PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT OF 1980

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 112
• Document Creation Date: December 20, 2016
• Document Release Date: May 17, 2007
• Sequence Number: 8
• Publication Date: June 12, 1980
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Approved For Release f/jj ? A 003R000300050008-8
Lit
w
Calendar No. 1015
FI copy
98th Congress
2d Session
1 REPORT
l No. 96-930
PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT OF 1980
REPORT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
TO ACCOMPANY
S. 1411
TO IMPROVE THE ECONOMY AND EFFICIENCY OF THE
GOVERNMENT AND THE PRIVATE SECTOR BY IMPROVING
FEDERAL INFORMATION POLICYMAKING, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
67-2320 WASHINGTON: 1980
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
ABRAHAM RIBICOFF, Connecticut, Chairman
HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington CHARLES H. PERCY, Illinois
THOMAS F. EAGLETON, Missouri
LAWTON CHILES, Florida
SAM NUNN, Georgia
JOHN GLENN, Ohio
JIM SASSER, Tennessee
DAVID PRYOR, Arkansas
CARL LEVIN, Michigan
JACOB K. JAVITS, New York
WILLIAM V. ROTH, JR., Delaware
TED STEVENS, Alaska
CHARLES MCC. MATHIAS, JR., Maryland
JOHN C. DANFORTH, Missouri
WILLIAM S. COHEN, Maine
DAVID DURENBERGER, Minnesota
RICHARD A. WEGMAN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
JAMES M. GRAHAM, Counsel
HANNAH S. SISTARE, Chief Minority Counsel and Staff Director
ELIZABETH A. PREAST, Chief Clerk
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL SPENDING PRACTICES AND OPEN GOVERNMENT
LAWTON CHILES, Florida, Chairman
SAM NUNN, Georgia JOHN C. DANFORTH, Missouri
HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington WILLIAM V. ROTH, JR., Delaware
DAVID PRYOR, Arkansas CHARLES McC. MATHIAS, JR., Maryland
RONALD A. CHIODO, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
ROBERT E. COAKLEY, Professional Staff Member
RICHARD R. GROSSE, Congressional Fellow
CHRIS BREWSTER, Minority Counsel
Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
. Calendar No. 1015
96TH CONGRESS j SENATE f REroa~r
2d Session I 1 No. 96-930
Mr. CHILES, from the Committee on Governmental Affairs,
submitted the following
REPORT
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany S. 1411]
The Committee on Governmental Affairs, to which was referred
the bill (S. 1411) to improve the economy and efficiency of the Gov-
ernment and the private sector by improving Federal information
policymaking, and for other purposes, having considered the same,
reports favorably thereon with an amendment and an amendment to
the title and recommends that the bill as amended do pass. .
Page
I. Purpose and summary of act----------------------------------
2
II. Need for legislation------------------------------------------
3
III. Legislative history-------------------------------------------
4
IV. General discussion of committee views-------------------------
5
V. Discussion of specific issues-----------------------------------
18
VI. Hearings---------------------------------------------------
33
VII. Section-by-section analysis------------------------------------
37
VIII. Regulatory and paperwork impact statement--------------------
59
IX. Rollcall vote and committee action----------------------------
61
X. Cost estimate-----------------------------------------------
61
XI. Additional views---------------------------------------------
64
XII. Changes in existing law---------------------------------------
75
XIII. Appendix---------------------------------------------------
99
Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
2
1. PuxrosE AND SUMMARY
The Paperwork Reduction Act takes statutory steps needed to
reduce and minimize the burden Government paperwork imposes on
the public. The purposes of the bill are to :
(1) Minimize the Federal paperwork burden for individuals,
businesses-in particular, small businesses-State and local gov-
ernments, and other persons;
(2) Minimize the cost to the Federal Government of collecting,.
maintaining, using, and disseminating information;
(3) Maximize the usefulness of information collected;
(4) Coordinate and integrate Federal information policies
and practices; and
(5) Ensure that automatic data processing and telecommuni-
cations technologies are acquired and used by the Federal Gov-
ernment to improve service delivery and program management,
increase productivity, and reduce the information processing bur-
den for both the Government and the public.
The bill-
Establishes a goal to reduce the 1980 paperwork burden exist-
ing today by twenty-five percent in three years.
Creates an institutional framework to carry out recommenda-
tions of the Commission on Federal Paperwork.
Consolidates within the Director of OMB and the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs the following information
management policy functions : general information, paperwork
clearance, statistical activities, records management, privacy, and
automatic data processing and telecommunications.
Ensures that paperwork required from the public is first checked'
to see whether information requested is :
(1) Needed;
(2) Not duplicative; and
(3) Collected efficiently.
The Director of OMB will be accountable for this checking and
will be responsible for preventing duplicative and unnecessary
paperwork burdens.
Requires all information requests of the public to display a
control number, an expiration date, and indicate why the informa.
tion is needed, how it will be used, -and whether it is a voluntary
or mandatory request. Requests which do not reflect a current
OMB control number or fail to state why not, are "bootleg" re-
quests and may be ignored by the-public.
Establishes a Federal Information Locator System to :
(1) Identify duplication in agencies' reporting and record.
keeping requirements;
(2) Locate existing information that may meet the needs of
Congress, executive agencies, and the public; and
(3) Assist in deciding which agency requests for informa-
tion collection should be approved.
Rewrites the original Federal Reports Act of 1942 and elimi-
nates all agency exemptions to the Act except the Federal Elec-
tion Commission. A disapproval of an information request of the
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-000038000300050008-8
public which has been made by an independent regulatory agency
may be overridden by a majority vote of the members of that
agency.
The Federal Paperwork Commission estimated 3 years ago that the
cost of Federal paperwork requirements amounted to $100 billion a
year-some $500 for every man, woman, and child in this country.
Much of that cost does not show up as an expenditure in the Federal
budget. Instead, the public spends the time, money, and effort in
"hidden taxes" at home, in their businesses, or by way of higher con-
sumer prices.
Federal paperwork requirements, whether they are tax forms, medi-
care forms, financial loans, job applications, or compliance reports,
are something each individual touches, feels, and works on. The cumu-
lative impact is, excessive. Too many paperwork requirements are
necessary and wasteful. It is important to recognize that every one
percent reduction achieved is a billion dollar effort saved.
Today many Federal programs attempt to serve large numbers of
people in a variety of ways, such as protecting civil rights, providing
decent housing and ensuring safe and healthy working conditions. In
those and other areas, Congress has made critically important commit-
ments to the people of this Nation. In order to be effective, many of
those programs must collect information from the public in order to
make intelligent decisions on standards, benefits and other government
actions. In other cases, information must be collected in order to in-
form the public of various matters of general concern.
In that light, the purpose of the Paperwork Reduction-Act obviously
cannot be total elimination of Federal paperwork requests on the
public. Rather, S. 1411 has a two-fold objective. First, it will insure
that agencies make only necessary information requests of the public.
And second, that those burdens which are found to be unnecessary and
thus wasteful are eliminated.
Certainly, meaningful Congressional action on wasteful Federal
paperwork is long overdue.
During field hearings on Federal paperwork problems, the Com-
mittee received testimony from people in all walks of life and learned
that paperwork costs go beyond financial costs. Several small business
counselors testified that many clients refuse to expand their business
because of the added paperwork they would face. One counselor taped
together the forms any potential small business person must know lust
to think about getting into business. They stretched across an entire
room.
The burden of filling out forms is causing doctors to discourage
medicare business. Processing a medicare claim has become a night-
mare for many older Americans. Hospitals have witnessed an explo-
sion in paperwork since the advent of medicare. One hospital Presi-
dent in St. Louis testified that his institution's clerical staff increased
fifteen percent in the first year of medicare.
One young doctor, just entering practice, estimated that only fifteen
percent of the doctors in this area will ever accept medicaid patients
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-000038000300050008-8
in their office. A pharmacist demonstrated how it takes some seven
minutes to fill a prescription and get paid if someone walks off the
street, but as a medicaid provider to nursing homes he is lucky to get
paid in seven months.
Classroom teachers reported that at a minimum, it takes 26 extra
working days a year to fill out their paperwork. That is class time
taken away from children or time at home without pay for the teacher.
State and local government officials, university presidents, and
community leaders repeatedly estimated that 10 to 30 percent of Fed-
eral grant funds are wasted in unnecessary paperwork costs. That is
money lost that could be going to needed program services.
Most frightening was the testimony of several witnesses who said
they were `afraid of their government." They had been bombarded
with Government forms, neglected or wrongly answered some partic-
ular form, and were afraid that the "Government" was going to "get"
them as a result-a nagging feeling of fear.
The frustration and fear expressed by witnesses revealed the human
dimension of unnecessary Federal paperwork requirements. There is a
strong feeling among many citizens of this country that Federal paper-
work requirements are "out of control".
The Paperwork Reduction Act is a response to the need to eliminate
unnecessary Federal paperwork demands. The Committee benefited
considerably from its own hearings, and the work and recommenda-
tions of the Federal Paperwork Commission, the General Accounting
Office, the White House Conference on Small Business, and the Presi-
dent's Federal Data Processing Reorganization Project. The Act estab-
lishes a framework of accountability and a reasonable set of controls
to make the shower of paperwork requirements thta rain upon the
public more manageable.
The Government-wide management system created should not only
help solve information management problems we have today, but for
the. future as well. Federal paperwork problems are often a physical
manifestation of a Federal role in society. Citizens should feel confi-
dent that the Federal role is necessary and managed competently.
S. 1411 replaces chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code, which is
the codification of the Federal Reports Act of 1942, as amended. For
38 years the Federal Reports Act has been the basic statute controlling
paperwork requirements imposed on the public by the Federal
Government.
Due to a growing public concern over the increasing burden of the
Federal Government's information requests, the Congress established
the Commission on Federal Paperwork in late 1974 (P.L. 93-556).
The Commission's purpose was to recommend means to minimize the
burden of Federal paperwork requirements. It issued its final report in
October of 1977.
The Commission's recommendations complemented ongoing -con-
siderations by the Congress to provide new statutory controls for man-
aging the burden of information requests to the public.
In July of 1978 the Senate Subcommittee on Federal Spending prac-
tices and Open Government of the Committee on Governmental Affairs,
Approved For RPIPas 20f171f15117 ? Cl -RDP 5-00003 800
ovovi cvv
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
chaired by Senator Lawton Chiles held an oversight hearing on the
Commission's work. On June 26, 1979, Senator Chiles, Senator Bentsen
and Senator Danforth introduced S. 1411, the Paperwork and Redtape
Reduction Act of 1979. The House companion to S. 1411, H.R. 6410,
was introduced April 10, 1979 by Congressmen Horton, Brooks and
Preyer. A legislative hearing was held on S. 1411 on November 1, 1979.
On November 30, 1979, President Carter signed Executive Order
12174 on Paperwork. The President cited the Executive Order as one
of his regulatory reform initiatives and endorsed the paperwork legis-
lation under consideration by the Senate Governmental Affairs and
House Government Operations Committees.
On February 5, 1980, Congressman Brooks, for himself and Con-
gressman Horton, Steed and Preyer, introduced H.R. 6410, the Paper-
work Reduction Act of 1980. H.R. 6410 replaced H.R. 3570 as the
House companion to S. 1411. On February 7, 21, and 26, hearings were
held on the bill by the Legislation and National Security Subcommit-
tee of Government Operations. On March 4, H.R. 6410 was passed and
ordered reported by the full Committee. On March 24, 1980, the bill
passed the House of Representatives.
H.R. 6410 was referred to the Senate Committee on Governmental
Affairs on March 26. By April of 1980 the Subcommittee on Federal
Spending Practices and Open Government had completed two days of
legislative hearings, 4 days of field hearings in Jacksonville, St.
Petersburg, Tallahassee, and Orlando, Fla., and 1 day of field hear-
ings in St. Louis, Mo. On August 1, 1980 the Subcommittee reported
favorably a substitute to S. 1411 to the full Committee. (Other bills
considered included S. 119, S. 259, S. 2.624, S. 2608, and S. 391.)
The full Committee on Governmental Affairs unanimously adopted
and ordered reported a substitute to S. 1411 with amendments on
August 5, 1980. S. 1411 is now entitled "The Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1980," is sponsored by Senator Lawton Chiles, and is cospon-
sored by Senators Danforth, Ribicoff, Bentsen, Roth, Percy, Levin,
Cochran, Huddleston, Garn, Melcher, Dole, Hollings, Lugar, Heinz,
Pryor, and Johnston.
The Paperwork Reduction Act creates a single control point for
the management of Federal information resources. It ends the frag-
mented responsibility for controlling Federal paperwork burdens
which exists today and establishes visible and accountable officials for
information management within the Office of Management and
Budget and each agency.
The new structure consists of two key elements. First, a central
office is established within the Office of Management and Budget.
The office has broad responsibilities for information management
policies and overseeing agency activities relating to the collection, use,
and dissemination of information. The head of this "Office of Infor-
mation and Regulatory Affairs" will be an Associate Director of
OMB, appointed by the Director of OMB, and will report directly
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
to the Director. The Associate Director shall perform a staff func-
tion to the Director. It is the Director, not the Associate Director,
who is assigned the authorities contained in the bill. The Director
may at his discretion delegate to the Associate Director the responsi-
bility for functions, but the Director retains ultimate accountability
for any exercise of authority contained in the bill. The Committee
intends to make clear it is the Director of OMB who is accountable
for the authority and responsibilities contained in the Paperwork
Reduction Act.
