement program.
          Make this new strategic information management 
        program a critical success factor or a goal in the 
        department/agency strategic planning process
          Initiate a strategic information management 
        improvement program within the next 90 days.
    Additionally, both congressional leadership and top agency 
executives should ask and answer the following questions:
          Are the right strategic information systems and 
        reengineering projects being worked on?
          Are external and internal customer requirements being 
        satisfied, and is overall productivity and quality 
        improving?
          What is the risk-adjusted return on information 
        systems investments?
          Are there performance measures that truly define 
        success for the organization in terms of expected 
        outcomes for customers?
          Does management information support critical 
        decision-making and reinforce accountability for 
        results?
          Is management information accurate, timely, secure, 
        usable, and targeted at the right decisionmakers and 
        decision processes?