Second, each agency head is to appoint a high ranking official who
is to ensure that the agency carries out effectively its information
activities. The Committee's intent is to establish an identifiable line
of accountability for information management activities between the
Director and individual agencies and within agencies. Not only will
this structure enable agencies to better manage their information
resources, it enables Congress to pinpoint responsibility for informa-
tion 'activities in any legislative oversight activities. For example,
senior officials will be responsible for explaining how the related
functions of information policy are integrated within an agency to
manage information resources more efficiently and to minimize the
information burden on the public.
The Committee anticipates each agency may reorganize, to the
extent necessary, so that the counterpart activities within the agency
to those assigned to the OMB Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs will report to the senior official designated by the agency head.
Realignments should provide for greater coordination among the
agency's information activities as well as greater visibility within the
agency.
A proposed structure for an agency will meet the intent of Section
3506(b) of the bill if (1) the agency's information functions which
relate to the OMB Director's functions listed in Section 3504(a) are
under the supervision of the designated official; and (2) the desig-
nated official has approval authority for the agency's information
functions. One structure will not be appropriate for all agencies. The
Committee expects the Director of OMB to closely monitor and review
agency performance.
The Department of Defense presents a special case. The Committee
amended the language of Section 3506(b) to accommodate the Secre-
tary of Defense's recommendation that two designated officials as
opposed to only one be permitted for military departments. It is the
intent of the ommittee that agencies designate one official to carry
out their responsibilities under Section 3506 except that those agen-
cies whose primary mission involves discharge of functions relating to
national security are not to have any more than two such officials. For
the purposes of this bill, the military departments are to be considered
agencies. In this particular situation, the designated official may dele-
gate final approval authority under specified terms and conditions.
In deliberations on this legislation, the Committee was concerned
that the bill contain measures to ensure not only the development and
promulgation of information policies but also effective agency imple-
mentation of the policies, principles, standards, or guidelines for the
Federal Government's information activities. The management and
accountability structure will enable responsibility to be pinpointed.
Sections 3513 and 3514 are measures designed to assist implementation.
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
Section 3513 of the bill requires the Director to review, with the
advice and assistance of the Administrator of the General Services
Administration, each agency's information management activities at
lease once every three years. The General Services Administration will
provide support to OMB in carrying out this responsibility. The Di-
rector is to report on the results of these reviews to the appropriate
agency head and to relevant Congressional Committees. In turn,
the agencies are to respond to reports by submitting a written state-
ment to the Director and to the Committees receiving the report,
describing measures taken to alleviate or remove deficiencies identi-
fied. The reporting and required agency response is patterned after
the practice of agencies responding to General Accounting Office re-
ports. The intent is to ensure agencies fully consider and respond to
recommendations resulting from this oversight mechanism. Section
3514 describes requirements for an annual report to the Congress from
the Director and is also intended to provide a basis. for continued
oversight.
Consistent with the intent to maintain clear lines of accountability,
S. 1411 does enable the Director to delegate the responsibility of
approving proposed information collection requests to the agencies.
If the Director finds that the senior official responsible for an agency's
information management has sufficient independence and resources to
fairly and effectively evaluate proposed information collection re-
quests, the Director may delegate his authority to approve those
requests to the senior official. Notice to the public and the opportunity
to comment must be provided. The Committee expects the Director
will delegate this important responsibility only after a careful finding
that an agency has sufficient capability. The bill does not permit the
senior official to redelegate approval authority within his agency.
The Committee notes that under section 111 of the Federal Property
and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended (40 U.S.C. 759),
the Administrator of the General Services Administration may grant
broad discretion to agencies to make procurements of automatic data
processing resources with less direct GSA involvement. Any such
delegations are to be predicated on demonstrated procurement
competence. S. 1411 requires this delegation be made by the agency
head to the senior information management official designated under
this legislation. The Committee believes these potential delegations
will provide strong incentive to the agencies to make substantial
improvements in their management of information resources.
Section 3504 of the Paperwork Reduction Act assigns the following
information management functions to the Director of OMB and the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs : general information
policy, clearance and paperwork control, statistical activities, records
management, privacy, and federal automatic data processing and
those telecommunications related to collection of information. The
purpose of aggregating these functions within the single office is to
establish a government-wide policy framework for "information
resources management."
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
By "information resources management" the Committee means to
include the planning, budgeting, organizing, directing, training,
promoting, controlling and other managerial activities involved with
the creation, collection, use, and dissemination of information by
Federal agencies. Information creation may be through reports,
questionnaire responses by the public, or other methods. Information
use includes analysis, sharing, dissemination, and restriction. Use may
also involve information and data processing and transmission. These
definitions are sufficiently precise to support the objectives of the bill
and flexible enough to allow for future changes in technology and
Government activities.
The Committee strongly believes the application of this policy
framework for information resources management will result in
financial savings to the government for information technology and a
substantial reduction in paperwork burden on the public. Improved
management of information resources is the means to achieve the basic
mission of the Office; to reduce and minimize the public burden
involved in providing information to the Federal Government.
Several of the assigned functions are already located in OMB. In
anticipation of this legislation, the Director of OMB recently created
the Office of Regulatory and Information Policy. That Office now has
responsibility for (1) overseeing agency activities under Executive
Order 12044 on "Improving Government Regulations," (2) the
Federal Reports Act clearance responsibilities currently assigned to
OMB, (3) oversight of automatic data processing resources under the
Brooks Act (Public Law 89-306), (4) certain telecommunications
responsibilities under Executive Order 12046, (5) Privacy Act
oversight, and (6) follow-up and reporting on the status of the
recommendations of the Commission on Federal Paperwork. The
Committee expects these activities to form the core of the new office.
Section 3504(h) of the bill mandates the Director to ensure that in
developing rules and regulations agencies take steps to minimize the
information burden of regulations. The Committee views this
function as similar to the present OMB function to oversee agency
activities under Executive Order 12044. The importance of this linkage
between OMB's existing responsibility for overseeing the regulatory
process with the closely related information management functions
assigned by the bill was stressed by the Comptroller General in his
comments to the Committee. (See appendix.)
* * * This relationship between the regulatory process and
information management is reflected in OMB's existing
Office of Regulatory and Information Policy. We believe this
combination of functions has worked well. The principal
areas of growth in Federal paperwork burdens are associated
with new regulations. Therefore, it seems appropriate to
retain the existing link between the functions for controlling
both regulatory and paperwork burdens.
The Committee intends that the Director of OMB continue efforts to
oversee the information management and burden aspects of govern-
ment regulations. This emphasis has great promise for minimizing the
explosion of paperwork demands on the public because new re-aulations
are causing the greatest growth in information requirements. However,
Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
the Committee does not intend that "regulatory reform" issues which
go beyond the scope of information management and burden be
assigned to the Office by the Director. Recent initiatives such as the
trucking and airline deregulations are examples of regulatory reform
issues whose assignment to the Office would dilute the information
function assigned by this bill.
Section 3504(c) of the bill assigns the Director information clear-
ance and other paperwork control functions. The Director is to review
and approve all information collection requests before they go to the
public. The authority contained in this subsection builds upon the au-
thority contained in. the original Federal Reports Act. All agency
exemptions to the Director's clearance authority except the Federal
Election Commission have been eliminated. New responsibilities be-
yond the present core activities will be required of the Office of Infor-
mation and Regulatory Affairs.
All information requests of the public are to show an OMB control
number indicating that the Director of OMB is the accountable indi-
vidual in Government to be sure that the information is needed, is not
duplicative of information already collected, and is collected efficiently.
The Director is to ensure that information requests to the public indi-
cate why the information is needed, what it will be used for, and
whether the request is voluntary, required to obtain a benefit, or
mandatory.
The Brooks Act, (Public Law 89-306) establishes a framework for
the central management and procurement of the Government's auto-
matic data processing (ADP) resources. OMB is assigned policy and
fiscal authority under that Act. The Administrator of GSA is granted
operational responsibilities. Section 3504(g) of S. 1411 integrates the
OMB policy responsibility for this information function with the
Director's other information management functions. This step was
recommended by the Paperwork Commission and strongly endorsed
by the Comptroller General. As he commented to the Committee :
The present situation in ADP is characterized by :
The confusion of Policy roles between OMB and GSA.
Overly complex and costly software that too often fails to
meet user needs, is inefficient, or simply does not work; and
A costly, prolonged, and ineffective acquisition process
which emphasizes hardware characteristics over sound finan-
cial investment.
The Comptroller further noted that in 10 of the 57 reports issued
by GAO in the last decade on software and system problems, GAO has
found waste of some $300 million and years of delay on individual
system. He attributed much of the waste and delay to the lack of OMB
guidance for computer system developments.
S. 1411 incorporates the objectives of the Brooks Act to (1) pro-
cure ADP resources economically and efficiently as possible and (2)
procure only those resources which are needed and can assist the man-
agement of Government programs. The consolidation of OMB's
Brooks Act policy responsibility with the other information manage-
ment functions covered by the bill should improve the Federal Govern-
ment's capability for applying advanced information technology to
Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
the problems of controlling paperwork burdens and improving the
quality of data for program management and evaluation.
. The Committee wishes to acknowledge oversight work performed
by the House Government Operations Committee concerning Public
Law 89-306. House Report 94-1746 summarizes that Committee's con-
clusions on how the law has worked after 10 years. House Report
96-694 concerns a case study of the Air Force Phase IV program and
provides recommendations to OMB and GSA concerning their respec-
tive roles in managing ADP resources.
Passage of S. 1411 presents an opportunity for the Director of OMB
and the Administrator of GSA to rethink and improve the administra-
tion of their respective responsibilities in managing ADP resources
and related information. They should be mindful of the recommenda-
tions and principles presented in the House reports.
Due to concerns raised by the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary
of the Air Force, and the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency,
the Committee specifically addressed the relationship of automatic
data processing and telecommunications provisions of the bill to intel-
ligence and national security missions. The Secretary and CIA Direc-
tor expressed the view that provisions of the House bill, H.R. 6410,
coupled with the House Report (Report No. 96-835), could be con-
strued to inappropriately expand the scope of the Brooks Act to the
detriment of certain security missions.
The Committee does not intend that provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act affect adversely the intelligence and national security
missions. Section 3518 was amended in Committee to clarify that the
bill neither increases nor decreases the authority of the Director of
OMB, Administrator of GSA, or the Secretary of Commerce con-
ferred by Public Law 89-306. The Committee intends that the scope of
the Brooks Act not be expanded by the provisions of S. 1411. In
addition, the Committee adopted all recommendations to amend the
bill by the Secretary of Defense and Director of the CIA. The Com-
mittee agrees present OMB policy guidance as issued by the Director
of OMB on Otcober 6, 1976 (F.R. Doc. 76-30940 filed 10-20-76; 8:45
a.m.) describes the appropriate role for GSA under the Brooks Act.
Section 3504(g) of the bill also assigns OMB policy responsbility
for Federal telecommunications to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs. The bill does not change the telecommunications
responsibilities of the other agencies as presently assigned by Reor-
ganization Plan No. 1 of 1977 and Executive order. For example, the
responsibility of the Secretary of Commerce for private sector telecom-
munications policy is not changed. Similarly, the Department of State
shall continue to exercise primary authority for the conduct of foreign
policy with respect to telecommunications in accordance with other
agencies as appropriate. The Committee does expect the Director to b~
the effective focal point for OMB's oversight responsibilities for Fed-
eral telecommunications activities.
Section 3518(b) of the bill reflects the Committee's intent on this
point. The Secretary of Commerce presently is responsible for private
sector telecommunications policy and this arrangement is not changed
by the provisions of this bill.
Section 3504(d) of the bill places statistical policy and coordina-
tion functions in the OMB Office. This function, which is described
Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
generally in section 103 of the Budget and Accounting Procedures
Act of 1950 (31 U.S.C. 18(b)), is vested in the President but pres-
ently assigned to the Department of Commerce by Executive Order
12013. Prior to October of 1977 statistical policy was determined with-
in OMB, at a level above the agencies' statistical operating activities.
S. 1411 transfers statistical policy. and coordination back to OMB,
integrates it with related information functions, and restores its
importance.
The Committee acknowledges the President's Reorganization Study
on the Federal. Statistical System and believes a strong statistical
policy unit within the Executive Office of the President is important.
Letters and comments by representatives of the statistical community
persuaded the Committee this policy function will merit continued
oversight. For example, the Committee understands the administra-
tion will again submit for consideration next Congress, legislative or
reorganization proposals to further strengthen this function.
The records management function assigned to the Diretcor is a new
authority for OMB. The Office will oversee the records management
activities carried out by the Administrator of General Services; pro-
vide advice, assistance, and clout to those activities; and review agency
compliance with records management requirements. Records manage
ment, which is concerned with information use and disposition, is a
vital element of information policy. The Committee believes -a focus
upon the recordkeeping requirements imposed upon the public, such
as those associated with Federal procurement and assistance programs,
will also yield reductions in information burden.
S. 1411 does permit the Director of OMB to assign additional func-
tions to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. However,
to protect its mission and emphasize the importance Congress attaches
to it, the bill's authorization explicitly states that money appropriated
shall be used only for the purpose of carrying out the provisions ff the
bill. The Committee expects that any new function assigned by the
Director to the Office will relate directly to information resources man-
agement and the essential purpose of the legislation : to reduce the
burden on the public in providing information to the Federal Govern-
ment. If legislation is needed to add any appropriate function, the
Director should ensure that the necessary proposals and justification
are developed and submitted to the Congress for its consideration. An
example of an appropriate assignment would be those responsibilities
assigned to the Director by President Carter's Executive Order 12174
on Paperwork.
TASKS AND DEADLINES
Section 3505 of S. 1411 sets out a series of tasks to be performed by
the Director of OMB and deadlines by which the tasks are to be com-
pleted. The accomplishment of these tasks is instrumental to meeting
the objectives of the legislation. They establish performance measures
upon which OMB's effectiveness in implementing this legislation will
be evaluated by the Congress.
Upon enactment of the Act, the Director is to set a goal to reduce
the existing information burden by 15 percent in 2 years. A goal to
reduce the burden an additional 10 percent the following year is also
required.
Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
The Director is to establish the basis upon which the percentage re-
ductions are to be measured. Passage of the bill will require that the
base be announced in October, 1980. The additional 10-percent reduc-
tion goal mandated for the third year of the Act's operation should
be based on the 1980 base as well. Successful achievement of these goals
would amount to the October, 1980, burden being reduced 25 percent
within 3 years.
The Committee understands the difficulty in establishing such a
base. Due to present exemptions,.information collections in violation
of the Federal Reports Act, and technical problems, an over-all figure
will not be exact. The Director will need flexibility to make appro-
priate adjustments to this baseline figure. However, the Committee
believes, and OMB officials have acknowledged, that the agency esti-
mates of total number of hours required to fulfill requests for infor-
mation that have been generated to comply with the President's Execu-
tive Order 12174 on Paperwork can serve as means to establish a mean-
ingful base.
The burden reduction goal will be a useful way of focusing atten-
tion by the public and the Congress on the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs and the activities mandated by the bill. While the
goals are not binding, they are reasonable and obtainable. Continued
public support and confidence in this reform effort will depend on
progress made toward meeting them.
Other tasks include developing a 5-year plan for meeting the ADP
and telecommunications needs of the Federal Government, revitaliz-
ing the development of information processing standards, assigning
the responsibility of conducting audits of major information systems,
and establishing the Federal Information Locator System. These and
other similar tasks of making plans for improving information activi-
ties and establishing information standards are needed to provide a
base for OMB to carry out its responsibilities. These tasks provide the
new OMB Office opportunity to achieve some early successes toward
improving Federal information activities. Moreover, without estab-
lishing this base upon which to build, OMB will not be able to achieve
the objectives of S. 1411.
The Committee incorporated a recommendation of the Director of
the Central Intelligence Agency in Section 3505(2) (A). In assigning
responsibility for agency audit of information systems, the Director
shall not assign reponsibility for the audit of systems used for .the
conduct of criminal or intelligence activities.
The task to identify initiatives which may achieve a 10-percent
reduction in the burden associated with administration of Federal
grant programs is worth special note. Senator Chiles, Chairman of the
Committee's Subcommittee on Federal Spending Practices and Open
Government, conducted a series of field hearings in the State of Florida
on Federal paperwork problems. Repeatedly, the Chairman asked wit-
nesses involved in the administration of rant programs how much of
their Federal program money was wasted by unnecessary administra-
tive and paperwork costs. Repeatedly, witnesses responded with esti-
mates of a quarter to a third of program costs were wasted in unneces-
sary paperwork costs.
Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
 Approved For Release 2007/05117: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
Senator Danforth, the ranking minority member of the Subcom-
mittee, found a similar response to these questions in field hearings he
chaired in St. Louis, Mo.
The Federal Government spends over $100 billion a year in grant
programs to state and local governments, nonprofit and private orga-
nizations, universities, and individuals. A 10-percent reduction in the
burden of collections of information associated with these programs
would amount to billions of dollars that could go more appropriately
to program services. It is a highly visible target of opportunity for
Governors, mayors, community leaders, and other recipients of assist-
ance programs that should be seized upon.
The Paperwork Reduction Act is a rewrite of Chapter 35 of Title 44
of the United States Code. The present Chapter 35 is the codification
of the Federal Reports Act of 1942, as amended. Since enacted 38 years
ago, the Reports Act has been the basic statute providing for the
control of paperwork burdens imposed on the public by the Federal
Government. The law requires the Director of OMB to review and
approve forms and questionnaires used by certain agencies to collect
information.
Six features of the Paperwork Reduction Act which strengthen the
clearance process are worth noting. First, the bill eliminates all origi-
nal agency exemptions from the Reports Act and restores the Director
of OMB as the single point for clearing information collection requests
imposed upon the public. The Internal Revenue Service and certain
bank supervisory agencies were exempted from the original Reports
Act. In 1973 the clearance responsibility for independent regulatory
agencies was transferred to the General Accounting Office. In 1976
data collections on health professions personnel was exempted. In 1978,
the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare was assigned respon-
sibility for Federal data collections from educational institutions and
programs.
The present fragmented responsibility for clearing information re-
quests will be consolidated in the Director of OMB, and no agency
exemptions, except the Federal Election Commission, will be allowed.
(The Congress itself clears the information requests of the FEC).
While the consolidation brings the independent regulatory agencies
under the same review process as other agencies, an override authority
is provided in Section 3707(c) to protect their independence.
Second, the definition of "collection of information" has been clari-
fied to specifically include recordkeeping requirements in the clear-
ance process.
Third, the term "collection of information" has been clarified to
eliminate the possibility that information collections be interpreted
to apply only to situations where answers provided by respondents are
to. be used for statistical compilations of general public interest. This
interpretation, which has been employed by the Securities and Ex-
change Commission, will not have any foundation.
Fourth, agency responsibilities are clarified by requiring agencies
to eliminate duplication, minimize burden, and formulate plans for
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
tabulating data before they request clearance of an information col-
lection request. Agencies are also to prepare a notice of submission to
be published by the Director of OMB in the Federal Register in order
to provide for meaningful public comment.
Fifth, OMB is required periodically to check and evaluate the
agencies' information management controls.
Sixth, Section 3512, the Public Protection Section, provides that no
person shall be subject to any penalty for not filling out a Federal
form or otherwise responding to an information request if the re-
quest does not either display an OMB control number or, if not, state
why not. This enables the public to ignore "bootleg" requests that do
not conform to this Act's clearance requirements.
RELATIONSHIP OF INDEPENDENT REGULATORY AGENCIES TO CENTRAL
MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE
Under S. 1411, the authority to review, approve, or disapprove pro-
posals of information by independent regulatory agencies is trans-
ferred back to the Director of OMB from the Comptroller General.
The Director is authorized to determine agencies' need for information
and thereby reduce the paperwork burden on the public. This step re-
stores the scope of the Director's authority for clearance that existed
between 1942 and 1973.
The shift from the Office of Management and Budget to the General
Accounting Office resulted from Congressional concern that the clear-
ance authority was jeopardizing the independence of independent regu-
latory bodies such as the Federal Communications Commission. In both
hearings on S. 1411 and letters received by the Committee, representa-
tives of the independent regulatory agencies argued that their agen-
cies autonomy would be adversely affected by a transfer back to OMB
due to the difficulties of separating information management from
substantive agency policymaking. They argued that information man-
agement may require a balancing of competing interests-such as
societal needs, the burden on the public, privacy, and budget impact-
all of which could touch upon the substance of policy. The witnesses
presented the view that to grant ultimate control over agency informa-
tion policy to the Director of OMB could result in a significant loss
of independent agencies' limited autonomy from the Executive
Branch.
The question concerning the independent regulatory agencies has
been carefully reviewed by our Committee. Well over two years ago,
the Committee considered the issue in volume V of our "Study on Fed-
eral Regulation." While recognizing the important purpose served by
central clearance, we concluded in the 1977 report that no change in
GAO's responsibility was warranted :
There is, in our opinion, an overriding objective to insure
that the paperwork burden government imposes on the public
is neither duplicative nor burdensome. And that requires some
measure of central coordination and clearance. * * * Less than
4 years ago, Congress determined that this function was best
exercised for these particular agencies by the Comptroller
General. * * * Overall the agencies have cooperated with the
Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
General Accounting Office. We believe that, at this time, it
would be premature to reconsider the 1974 transfer of this
responsibility to GAO.,
As a general proposition, our Committee supports the independent
status of the regulatory agencies. In various instances over the past
several years, we have affirmed that support. We have resisted various
efforts to dilute the independence of the agencies. Our basic conclusion
in that regard was expressed in the "Study on Federal Regulation" :
"The functional independence of Federal regulatory programs should
be fully maintained." 2
We do recognize that Executive branch agencies with significant
regulatory responsibilities, such as the Environmental Protection
Agency, presently operate under the OMB paperwork clearance proc-
ess. We are not aware of any recent undue interference with EPA
programs resulting from Reports Act authority. We also recognize
that, since 1942, OMB has developed considerable expertise under that
Act in clearing agency information collection requests.
All the same, there would be considerable reluctance in this Commit-
tee concerning any transfer of the independent agencies back to OMB
without the kinds of proper safeguards which S. 1411, as reported,
contains.
Various provisions of S. 1411 are intended to ensure protection for
the independent status of the regulatory agencies. Three keys provi-
sions are worthy of specific mention.
First, the bill provides an override mechanism in section 3507 (c).
An independent regulatory agency may be a majority vote of its mem-
bers override any disapproval of the Director of an information col-
lection request. The override authority also applies to an exercise of
the Director's authority under section 3504(h) (concerning rules and
regulations) and under section 3509 (designation of a central collec-
tion agency).
Second, the authority of the OMB Director under S. 1411 must be
exercised consistent with applicable law. This provision, contained in
section 3504(a), has applicability to laws other than those concerning
independent agencies. But it also provides important protection for
the independent commissions. That is so, because the special status
of these agencies has been established and continued by Congress in
the organic statutes. S. 1411 does not in any way authorize a change
in that status, and a major purpose of section 3504 (a) is to ensure that
does not occur.
Finally, section 3518(e) provides that this bill shall not affect in. any
way the existing authority of the President or O.M.B. with respect to
the substantive policies and programs of departments and agencies.
Like section 3504(a), this provision has application to all government
programs. But it also serves a special purpose for the independent
agencies. It reiterates the Committee's firm belief that, on matters of
substance, this legislation in no way affects the relationship between
the independent agencies and the Executive Branch.
I Committee on Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, Study on Federal Regulation, vol. V :
Regulatory Organization, 95th Congress, 2d sees., pp. 52-54 (Dec. 1977).
2 Ibid., p. iii.
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
These provisions will hopefully provide adequate protection from
potential abuse or political interference. But this situation merits close
attention in the future. The bill requires independent agencies to
explain the reasons for any override. And that will enable the public
and the Congress to monitor these actions to ensure that there is no
abuse of the clearance authority.
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 always has the prerogative and
capability to change those authorities.
A key to successful information resources management is public par-
ticipation and comment on the development and implementation of
information policy. Effective public comment at the front end of deci-
sion processes is particularly beneficial. Public participation in itself
is a resource which should be tapped by agency officials planning and
designing collections of information.
The Business Advisory Council on Federal Reports (BACFR) has
monitored the operations of the Federal Reports Act throughout the
Act's history. The Council stressed to the Committee the value of
increased public awareness and participation. As a result of their
comments on S. 1411, the Committee has taken additional steps to pro-
vide. a meaningful opportunity for public involvement.
S. 1411 requires the OMB Director to consult with the public and
the agencies affected in developing information policies, rules, regula-
tions and procedures. The agencies are to prepare notices for publica-
tion in the Federal Register of their submissions of proposed
information collection requests to OMB. The Federal Reports Act does
not now require a Federal Register notice. OMB will cause the notices
to be published in the Register when the submission is complete. The
Committee wishes to emphasize that the purpose of this requirement is
to alert the public of the submission and to provide for meaningful
public comment on the proposal. Furthermore, the Director has the
ability to either obtain written statements or to hold public hearings
for additional comments prior to his approval or denial of an agency's
proposed information collection request.
In addition to providing public comment opportunities on
individual information collection requests, the Committee views the
concept of public consultation as a critical element of any OMB
proposal to enter into an agreement with an agency on a delegation of
clearance authority.
Delegations of the OMB Director's information collection approval
authority to the agencies shall be subject to the notice and comment
provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act. The Committee also
expects that in promulgating information policies, rules, regulations,
and procedures, the OMB Director will require agencies to consult
with the public on the conduct of their information management
activities.
 Approved For Release 2007/05/1.7: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
Public participation provisions incorporated in S. 1411 enhance and
increase the opportunity for the public to provide suggestions to the
Government for improving its information demands and collecting
useful information from which to make sound management decisions.
Public participation should also play a policing role in monitoring
agency compliance with the legislation. Section 3512, entitled "Public
Protection" states that any collection of, information which does not
display a control number can be ignored by the respondent without
penalty for failure to comply. The thrust of this provision is to
eliminate "bootleg" forms imposed upon the public.
CONTINUED FOLLOWUP OF COMMISSION ON FEDERAL PAPERWORK
RECOMMENDATIONS
This legislation extends OMB's responsibility to follow up on the
recommendations of the Commission on Federal Paperwork. The
legislation which created the Commission (Public Law 93-556)
specifically mandated that OMB, in conjunction with the Executive
agencies to (1) formulate views on the Commission's recommendations,
(2) to the extent practicable within the limits of their authority and
resources carry out those recommendations in which they concur, and
(3) propose legislation needed to provide authority or remove barriers
for implementation of accepted recommendations. OMB was to submit
to the President and the Congress status reports at least once every six
months and a final report within 2 years of the conclusion of the
Commission's work.3
While the Paperwork Reduction Act can be viewed as providing the
statutory foundation for many of the Commission's government-wide
recommendations, the efforts to adequately evaluate, formulate views
and resolve a number of the recommendations have been slow. This
bill will continue and should strengthen the OMB and agency role in
following up on the Commission's recommendations.
The OMB has stated to the Committee that there has been significant
progress and the task is by no means finished. However, in a study
issued by the General Accounting Office, "The Followup Program for
Federal Paperwork Commission Recommendations Is in Trouble,"
several deficiencies towards resolving the recommendations were
reported. Some of these deficiencies cited by GAO were : the need to
redesign the followup program, a lack of OMB leadership, a failure to
involve agency top management, and insufficient information to assess
adequately the status of the recommendations. OMB expressed their
continuing commitment to effective followup in their proposed paper-
work control regulations, took steps to augment the resources, and
increased the level of effort devoted to the Commission recommenda-
tions. The Director endorsed provisions of this legislation which
extend the responsibility for followup of the Commission's
recommendations.
The Committee expects future reports by OMB to reflect careful
attention to the ongoing progress of implementing accepted
recommendations.
8 The Paperwork Commission "sunsetted" in January 1978. The Office of Management
and Budget has issued three status reports : June, 1978 ; October, 1978 and September,
1979.
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
Several of the Commission's key government-wide recommendations,
such as eliminating ,the fragmentation of the Federal Reports Act,
aggregating information management resources, designating account-
able senior agency officials, and establishing a Federal Information
Locator System, are first-time endeavors and will require OMB leader-
ship. In light of the GAO report and the newly authorized provisions
of the bill, the Committee and OMB recognize additional time is
necessary to complete action on the Commission's recommendations.
The Committee has extended the OMB followup responsibility for
an additional 2 years. The Committee anxiously awaits the results of
OMB's renewed efforts on the laudatory work of the Commission on
Federal Paperwork. Committee deliberations on this bill benefitted
substantially from the Commission's work.
V. Discussion OF SPECIFIC ISSUES
Certain specific issues which arose during hearings and Committee
deliberations on this legislation are discussed in this part of the report.
At the time the Committee undertook to propose a substitute bill to
S. 1411, introduced June 26 of 1979, the House companion, H.R. 6410,
had passed the House and was an integral part of Committee delibera-
tions. Several of the issues discussed relate to language of the House
bill which the Committee addressed before marking up the substitute
bill for S. 1411.
The specific issues discussed are :
1. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act expand the scope of the
Brooks Act and adversely affect national security and intelligence
Missions?
2. Should biomedical and epidemiological research be exempted
from the scope of the clearance process established by the Paper-
work Reduction Act?
3. Should the clearance process require a quick decision by the
Director of OMB for special situations?
4. Should requests for information from educational institutions
be exempt from the Director of OMB's clearance authority?
5. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act expand the scope of the
Brooks Act to cover Government-owned, contractor-operated
laboratories?
6. Should requests for information by. the Federal Election
Commission be exempted from the Director of OMB's clearance
authority? and
7. What does the Paperwork Reduction Act do to minimize the
cost for dissemination and maximize the usefulness of information
collected by the Federal Government?
1. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act expand the scope of the
Brooks Act and adversely affect national security and intelligence
Missions?
H.R. 6410, the House companion to S. 1411, and the accompanying
committee report (Report No. 96-835) were available to the Com-
mittee during its markup of S. 1411.
During the Committee deliberations on S. 1411 the Secretary of
Air Force, the Secretary of. Defense, and the Director of the Central
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
Intelligence Agency raised concerns over certain provisions of S. 1411
as they relate to national security and intelligence activities.
The major concern expressed by the Secretary and Director was that
language contained in the House bill coupled with the accompanying
Committee Report language could be interpreted to expand upon the
scope of Public Law 89-306, the Brooks Act. That Act confers certain
authority on the Administrator of the General Services Administra-
tion to control government purchases of automatic data processing
equipment. The Office of Management and Budget is given policy and
fiscal responsibility over the function. The Paperwork legislation, S.
1411, integrates OMB's present policy responsibility for automatic
data processing and telecommunications into the Director of OMB's
other information management functions.
Senator Chiles and Senator Jackson requested the Secretary of De-
fense and Director of the Central Intelligence Agency to comment
on their concerns. The Secretary and CIA Director responded to the
requests by letter. (The full contents of both letters may be found at
the end of this discussion.)
The Secretary of Defense set forth in detail his concerns, recom-
mended amendments to the bill, and suggested report language to ex-
plain the amendments. The Acting Director of the CIA also recom-
mended amendments and report language.
The Committee unanimously adopted every amendment recom
mended by the Secretary and Director. The recommended report
language accurately depicts the Committee's intent behind the
amendments.
The Committee wants to make clear it intends that the Paperwork
Reduction Act not affect adversely intelligence or national security
missions. The recommendations of the Secretary of Defense and Di-
rector of the Central Intelligence Agency were incorporated' into
S. 1411 and its accompanying Committee report to ensure that the
scope of the Brooks Act is not expanded and national security and
intelligence missions are not adversely affected by provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act.
THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE,
Washington, D.C., August 4,1980.
Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR JACKSON : Thank you very much for your letter of
July 29, 1980, requesting the Department's views with respect to H.R.
6410, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980.
The Department of Defense testified in support of H.R. 6410 be-
cause we agree with the President's emphasis on reducing the paper-
work burden on the public. We also agree on the importance of utiliz-
ing the resources devoted to automatic data processing in the most
effective manner. We remain committed to these goals.
However, subsequent to the Department's testimony, the House is-
sued its report on H.R. 6410. In some areas, the report language was
made more extensive than the plain text of the bill. When read to-
gether, the bill and the report could be interpreted to expand upon
the scope of Public Law 89-306.
Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
We have expressed our concerns to Senator Chiles and his staff and
hope that the Senate bill and report will address those concerns as
set forth in detail in the attachment to this letter.
If our recommendations are incorporated in the Senate bill and
report and are subsequently adopted by the Congress, there is no need
for a hearing. Further negotiations may be in order if the Senate bill
and report do not reflect the substance of our recommendations.
We appreciate your interest in this important legislation and look
forward to your continued support.
Sincerely,
HAROLD BROWN.
Enclosure.
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO S. 1411
PAGE AND LINE REFERENCES ARE TO H.R. 6410, AS ENACTED BY THE HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES
1. Section 3505(l) (A) page 13
Add oat end of line 14 after semicolon :
"except that 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."
Add following to report language concerning this section :
"The Committee is concerned that certain interpretations of H.R.
6410 as it passed the House could be construed to adversely affect the
conduct of sensitive criminal investigations and intelligence activities.
In order to mitigate these concerns, the Committee has added to sec-
tion 3505 (1) (A) language which prohibits the Director from delegat-
ing to other agencies the responsibility for auditing major informa-
tion systems used in the conduct of criminal investigations or intelli-
gence activities as defined in section 4-206 of Executive Order 12036,
issued January 24, 1978, or successor orders."
2. Section 3506 (b) page 15
Strike the words "who reports" on line 22 and insert "or officials
who report".
Add following to report language concerning this section :
"It is the intent of the committee that agencies shall designate one
official to carry out their responsibilities under section 3506 except
that those agencies whose primary mission involves the discharge of
functions relating to national security are not to have any more than
two such officials. For the purposes of this bill, the military depart-
ments are to be considered agencies. The designated official may dele-
gate final approval authority under specified terms and conditions."
3. Section 3504(g) page 11
On line 21, strike the words "in coordination with the Adminis-
trator of General Services".
Add to report language on this section :
"The committee is recommending deletion of the words "in coordi-
nation with the Administrator of General Services" in order to make
it clear that agency needs for telecommunications and ADP are estab-
lished through the budget process and not by GSA. The committee
Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
does recognize the important role GSA plays in this process. The
Committee believes GSA's role should continue to be as set forth in
the following guidance promulgated by OMB on October 6, 1976:
"Many questions have been raised recently concerning the condi-
tions, under which GSA, pursuant to Public Law 89-306, may :
question an agency's expression of its ADP requirements in
terms of specific equipment, and
insist that agencies consider alternative sources of supply for
ADP equipment.
As a consequence, the Office of Management and Budget, in accordance
with its authority under Public Law 89-306, is issuing the following
ADP policy guidance :
1. Public Law 89-306 grants the Administrator of General Services
the discretion to delegate procurement authority whenever the Ad-
ministrator finds it "necessary for the economy and efficiency of opera-
tions or when such action is essential to national defense or national
security" or "for the orderly implementation of a program for the
utilization of such equipment." 1
2. Public Law 89-306 also provides that the Administrator of Gen-
eral Services shall not "impair of interfere with the determination by
agencies of their individual ADP equipment requirements." 2 GSA
cannot, therefore, challenge a determination by an agency of its need
for data processing services or its requirements for ADP equipment.
However, the specification by an agency of a particular make and
model of equipment when other equipment or sources of supply could
also satisfy the ADP needs or requirements of the agency could frus-
trate the purposes of P.L. 89-306 in several ways. Overly restrictive
specification could reduce the economic benefits of competition, dimin-
ish the opportunity for savings achieved through sharing compatible
excess ADP capacity of other agencies, limit the economic advantages
of bulk purchases or lead to specifications by an agency of equipment
requirements beyond those needed to effectively carry out their mis-
sions and programs.
3. To preclude the adverse effects of unduly restrictive specifica-
tions, agencies shall to the maximum practical extent, express their
ADP requirements in terms of functional performance specifications
rather than equipment specifications. There are, of course, instances
where only a particular make or model of equipment or its functional
equipment can satisfy a unique agency need for requirement for ADP
equipment, but the clear direction in ADP procurement under P.L.
89-306 is to maximize the opportunities for cost savings through com-
petition, bulk purchases, consideration of alternative sources of sup-
ply, and avoiding the acquisition of capacity beyond that which is
needed.
4. GSA, in reviewing agency ADP procurement requests, should
ensure that the above mentioned opportunities for cost savings are
not lost by unduly restrictive specification of ADP requirements by
agencies.
5. GSA should strive for expeditious review of agency submissions
to avoid delays in the procurement process. Agencies should cooperate
3 Section 2(b) (2), Public Law 89-306.
2 Section 2(g), Public Law 89-306.
Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
with GSA to expedite these reviews. An undue length of time for the
normal ADP procurement process may be considered a disagreement
by GSA with the request of the agency and may be appealed to the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Consistent with the
policy expressed herein, any such appeal will be handled expeditiously,
but the burden will be upon the agency to demonstrate the need to
specify the particular make or model of equipment or its functional
equivalent when such specification is at issue.
Within the next 60 days, GSA, consistent with its responsibilities
under P.L. 89-306 and Executive Order No. 11717, dated May 9, 1973,
should modify its directives and instructions to the agencies e.g.
FPMR's, FPR's and FMC's as appropriate) to accommodate these
policies. In addition, the Government's policy of reliance on the pri-
vate sector stated in OMB Circular No. A-76 would dictate that agen-
cies should obtain their ADP requirements by contracting for services
in preference to the acquisition of new equipment except where in-
house performance is justified in accordance with that Circular.
A copy of this policy guidance letter will be published in the Federal
Register as a statement of general policy of the Office of Management
and Budget for the guidance of the public as provided by 5 U.S.C.
552(a) (i) (D).
Sincerely yours,
JAMES T. LYNN, Director.
4. Section 3518
Add two new subsections at the end thereof as follows :
"(xx) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), this Act does not
apply to the collection of information-
(A) during the conduct of a criminal investigation or prosecu-
tion, 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 involving an agency against specific in-
dividuals or entities;
(C) by compulsory process pursuant to the Antitrust Civil
Process Act; or
(D) during the conduct of intelligence activities as defined in
Section 4.206 of Executive Order 12036, issued January 24, 1978,
or successor orders.
(2) This Act 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."
y "(xx) Nothing herein shall be interpreted as increasing or decreas-
the authority conferred by P.L. 89-306 upon the Administrator
the General Services Administration, the Secretary of Commerce,
or the Director of the Office of Management and Budget."
5. Section 3502
Add the following definitions to section 3502:
"(xx) `Telecommunications' equipment, technology, functions, ac-
tivities or needs means the equipment, technology, functions, activities,
Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
23
or needs used solely for (a) the `collection of information' as defined
in subsection (2) above, or (b) the processing, storage, and transmis-
sion of this collected information.
"(xx) `Information systems' means management information
y systems."
THE DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE,
Washington, D.C., August 4,1980.
Hon. LAWTON CHILES,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Federal Spending Practices and Open
Government, Committee on Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN : Your Subcommittee currently has pending
before it H.R. 6410 and S. 1411, the Paperwork Reduction Bills. These
Bills seek to reduce the paperwork burden which the government im-
poses on the public, to maximize the usefulness of government in-
formation, and to rationalize government use of computer technology.
The Intelligence Community fully supports these legislative objectives.
However, the Bills contain several provisions which would impact ad-
versely on the Intelligence Community in the conduct of its foreign
intelligence and foreign counterintelligence missions.
To protect sensitive intelligence sources and methods from possible
compromise and to assure that the Intelligence Community can con-
tinue to function efficiently in carrying out its mission, I recommend
that your Subcommittee incorporate the enclosed amendments in the
Paperwork Reduction Bill it reports out. These amendments are the
result of the Office of Management and Budget's careful consideration
of the needs of the Intelligence Community with respect to Paper-
work Reduction legislation. These amendments, coupled with those
dealing with the Bill's automatic data processing and telecommunica-
tion provisions provided to you separately by the Secretary of De-
fense, would completely resolve the concerns of the Intelligence
Community about which Admiral Turner expressed concern in his
letter to you of 30 July.
The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no
objection to the submission of this letter from the standpoint of the
Administration's program.
Sincerely,
FRANK C. CARLUCCI,
Acting Director.
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO PAPERWORK REDUCTION BILLS
(S. 1411/H.R. 6410)
Page and line references are to H.R. 6410 as passed by the
House of Representatives.
1. Section 3505(1) (A), page 13
Add at the end of line 14 after the semi-colon :
"except that the Director shall not assign such responsibility
for the audit of major information systems used for the con-
duct of. criminal investigations or intelligence activities as
Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
24
defined in section 4-206 of Executive Order 12036, issued
January 24, 1978, or successor orders."
Add the following to report language concerning this
section :
"The Committee is concerned that certain interpretations
of H.R. 6410 as it passed the House could be construed to ad-
versely affect the conduct of sensitive criminal investigations
and intelligence activities. In order to mitigate those con-
cerns, the Committee has added to section 3505(1) (A) lan-
guage which prohibits the Director from delegating to other
agencies the responsibility for auditing major information
systems used in the conduct of criminal investigations or in-
telligence activities as defined in section 4-206 of Executive
Order 12036, issued January 24, 1978, or successor orders."
2. Section 3518, page 27:
Add the following new subsection :
(c) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), this Act does
not apply to the collection of information :
(A) during the conduct of a 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 involving an
agency against specific individuals or entities;
(C) by compulsory process pursuant to the Antitrust
Civil Process Act; or
(D) during the conduct of intelligence activities as
defined in section 4-206 of Executive Order 12036, issued
January 24, 1978, or successor orders.
(2) This Act applies to the collection of information dur-
ing the conduct of general investigations (other than infor-
mation 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.
3. Section 3519, page 27:
Add the following at the beginning of the sentence begin-
ning on line 4:
Under the conditions and procedures provided in section
313 of the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 (31 U.S.C.
? 54). [t]he Director .. .
2. Should biomedical and epidemiological research be exempted from
the scope of the clearance process established by the Paperwork Re-
duction Act?
The Committee received considerable comment on the bill from the
Association of American Colleges, the Association of Schools of Pub-
lic Health, and other groups and individuals involved in biomedical,
epidemiological and other behavioral research. They expressed con-
cern that the paperwork controls contained in the bill could have the
Approved For Release 2007/05117 - t'IA-RnPRti-nnnn Rnnn3000500nu-8
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
effect of frustrating, delaying or otherwise impeding research on pre-
venting disease. Therefore, they advocated the exemption of biomedical
and epidemiological research from the requirements of this Act.
For several reasons the Committee does not believe such an exemp-
tion is necessary.
The Committee notes that most federally funded research in biomedi-
cal and epidemiological studies is funded by assistance awards (grants
or cooperative agreements) and is therefore not subject to review by
the Office of Management and Budget. The authority of the Director
to review proposed information collection requests applies only to col-
lections of information conducted or sponsored by a Federal agency.
Collections of information are only considered to be conducted or
"sponsored" by a Federal agency and subject to the requirements of
this Act if :
(1) the agency itself conducts the collection ;
(2) the agency uses a procurement contract to obtain informa-
tion by way of a contractor ; or
(3) the terms and conditions of a grant or cooperative agree-
ment specifically require that collections of information by a
recipient from the public be subject to the clearance requirements
of the Act.
Collections of information undertaken at the discretion of recipients
of Federal grants are generally not covered, therefore, by the provi-
sions of this Act. (The Committee notes that the use of grants and
cooperative agreements to fund such research efforts is consistent with
the purposes of Public Law 95-224, the Federal Grant and Coopera-
tive Agreement Act, since agencies are not principally obtaining infor-
mation for their own use when they use such grants or cooperative
agreements but are instead principally supporting or stimulating a
public purpose authorized by law).
The Committee is aware of the epidemiological and biomedical
research communities concern that Federal agencies might inappro-
priately shift to greater use of procurement contracts in order to impose
unnecessary requirements on basic research and believes agency prac-
tice merits continued oversight.
On the other hand, if the collection of information is, in fact, con-
ducted or sponsored by the Federal Government, the mere fact that
responses to an information collection request are voluntary does not
mean that the collection of information is exempt from review by the
Director. The Committee is concerned that all information collection
requests conducted or sponsored by the Federal Government minimize
the paperwork burden on the public.
However, the Committee notes that it is well within the power of
the Director under this Act to make appropriate delegations of clear-
ance authority. The National Institute of Health and the behavioral
research community have expressed the view that steps be taken to
facilitate the clearance of research which (1). involves human subjects,
(2) is subject to regulations for the protection of human subjects, e.g.
45 CFR 46, and (3) is reviewed and approved by an appropriate insti-
tutional review board. The Committee expects the Director to evaluate
these recommendations carefully.
In short, the Committee believes there are sufficient protections in
the bill to guard against the problems envisioned by the research com-
Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
munity. Given these protections, the Committee does not believe it
advisable to grant the exemption requested. (In particular, the Com-
mittee notes that, with respect to behavioral research, the authority
contained in the Paperwork Reduction Act does not differ substan-
tially from the authority contained in the original Federal Reports
Act of 1942. Collections of information for behavioral research con-
ducted by Federal agencies have been subject to the Director's author-
ity for 38 years. The Committee sees no reason to abandon this
precedent).
The Committee does not believe biomedical and epidemiological
research should be exempted from the scope of the Director of OMB's
authority to review collections of information. The Director has suffi-
cient flexibility in the administration of this Act to ensure that our
nation's health research effort is not impaired.
Finally, the Committee notes that, unlike the original Federal Re-
ports Act of 1942, S. 1411 limits to a maximum of 90 days the time
the Director may take to review an information collection request.
In addition, the Committee calls attention to the "fast track" authority
set out in Section 3507 (g), whereby an agency head may petition the
Director to clear an information request in one day in emergency
situations.
3. Should the clearance process require a quick decision by the
Director of OMB for special situations?
During Committee deliberations several agencies raised examples
of instances where information was needed quickly, and before elapse
of the 60 days allowed the Director of OMB to review requests for
information. For example, the Internal Revenue Service cited tax
forms which have to be developed and sent out to the public short of
60 days because of legislation enacted by the Congress late in the tax
year.
The Federal Reserve Board's concern about the absence of a "fast-
track" mechanism was illustrated in terms of the adoption of changes
in Regulation D-the regulation which deals with reserve require-
ments. The setting of reserve requirements is a major instrument of
monetary policy. For example, on October 6, 1979, the Board, as part
of a series of measures designed to combat inflation and restrain
credit, announced the imposition of marginal reserve requirements on
the managed liabilities of member banks and U.S. branches and
agencies of foreign banks. These liabilities had not been previously
subject to reserve requirements. Because of financial market sensi-
tivity and the operational needs of monetary policy, it was necessary
that the changes be implemented immediately upon announcement.
The Board's October 6 action required new report forms and changes
in existing forms to monitor and carry out the policy. In absence of
a "fast-track" mechanism, the Board could not implement its policy
decision effectively.
The General Accounting Office and the Office of Management and
Budget commented that such unusual and emergency situations can
be accommodated. with procedures both agencies now have. The Com-
mittee decided, however, to provide explicitly for a fast-track mecha-
nism in section 3507 (g) . If an agency head determines a collection of
information (1) is needed before 60 days, (2) is essential to the agen-
Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
27.
cy's mission, and (3) the agency can not comply with clearance re-
quirements, the agency head may ask the Director of OMB to approve
or disapprove within 1 day.
The Committee expects this authority to be employed by agencies
only in an unusual and emergency situation where an unforeseen
event or public harm is a consideration. The Director of OMB retains
the authority to deny information requests that do not warrant imme-
diate approval. The Director is also required to report to Congress
annually each instance where an agency has requested a 1 day decision.
The Committee believes the Director of OMB should establish pro-
cedures for reviewing certain requests which may require a decision
before 60 days but not within 1 day. Agencies will then be guided in
their use of the fast-track mechanism not to make such requests unless
absolutely necessary. They will know in advance the Director may deny
a request requiring a 1-day turnaround if the agency's needs can be
met by a longer period which is still short of 60 days.
The fast-track provision recognizes there may be a few instances
where expedited action by the Director is essential to the national well-
being. The Committee expects, however, that when such requests are
made, the sponsoring agency will take all practicable steps to consult
with interested agencies and members of the public in order to mini-
mize the burden of the collected information.
4. Should requests for information from educational institutions be
exempt from the Director of OMB's clearance authority?
In 1978 the General Education Provisions Act exempted from the
Director of OMB's authority information requests which were to re-
spondents who are primarily educational agencies or institutions and
for which the purpose of the information was for the formulation or
implementation of education programs. Clearance authority for this
paperwork was assigned the Secretary of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare. With the creation of the Department of Education, the Secretary
of Education became responsible. The 1978 Act also established a Fed-
eral Education Data Acquisition Council (FEDAC) to assist the Sec-
retary.
A major objective of the Paperwork bill is to eliminate the fragmen-
tation of clearance authorities for paperwork. The Committee did not
agree that the Secretary of Education instead of the Director of OMB
should retain ultimate authority for the "educational" part of the
paperwork burden.
The House companion to S. 1411 repealed Section 400(A) of the
General Education Provisions Act granting the Secretary authority
but the repeal was not to be effective until October 1, 1982.
The Committee believes ultimate clearance authority should be con-
solidated within the Director of OMB by this legislation. S. 1411 will
immediately restore the Director's ultimate authority but retains a
major role for the Secretary of Education and FEDAC. The criteria
for the Secretary and FEDACs' involvement has been expanded to
include all information requests where educational institutions are the
primary respondents.
The Secretary of Education endorsed the Committee's approach by
letter and assured the Department's commitment to devoting the neces-
sary resources to accomplish a reduction in the paperwork burden im-
posed on educational institutions.
Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
The Committee anticipates the Secretary's expanded role in review-
ing burden will need additional resources to assist the function per-
formed by FEDAC.
The Committee intends that the Director of OMB integrate requests
for information generated by other agencies of government with the
Secretary of Education's responsibility. Requests for information in
which educational institutions are not the primary respondents may
not be appropriate for FEDAC review. The Committee also expects
that once a request has been submitted to the Secretary by another
agency, the Director shall approve or disapprove of the request within
a maximum of 90 days. This time limit required by the bill will de-
mand close coordination between the Director and Secretary.
[The letter follows:]
THE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION,
Washington, D.C., June 27,1980.
Hon. LAWTON CHILES,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Federal Spending Practices and Open
Government, Committee on Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN : Thank you for your letter requesting our
views on H.R. 6410 and S. 1411 and the role of the Federal Education
Data Acquisition Council (FEDAC).
I fully concur with the President's objective expressed in his Novem-
ber 30, 1979 Paperwork Reduction message to the Congress in which
he emphasized the importance of providing for "central oversight for
all forms." Centralized coordination by the Office of Management and
Budget of data collection government-wide, including the education
area, is vital to guard against burdensome and duplicative requests.
We believe that the efforts of FEDAC and the Department's forms
clearance office have made a strong beginning in reducing the quantity
and in improving the quality of data collection on educational institu-
tions: We are committed to devoting to those functions the necessary
resources to strengthen the Department's ability to reduce the paper-
work burden imposed on our educational institutions. We believe the
Department's efforts in this regard will complement those of OMB.
We also will work with interested persons in the education community
to reduce the data collection burden, as I promised in the February
appropriation hearings, and in a manner consistent with the Presi-
dent's objective.
Again, we appreciate your interests in our efforts and views.
Sincerely,
SHIRLEY M. HUFSTEDLER.
5. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act expand the scope of the
Brooks Act to cover Government-owned contractor-operated.labora-
tories.
Representatives from, Government-owned, contractor-operated
laboratories whose automatic data processing equipment (ADPE)
purchases are not presently subject to the scope of the Brooks Act
(Public Law 89-306) queried whether the affect of the bill would be to
subject them to the Brooks Act.
A legal memorandum from the Department of Justice to the Gen-
eral Counsel of the General Services Administration was brought to
Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
the Committee's attention. (See end of discussion.) The memorandum
speaks to the extent acquisitions of automatic data processing equip-
ment by government contractors fall within the scope of the Brooks
Act. The representatives sought assurance that the bill's provisions did
not change the basis for the legal opinion.
The bill does not expand or decrease the scope of the Brooks Act
(See section 3518(d) ). The Committee believes the memorandum re-
flects the extent to which the acquisition of automatic data processing
equipment by government contractors will be covered by S. 1411's in-
tegration of the OMB policy and fiscal responsibility for the Brooks
Act into the Director's authority for the management of information
resources.
As stated in the opinion, the Brooks Act allows GSA to coordinate
and provide for the efficient purchase, lease, and maintenance of auto-
matic data processing equipment by Federal agencies or by contractors
who have specifically undertaken to supply ADPE to those agencies.
The GSA does not have authority over Government contractors who
use ADPE incidental to their supplying other goods and services in
their contract performance. These contractors (such as the govern-
ment-owned, contractor-operated facilities) do not come within the
scope of the Brooks Act unless the very subject matter of the contract,
or a severable portion of the contract, is the supplying of ADPE serv-
ices to a Federal agency.
While the Committee intends that the bill not expand the scope of
the Brooks Act to cover laboratories not now covered, neither does the
Committee intend this interpretation be abused by Federal agencies
who seek to avoid coverage by the Brooks Act through contracting for
automatic data processing services.
[The letter follows:]
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., July 14,1978.
To : Allie B. Latimer, General Counsel, General Services Administra-
tion.
From : Leon Ulman, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of
Legal Counsel.
Subject : Application of Brooks Act to acquisitions of automatic data
processing equipment by Government contractors.
This responds to your letter of June 22, 1978, requesting this office
to reexamine its earlier opinion of May 6, 1975, and to provide further
guidance concerning questions arising in connection with the General
Services Administration's (GSA) interpretation of the Brooks Act.
Specifically, you have expressed concern that GSA policy objectives
would be undermined if the Act were not interpreted to cover auto-
matic data processing equipment (ADPE) purchased or leased by gov-
ernment contractors with the cost in essence paid by the Government.
We must reiterate our view that GSA generally does not have au-
thority over contractors who use ADPE in the course of supplying
other goods and services to the Government, even though the ADPE is
wholly paid for with federal funds.
Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
The Brooks Act, 40 U.S.C. ? 769(a), provides that GSA is
authorized to coordinate and provide for the efficient purchase, lease,
and maintenance of automatic data processing equipment (ADPE) by
federal agencies. You believe that in addition, ADPE to be acquired
by Government ' ontractors is subject to the Brooks Act when the
equipment is (1) leased and full lease-costs are paid by the Govern-
ment under one or more contracts, or (2) purchased by the contractor
for the account of the Government or title will or may pass to the
Government. 41 C.F.R. ? 101-32.401 (1977) ; 41 C.F.R. 1-4.1101
(1977). We disagree with your contention that those regulations
correctly set forth the coverage of the Brooks Act.
Our earlier opinion took the position that the Brooks Act allows
GSA to coordinate and provide for the efficient purchase, lease, and
maintenance of ADPE by federal agencies or by contractors who have
specifically undertaken to supply ADPE to those agencies. But the
opinion further stated that GSA did not have authority over Govern-
ment contractors who use ADPE in the course of supplying other
goods or services in their contract performance ; those contractors do
not come within GSA authority unless the very subject matter of the
contract (or of a severable portion of the contract) is the supplying of
ADPE services to a federal agency.
This view is supported by both the language and the legislative
history of the Act. We recognize that efforts by GSA to coordinate
the purchase and use of ADPE according to the policy of the Brooks
Act may be thwarted by this interpretation in certain circumstances,
but the intent of Congress seems unequivocal.
The statutory language itself is limited to the "purchase, lease, and
maintenance of automatic data processing equipment by Federal
agencies." 40 U.S.C. ? 759(a) (1970). The phrase "by Federal
agencies" is repeated several times with no qualifying clauses. 40
U.S.C. ? 759(b) (1), (2) (1970). There is no mention of contractors in
any way being subject to GSA authority.
The term "Federal agency" as used in the Brooks Act is defined in
the Federal Property Act, 40 U.S.C. ? 472 (b). It means "any executive
agency or any establishment in the legislative or judicial branch of
the Government (except the Senate, the House of Representatives,
and the Architect of the Capitol and any activities under his direc-
tion." Id. It is clear that the definition does not extend to a contractor
doing work for a federal agency. -
The legislative history of the Brooks Act supports the restricted
interpretation above. The original bill authorized GSA "to coordinate
and provide for the economic and efficient purchase, lease, and main-
tenance of automatic data processing equipment by, or at the expense
of the Federal agencies." H.R. 4845, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965). The
House Committee deleted the phrase "or at the expense of" in order to
"exclude ADP equipment needed to meet the requirements of Govern-
ment contractors and others acquired at the Government's expense."
H.R. Rep. No. 802, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., at 36 (1965). That explanation
was echoed in the Senate report. S. Rep. No. 938, 89th Cong., 1st Sess.,
1965 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 3893. The reason for that exclusion
was explained in the House Committee Report as follows :
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
31
Aerospace Industries Association of America, representing
most Government contractors with ADP equipment that would
be affected by this legislation, has expressed concern over the
possible impact on their operations of extending this Government-
wide inventory and acquisition coordinating system to ADP used
in the fulfillment of space and defense contracts. For this reason,
it is concluded that a more appropriate course of action at this
time would be to provide for is management system limited to
in-house Government ADP * * * It is the committee's intention to
follow developments closely so that appropriate action can be
recommended should developments indicate that inclusion of con-
tractor equipment, acquired at the expense of the Government,
under this coordinated Government inventory and acquisition
system is needed for the protection of the taxpayers' interest. H.R.
Rep. No. 802, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., at 36-37 (1965).
In addition, the Comptroller General, in an agency report, was of the
opinion that the phrase "or at the expense of, Federal agencies" was
intended to extend authority of the GSA over contractor equipment;
by implication the omission of that phrase from the final draft meant
that no such extension was intended. Letter from Joseph Campbell,
Comptroller General, to William L. Dawson (March 22, 1965), quoted
at 1965 U.S. Code -Gong. & Ad. News 3900.
Notwithstanding this evidence you have suggested that the objec-
tions raised by the Aerospace Industries Association of America, as
quoted above, could be based on the misconception of the Brooks Act
that it gave the Government authority over the contractor's own
ADPE. You state that interference with contractors' management
prerogatives is neither the intent nor the letter of the Brooks.Act.
In addition, there have been suggestions in the past, as set.forth in
our 1975 opinion, that a high degree of Government involvement may
convert a contract between private parties into a contract with the
Government itself. See Optv~ Systems, Inc. v. Weinberger, Civ.
No. 75-0320 (D.D.C. March 27,1975) ; Lombard Corporation v. Recor
321 F. Supp. 687 (D.D.C. 1970). Presumably such a situation could
exist under GSA's guidelines when ADPE was leased or bought by
the contractor with Government funds. The argument then would be
that since the contract for acquisition of the ADPE is in reality be-
tween the Government and a third party supplier, with the contractor
merely a conduit, the requirements of the Brooks Act and GSA would
apply.
These contentions, however, contravene the legislative intent of the
Brooks Act discussed above, which clearly left contractors' determi-
nations free from the ADPE acquisition system established for Gov-
ernment agencies. Because congressional language and intent seem
clear, we do not believe the expansive theories outlined above can be
broadly applied. As you have indicated in your cover letter and at-
tachments, there are facts indicating abuse of this position. We agree
that the major objectives of the Act would be defeated if federal agen-
cies could simply contract out their ADPE acquisition and use; in
that situation, when the contract itself is for the provision of ADPE
to the Government, the Act would apply.
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
But the intent of Congress seems to have been to require more than
the mere use of Government funds by a contractor to buy or lease
ADPE to have the Brooks Act apply to the contractor. To be subject
to GSA procedures the contractor must be supplying ADP services to
a federal agency; otherwise the intention to exclude ADPE used by
contractors for their own needs as expressed in the House and Senate
Reports would be defeated.
It seems to us that perhaps the only solution to the problems which
you have raised is to seek appropriate amendatory legislation. If, how-
ever, you believe there is some administrative solution other than that
outlined in your letter, we shall be happy to consider it.
6. Should requests for information by the Federal Election Commis-
sion be exempted from the Director of O.M.B.'s clearance authority?
H.R. 6410, the House companion to S. 1411 did not exempt the Fed-
eral Election Commission (FEC) from _its coverage. Clearance re-
sponsibility for the FEC was shifted from the General Accounting.
Office to the Director of O.M.B. as was responsibility for all other inde-
pendent regulatory agencies.
The Chairman of the Senate Rules Committee raised for the Com-
mittee's consideration the Federal Election Campaign Act amend-
ments passed in January of 1980 which created a legislative review
of regulations and forms promulgated by the FEC.
The FEC plays a unique role in the political process. It is the only
agency whose basic mission is to oversee the public disclosure of cam
paign financing for candidates for the Congress and Presidency. The
Congress recently decided to clear the regulations and forms of the
FEC itself. This function is handled by the Senate Rules Committee
and the House Committee on Administration. If neither House of
Congress disapproves forms within 10 legislative days after submis-
sion, the FEC may proceed to use the forms for collecting the required
information.
Due to its unique role, not its independent status, the Committee
believes S. 1411 should exempt the FEC. Since the Congress itself
reviews the burden FEC information requests impose, the principle
that all requests be subjected to an external review remains intact.
7. What does the Paperwork Reduction Act do to maximize public
access to the information it collects and to minimize the costs of
dissemination?
The Committee received a number of constructive comments from
public and private library and information service groups and indi-
viduals. These groups and individuals supported the imposition of
limitations on Federal paperwork requirements, but also emphasized
the principle of full and free public access to the information which
the government does collect. The Committee recognizes that this prin-
ciple is important and that the full benefit of Federal compilation of
information is derived only when the material is made available to
the widest possible audience.
The American Library Association suggested that established poli-
cies and existing laws governing access to government information be
adhered to in developing and implementing the Paperwork Reduction
Act policies. The Committee notes that the OMB has recently offered
for public comment a proposed comprehensive policy regarding Fed-
eral information management and dissemination. The proposed pol-
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
icy reminds agencies of their responsibilities to adopt policies and
procedures consistent with the provisions of Title 44 of the U.S.
Code-especially those pertaining to the federal depository library
system and the Government Printing Office.
It is the Committee's view that this proposed policy, coupled with
this legislation, will ensure balanced decision-making regarding the
collection, management, use and dissemination of information. The
Director of OMB will also submit annual reports to the Congress
concerning OMB's major activities regarding federal information
management.
Similarly, the Committee expects that the Director of OMB will con-
sult with other Federal agencies concerned with developing govern-
ment-wide information policies, such as the Government Printing
Office and the Library of Congress, as well as the National Commission
of Libraries and Information Science, the Joint Committee on Print-
ing, and the Federal Library Committee. Additionally, consultation
with these and other federal entities and with persons outside the
Government who are concerned with information management and
dissemination is also expected in the development and implementation
of policies and practices pertaining to the dissemination of publicly
available information.
The importance of using existing data bases and services to save
time and- money has been stressed both by secondary information pro-
viders and the Comptroller General. The Comptroller General em-
phasized the cost reductions implicit in extracting information from
existing sources rather than acquiring new sources. In keeping with
this concern, the Committee stresses to designated senior agency offi-
cials the value of working closely with their -own agency information
management personnel who are familiar with abstracting, indexing,
and disseminating information. Prior to creating any new data bases,
these agency officials should determine if the data base may be avail-
able elsewhere, either within or outside the Federal government.
The Committee expects the Director to take appropriate steps to
maximize public access to the information the Federal government
collects.
The Director's consultation with agency officials who are knowl-
edgeable about agency information holdings, and with parties outside
the Government, will ensure that the Federal Information Locator
System becomes a valuable resource for agency officials and public
citizens. The potential usefulness of the Locator System can be ex-
panded by incorporating profiles of additional agency information
holdings not otherwise required by the bill. Section 3505(2) (A) re-
quires the Director to develop a proposal to augment the System in
this manner; existing data bases or available abstracted subjects
should also be considered by the Director for inclusion in the proposal.
VI. HEARINGS
The Subcommittee on Federal Spending Practices and Open Gov-
ernment held two legislative hearings and five field hearings to sup-
port the deliberations on the Paperwork Reduction Act. Witnesses
made many useful suggestions that were of great benefit to the Com-
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
34 mittee. A list of witnesses who contributed to the Committee's work
follows :
June 28,1978
Hon. Frank Horton, a Representative in Congress (N.Y.) .
Hon. Thomas J. McIntyre, U.S. Senator (New Hampshire).
James T. McIntyre, Director, Office of Management and Budget
accompanied by Wayne Granquist, Associate Director for Manage-
ment and Regulatory Policy ; Roye L. Lowry and Louis Kincannon.
Elmer B. Staats, Comptroller General of the U.S.G.A.O. accom-
panied by Arnold P. Jones and John M. Lovelady.
Edmund Wellington, President, Citizens Committee on Paperwork
Reduction, accompanied by Ms. Linda Bagby.
November 1, 1979
Hon. Henry Bellmon, U.S. Senator (Oklahoma).
Hon. Thomas J. McIntyre, former Senator (New Hampshire) ac-
companied by John M. Cross, Executive V.P., Citizens Committee on
Paperwork Reduction.
Wayne G. Granquist, Associate Director, Management and Regula-
tory Policy, O.M.B. accompanied by Stanley Morris, Deputy Associate
Director for Regulatory Policy.
J. Charles Partee, member, Board of Governors, Federal Reserve
System.
John R. Evans, Commissioner, Securities and Exchange
Commisssion.
Tyrone Brown, Commissioner, Federal Communications
Commission.
April 17, 1979-Jacksonville, Fla.
John Williams, General Business Services, a small business coun-
selor; accompanied by Steve Cox, Arlington Flower Shop, Inc., florist;
and Claire Garcia of Max Garcia & Associates, land surveyor.
Jesse Morgan and Maggie White of the Presbyterian Retirement
Home.
Ken Kelley, Jacksonville tax aide coordinator, accompanied by Bob
Faltings, Bill Ledbetter and Gordon E. Hendricks, tax aide counselors.
Jim Koivisto, accompanied by Joan Koivisto, Halliday's Drugs,
pharmacists.
Jim Powers, executive director, Florida Pharmaceutical Association.
Allan Schonberg, M.D., accompanied by Sharon MacLean, office
manager.
James E. Deaton, President, Jacksonville AFL-CIO Council.
Ed Holt and Ada Stallings, owners of Royal Oak Grocery Store.
Walter L. Widdowson, D.V.M., and Foster Wright, D.V.M.,
veterinarians.
Jack Ceccarelli, executive director of the Gasoline Dealers Associa-
tion, accompanied by David Bethea, Marcoin of Jacksonville, and Art
Lairson, Lairson Gulf Service.
Gary Hall, assistant vice president of Famous Amos Restaurants.
Approved For RPIPasP 2 lrl7Ifl 517 r~in_r Dp85-pppn zRnnn ppp5pppg sz
vvvvvvvvvvv v
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
35
W. Taylor Sams, President Southern Electric Co., accompanied by
Paul Woodard of the Commercial Electric Co., and Andrew Bernard,
manager, National Electrical Contractors Association, North Florida
Chapter.
May 31, 1979-St. Louis, Mo.
Kenneth W. Chilton, assistant director, Center for the Study of
American Business, Washington University, St. Louis, Mo.
Mrs. Dawn Larmer, small business consultant, General Business
Services.
Nylon Wilson, vice president, Gateway National Bank, St. Louis,
Mo.
Charles Roland, Service Corps of Retired Executives, delegate,
White House Conference on Small Businesses.
David A. Gee, president, the Jewish Hospital, St. Louis, Mo.
Dr. Richard Bradley, private practitioner.
Larry Schreiber, Jr., St. Louis College of Pharmacy.
Margaret A. Stroup, director, Department of Human Resources, St.
Louis County, Mo.
Victor Ellman, city manager, University City, Mo.
August 6,1979-St. Petersburg, Fla.
Harry W. Wright, executive vice president and general manager,
Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc., Tampa, Fla.
Earl Smith, Anna Maria, Fla., volunteer medicare counselor.
Ann Kasper, St. Petersburg, Fla.
Dr. Louise Wensel, St. Petersburg, Fla.
William McMorran, Washington, D.C., national coordinator, medi-
care assistance program, National Retired Teachers Association/
American Association of Retired Persons.
Majorie J. McEntyre, staff officer, Health Care Financing Admin-
istration, Department of H.E.W., Region IV, Atlanta, Ga.
Mrs. Edward Liberty, Clearwater, Fla.
Peter W. Hughes, Washington, D.C., legislative counsel, medicare
assistance program, National Retired Teachers/American Association
of Retired Persons.
Robert L. Cochran, Sunshine Center, St. Petersburg, Fla.
Weltha W. Buxton, Largo, Fla.
Edward F. McGonigal, Largo, Fla.
Mildred Hanzelon, Largo, Fla.
Fabbian G. Dufoe, Jr., St. Petersburg, Fla.
Lewis J. Dan, Jr., Jacksonville, Fla.,'senior v.p., benefits administra-
tion, Florida Blue Cross/Blue Shield.
Bill Long, Jacksonville. Fla., director, medicare part B communica-
tions, Florida Blue Cross/Blue Shield.
Richard C. Dever, M.D., Jacksonville, Fla., v.p. and medical direc-
tor. Florida Blue Cross/Blue Shield.
Frank W. Arrigo, St. Petersburg, Fla.
Jim Sheeler, Clearwater, Fla., representative, Project Director's
Association of Pasco County.
Robert W. Hoaglund, Glenview, Ill., assistant comptroller, Kraft,
Inc.
Richard L. Conover, representing the Citizens Committee on Paper-
work Reduction, Tampa, Fla.
Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
Raymond Shelton, Tampa, Fla., superintendent, Hillsborough
County schools.
Helen A. Carnes, Tampa, Fla., teacher, Van Buren Junior High
School, Hillsborough County.
Gail Husbands, Clearwater, Fla., elementary schoolteacher, Pinellas
County;
John Luposello, Lakeland, Fla., principal, Jesse Keen Elementary
School, Polk County;
Edward Allen, Tallahassee, Fla., administrator, Management In-
formation Services, Division of Public Schools, Florida Department
of Education;
John A. Smith, St. Petersburg, Fla.
August 23,1979-Tallaha8see, Fla.
Lt. Governor Mixson;
James Tait, Director of Planning and Budget, Executive Office;
David H. Pingree, Secretary, Department of Health & Rehab.
Services;
Mary Clark, General Counsel, Department of Community Affairs;
Howard Rhodes, Deputy Director of Water and Special Programs;
Commissioner Ralph D. Turlington;
Commissioner Zearl Lancaster;
Commissioner Lee Vause;
Representative George Sheldon, Florida State Legislature ;
Representative Jon Mills, Florida State Legislature;
Ray Sittig, Executive Director, Florida League of Cities;
Ken Austin, Administrative Asst., City Manager of Tallahassee;
Henry Stout, Office of Mayor, Director of Intergovernment Rela-
tions ;
Scott Crawford, grant manager for county administrator (Orange
Co.).
Wanda Evans, Director, Government Grants Department, Orange
Co.
January 16, 1980-Orlando, Fla.
Florida Hospital Association.-Jack F. Monahan, Jr., President,
Florida Hospital Association; John McBride, Senior V.P.; Don Bo-
hannon, Florida Hospital, Patients Accounts Manager; and Herb
Johnson, Orlando Regional Medical Center, V.P., Finance.
University of Central Florida.-Dr. Trevor Colbourn, President.
Service Corps of Retired Executives (SCORE).-Jack Scribner,
Vice Chairman, Orlando Chapter, Winter Park; John Bostick, Dis-
trict SCORE Representative, Winter Park; and Max Barron, SCORE
Volunteer, Longwood.
Daytona Reach Housing Authority.-Reverend Carl Brinkley, As-
sistant Executive Director.
Associated Industries of Florida.-Bobby F. McKown, Florida Ag-
ricultural Research Institute; Frank Johnson, Lykes Pasco Packing
Company; and Dud Zellor, Golden Gem Growers, Umatilla.
Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association.-Wayne Crain, Manager,
Production Marketing Division; John Evans, Producer, Oviedo Citrus
and vegetables; Larry Johnson, Producer, Cabbages and Pickles, San-
ford; and Victor Smith, Farmer, Citrus, Cattle and Irrigation Sys-
tems, Pasco County.
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
37
VII. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE
Section 1 titles the Act the "Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980".
SECTION 2. COORDINATION OF FEDERAL INFORMATION POLICY
Section 2(a) amends Title 44 of the United States Code by striking
out chapter 35 and inserting a new chapter in its place. Existing
chapter 35 is the Federal Reports Act of 1942 as amended, and estab-
lishes the mechanisms for controlling the reporting and recordkeep-
ing burden imposed by Federal agencies on the public. In its place,
new chapter 35 creates a management structure for the Federal Gov-
ernment's information related activities. The chapter includes man-
agement controls to minimize the burden imposed on the public in
maintaining and providing information to the Federal Government.
Section 3501 explains the purpose of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1980.
SECTION 3502. DEFINITIONS
Section 3502? contains the definitions of sixteen terms used in the
chapter. In alphabetical order they are : agency, burden, collection of
information, data element, data element dictionary, data profile, Di-
rector, directory of information resources, independent regulatory
agency, information collection request, information referral service,
information systems, person, practical utility, recordkeeping require-
ment, and telecommunications.
The term "agency" does not include the Federal Election Commis-
sion because, by statute, the paperwork requests of that agency are
reviewed by the Congress itself. There was no necessity to change
this unique arrangement. (See Public Law 96-187, enacted January
8, 1980; 2 U.S.C. Section 438 (c), (d) 1980).
Neither does the term "agency" include government-owned, con-
tractor-operated facilities such as laboratories engaged in research
and production activities for national defense. The question of this
exclusion arose as part of the broader issue of whether S. 1411'1rep-
resented an expansion of the Brooks Act (Public Law 89-306). The
Brooks Act takes its definition of "agency" from the Federal Property
and Administrative Services Act. Under the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act "government controlled corporations"
are not inc'^ led in the term agency. The explicit exclusion of govern-
ment-owned, contractor-operated facilities from the term "agency"
was intended to assure that the term "government controlled corpo-
ration" will not be incorrectly interpreted to apply to government-
owned, contractor-operated facilities. The exclusion of government-
owned, contractor-operated facilities from S. 1411 makes it clear that
the scone of the President's and OMB's "direction", "fiscal" and
"policy" authority for automatic data processing and related systems
pursuant to the Brooks Act (40 U.S.C. 759(g)), and integrated with
Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
OMB's functions under section 3504(g) of S. 1411, remains the same
and is not expanded, as that authority applies to such facilities. Such
facilities are not agencies as the term "agency" applies to the authority
contained in the Brooks Act.
In the discussion of specific issues the Committee reaffirms the exist-
ing interpretation of the Brooks Act as it applies to government con-
tractors by citing a legal memorandum from the Department of Jus-
tice to the General Counsel of the General Services Administration.
The explicit exclusion of government-owned, contractor-operated fa-
cilities from the term agency is not intended to alter the status of that
legal opinion as a correct statement of the law as it applies to "govern-
ment contractors" in general. The Committee believes that the memo-
randum accurately describes the law and it intends no change in the
law.
"Government controlled corporations" which are not government-
owned, contractor-operated facilities are considered agencies for the
purposes of S. 1411.
The term "burden" means the time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to provide information to a Federal agency. The
word "or" is employed to indicate that burden, as it is used in this
chapter may be measured by any one or a combination of factors relat-
ing to either time, effort, or financial resources. For example, this
flexible meaning has significance as "burden" is used in section 3505
(1) (A) and (B) which requires the Director to set a goal to reduce
the burden of collection of information. The Director has flexibility
to use any one or a combination of measures relating to time, effort,
or financial resources in order to establish a reasonable measure upon
which burden reductions will be evaluated.
The term "collection of information" replaces the term "informa-
tion" in the original Federal Reports Act, (44 U.S.C. 3502). The
substantive meaning of the original definition is retained but two
specific clarifications are made. First, recordkeeping requirements,
which are also defined in section 3502, are explicitly included as means
of soliciting facts or opinions by an agency. Information maintained,
as opposed to directly provided by Federal agencies, is therefore sub-
ject to the clearance requirements for collections of information set
forth in section 3507.
Second, answers to identical questions posed to ten or more persons
are clearly distinguished from answers to questions posed for general
statistical purposes. Both kinds of answers are included in the defini-
tion of "collection of information." An interpretation that collection
of information applies only to information collected for statistical
compilations of general public interest is foreclosed.
Several statistical series, such as the civilian employment series of
the Office of Personnel Management, do depend on information pro-
vided by agencies, instrumentalities, or employees of the government
as opposed to ten or more persons from the public. Since the original
Reports Act, the clearance authority has been used to coordinate the
compilation of such agency statistics by the President, Director and
Office of Federal Statistical Policy. That authority is retained by
section 3502(3) (B).
As used in the definition, "general statistical purposes" is intended
to have precisely the same meaning as "statistical compilations of gen-
ArnyPd Fnr Release 2007/05/17 ? CI? RDD85 000028000300050008
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
eral public interest," as the phrase appears in the original Reports Act
(44 U.S.C. 3502),.
The "collection of information" definition does not change the scope
of current authority and practice by the Director of OMB and the
Comptroller General to promulgate rules and regulations needed to
interpret the relationship of certain kinds of information to the defini-
tion of collection of information. This practice is presently evident in
OMB Circular A-40 and GAO regulations (4 CFR Part 10). Previ-
ous editions of Circular A-40 and GAO regulations demonstrate how
this authority has been used during the 37-year history of the original
Federal Reports Act.
An example of current practice relates to the words "or other similar
methods" which are found in both the original Reports Act and the
definition of "collection of information." While neither definition
specifically mentions oral methods calling for answers, the Director of
O.M.B. has historically included oral techniques as instruments for
collecting information. Federal agencies have increasingly been collect-
ing information from the public through the use of telephone surveys
and personal interviews. These techniques are used either independent-
ly or in conjunction with other information collection techniques such
as mail questionnaires. The imposition of a federal paperwork burden
does not depend on how the questions are asked of the respondent, but
rather on the fact the Federal government has asked or sponsored the
asking of questions. In concept, oral data collections are the same as
those conducted through written requests for written responses. They
should be reviewed under the same standards as written requests
The term "independent regulatory agency" is defined by listing the
agencies which are considered to be independent regulatory agencies.
Any agency so designated by future statute would also be considered
an independent agency for the purposes of this chapter.
The term "information collection request" refers to the actual instru-
ment used for a collection of information. It is the information collec-
tion request which must be submitted to the Director in accordance
with the clearance requirements of section 3507.
The term "practical utility" means the ability of an agency to actu-
ally use as opposed to potentially use the information it collects. An
agency may determine it needs information it does not have the capa-
bility to use for the purpose intended. Such information would not
have practical utility.
In the case of general purpose statistics, which are those collected
chiefly for public and general government uses and without primary
reference to policy or program operations of the agency collecting the
information, "practical utility" means that actual uses can be
demonstrated.
Information is also collected to form the basis for disclosure to the
public. For example, documents filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission by issuers of securities and by other persons subject to the
Federal securities laws are designed for use by persons making invest-
ment and other financial decisions. In this connection, Federally-man.
dated disclosures to the public by issuers and certain owners of secur-
ities are central to carrying out the puposes of the Federal securities
laws. Therefore, in considering whether information will have prat.
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8.
tical utility, the Director should consider, among other things, whether
the agency can use the information either to carry out its regulatory
or other functions or to make it available to the public for the use of
persons who have an interest in entities or transactions over which
the agency has jurisdiction.
The term "recordkeeping requirement" means a requirement im-
posed by an agency on persons to maintain specified information. The
definition includes information maintained by persons which may be
but is not necessarily provided to a Federal agency.
The term "telecommunications" equipment, technology, functions,
activities, or needs means the use of telecommunications solely for the
collection of information as defined or the processing, storage, and
transmission of information resulting from collection of information.
This definition excludes the term, telecommunications as it appears in
this chapter from being interpreted to include, for example, telecom-
munications used for command and control missions explicitly related
to national security and missions related to foreign and counterintel-
ligence.
This section establishes in the Office of Management and Budget an
office to be known as the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
An Associate Director who shall be appointed by and report directly
to the Director, shall head the office and serve as the Director's prin-
cipal advisor on Federal information policy.
The Director may delegate to the Associate Director the responsibil-
ity for functions assigned to the Director under the chapter. However,
the ultimate authority for the functions assigned is always retained by
the Director, and any such delegation does not relieve the Director
of accountability for the administration of the assigned functions. The
Director may not delegate any function under this chapter to any
other officer or employee of the Office of Management and Budget ex-
cept the Associate Director.
This section lists and describes the following policy functions for
which the Director shall provide overall direction : general informa-
tion, information clearance and paperwork control, statistical activ-
ities, records management, privacy, and Federal automatic data proc-
essing and telecommunications. In addition, the Director is to ensure
that rules and regulations are developed by Federal agencies in a
manner which will, to the extent practicable and appropriate, mini-
mize information burden. The authority and responsibility contained
in these policy functions provide the Director an effective means to in-
tegrate and manage the information resources of Federal agencies.
Effective government-wide integration and management of informa-
tion resources will provide for minimal information burden on the
public.
Thus subsection (a) restates in summary form all of the authority
of the OMB Director under this Act. The purpose of this bill is to
improve information management so as to reduce the burden on the
Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
public. With that in mind, this subsection requires that the exercise
of that authority must be consistent with applicable law.
Therefore whatever authority herein vested in the Director of
OMB must be used in a manner that conforms with existing law. For
example, while section 3504(b) (3) mandates the Director to coordi-
nate agency information practices "through the review of budget pro-
posals," a statutory exemption or exception from OMB budget review
continues to apply. To cite another example, the provisions of section
3504(h) (2) on public participation in developing means for collection
of information are subject to procedures or timetables established in
other law. So if a law requires agency action with a specific time
period, that action could not be delayed by OMB under section
3504(h)(2).
Section 3504(b) describes the general information policy functions
of the Director, which include developing and establishing uniform
information management policies; reviewing proposals for changes in
legislation, regulations, and agency procedures to cause improvements
in agency information practices; coordinating agency information
activities through the review of budget proposals; promoting greater
agency sharing of information; evaluating agencies' information ac-
tivities to determine their effectiveness and their compliance with the
information policies established by the Director; and overseeing re-
search with respect to information collection, processing, storage,
transmission, and use.
The Director's responsibility for initiating and reviewing the paper-
work aspects of legislative proposals includes laws in effect, legislation
under consideration by the Congress, and proposed legislation under
consideration by the executive branch. This responsibility corresponds
to the responsibility of each agency to develop procedures for assess-
ing the paperwork and reporting burden of proposed legislation re-
quired by section 3506(c) (3). The. mandate to coordinate information
policy functions through the use of budget proposals encourages the
Director to use the budget process and budget process techniques as
a means to coordinate agency information practices.
Section 3504(c) describes the paperwork control functions of the
Director. These include reviewing and approving information col-
lection requests proposed by Federal agencies, determining whether
information is needed by an agency to perform its functions, designat-
ing a single collection agency to obtain information for two or more
agencies, setting goals for reducing the burden imposed by Federal
information collection requests, overseeing action on the recommenda-
tions of the Commission on Federal paperwork, and designing and
operating the Federal Information Locator System created by section
3511.
In addition, the Director is to ensure that all information collection
requests (1) are inventoried, display a control number and, when ap-
propriate, an expiration date; (2)indicate the request has met the
clearance requirements of section 3507; and (3) contain a statement
which describes 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. Some agencies have disputed.
whether information required on applications for Federal assistance
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
42
awards or benefits are voluntary or mandatory. Such information
requests may now be classified as "required to obtain a benefit."
The Director's authority to review information requests is further
described in section 3507. His authority to determine an agency's need
for information is further described in section 3508.
The requirement that all information collection requests be inven-
toried includes those which are disapproved by the Director as well as
those approved. The Director's responsibility to ensure all collections
of information display a control number corresponds to the require-
ment of section 3507(T) which states an agency shall not engage in a
collection of information without obtaining a control number from the
Director. The Director is authorized to withhold a control number
from an agency's proposed collection of information only if the infor-
mation collection request has been disapproved and the request is not
otherwise valid according to the provisions of sections 3507 (b) and
(c)?
Section 3504(d) describes the Director's statistical policy functions,
which include developing long range plans for improving the per-
formance of Federal statistical activities; coordinating those activi-
ties; overseeing the development and implementation of government-
wide policies, principles, standards, and guidelines concerning statis-
tical activities; and evaluating the performance of Federal statistical
programs. This provoision is not intended to authorize uniform rules
or methodology for a regulatory analysis or other forms of impact
statements.
Section 3504(e) describes the Director's records management func-
tion, which includes providing advice and assistance to the Adminis-
trator of General Services to help him implement chapters 29, 31, and
33 of Title 44, United States Code. These chapters deal with records
management activities; reviewing agencies records management ac-
tivities to determine their compliance with guidelines and policies, and
coordinating records management policies with those of related in-
formation programs.
Section 3504(f) describes the functions related to records privacy.
They include overseeing the development of policies, principles, stand-
ards, and guidelines both on information disclosure and confiden-
tiality, and on safeguarding the security of information collected or
maintained by Federal agencies. The Director is to provide advice and
guidance to the agencies concerning information security, restriction,
exchange, and disclosure, .and monitor compliance with the Privacy
Act of 1974 and other related information management laws. The
Director's privacy functions do not affect the responsibility of the
Department of Justice- to encourage agency compliance with the Free-
dom of Information Act as set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552(d).
Section 3504(g) describes the Director's Federal automatic data
processing and telecommunications functions. The word "Federal" dis-
tinguishes these functions from the private sector telecommunications
policy responsibilities presently assigned to the Secretary of Com-
merce. The functions in this section include establishing policies, prin-
ciples, standards, and guidelines for automatic data processing and
telecommunications functions and activities and overseeing the estab-
lishment of automatic processing standards by the National Bureau
of Standards under section 111(f) of the Federal Property and Ad-
ministrative Services Act of 1949. They also include monitoring the
Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
effectiveness of, and compliance with, directives issued pursuant to
sections 110 and 111 of the Federal Property and Services Act, (the
Brooks Act) ; reviewing determinations under section 111 (g) of the
Act; providing advice and guidance on the acquisition and use of
information technology (including but not limited to, computer tech-
nology, communications technology, and related information handling
storage and retrieval technology) to improve the effectiveness of the
use and dissemination of Federal data ; and reviewing proposals for
changes in legislation, regulations, and agency procedures to improve
automatic data processing and telecommunication practices. Advice
and guidance provided by the Director shall be to agencies of the
Federal Government and shall include guidance on full and open
competition as a means to achieve the Federal Government's acquisi-
tion objectives.
The purpose of Section 3504(h) is to require the Director to take
steps to ensure that Federal agencies, to the extent practicable and
appropriate, minimize the information burden associated with the
promulgation of rules and regulations. Early agency attention during
the development stages of rules and regulations to the burden of col-
lection of information that accompany them, is most apt to result in a
minimization of the information burden resulting from their enforce-
ment. The Director is to ensure that agencies utilize efficient means
in the collection, use; and dissemination of information; provide an
early and meaningful opportunity for the public to comment on pro-
posed means for collection of information; and to assess the conse-
quences of alternative means of collection, use, and dissemination of
information. The Director's exercise of authority under section 3504
(h) is subject to section 3507(c). It also merits emphasis that the
Director of OMB's authority hereunder must conform with the pro-
visions of sections 3504(a) and 3518(e).
This section assigns certain specific tasks to the Director and sets
deadlines for their accomplishment. The purpose of this section is to
provide certain performance measures upon which the activities of
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs may be evaluated.
On October 1, 1980, when the Act takes effect, the Director shall set
a goal to reduce the then existing information burden by 15 percent by
October 1982. The Director shall set a goal to reduce the October 1,
1980 burden an additional 10 percent for the year following 1982. A 25
percent reduction is contemplated over a 3-year period. At the end of
the 3-year period the Act's authorization for appropriations contained
in section 3520 will expire. This sunset requirement will force Congress
to evaluate the activities authorized.
The reduction goals are not binding but are intended to focus public
attention on efforts to reduce the federal paperwork burden. The
Director has flexibility to establish the overall measure of federal
burden resulting from collections of information.
Within one year after enactment of the Act the Director is to : (1)
establish standards and requirements for agency audit of all major
information systems and assign responsibility for conducting govern-
ment-wide or multiagency audits;
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
44
(2) establish the Federal Information Locator System;
(3) identify areas of duplication in information collection requests
and develop a schedule and methods for eliminating duplication;
(4) develop a proposal to augment the Locator system with agency
information holdings which may not be a part of federal collections of
information from the public; and
(5) identify initiatives which may achieve a 10 percent reduction in
the burden of Federal collections of information associated with the
Administration of Federal grant programs.
The Director shall not assign responsibility for agency audits of
major information systems used for the conduct of criminal investiga-
tions or intelligence activities. The requirement that the Director
"assign" responsibility for other information systems is intended to
enable Congress or other oversight bodies to identify the government
official accountable for the conduct of a government-wide or multi-
agency audits.
The requirement to identify initiatives which may reduce by ten
percent the burden of collections of information that are a part of the
preaward, conduct, and audit of federal assistance programs is in-
tended to highlight the opportunity presented by this subject area to
reduce burden.
Within two years after the enactment date, the Director is to :
(1) establish a schedule and a management control system to
ensure that the practices and programs of the various policy areas
related to information management are appropriately integrated
with each other and with the information management policies
established by chapter 35;
(2) identify initiatives to improve productivity in Federal
operations using information processing technology;
(3) develop a program to enforce Federal information process-
ing standards at all Federal installations and revitalize the
standards development program established pursuant to section
759(f) (2) of Title 40, United States Code, and separate the
program from technological advisory services;
(4) complete action on the recommendations of the Commission
of Federal Paperwork including the development of legislation
necessary to implement them ;
(5) develop, in consultation with the Administrator of the
General Services Administration a five-year plan for meeting the
automatic data processing and telecommunications needs of the
Federal Government in accordance with the requirements of
section 111 of the Federal Property and Administrative Services
Act and the purposes of this Act; and
(6) submit to the President and the Congress legislative pro-
posals to remove inconsistencies in laws and practices involving
privacy, confidentiality, and disclosure of information.
The program to enforce Federal information processing standards
at all Federal installations refers to "administrative standardization"
of information processing standards as well as data processing stand-
ardization. Examples of administrative standardization would be
OMB Circulars which standardize the manner in which the informa-
tion contained in intergovernmental audits or in financial reports to
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
Federal agencies is collected, obtained and used. The direction.to
OMB to complete action on the recommendation of the Paperwork
Commission provides the Director with a range of options. The Di-
rector may implement, implement with modification or reject any or
all of the recommendations.
This section describes responsibilities of Federal agencies under
chapter 35. The purpose of this section is to ensure the active participa-
tion of Federal agencies to meet the objectives of the Paperwork
Reduction Act.
Each agency is to carry out its information activities in an efficient,
effective, and economical manner. They are to comply with the policies,
principles, standards, and guidelines prescribed by the Director.
Each agency head is to designate within three months after the Act
goes into effect a senior official or officials (in the_ case of the Depart-
ment of Defense) who report directly to the agency head and who will
carry out the agency's responsibilities under this chapter. The desig-
nated official is to have the responsibility for the conduct of and ac-
countability for acquisitions made pursuant to a delegation of author-
ity under section 111 of the Federal Property and Administrative
Services Act. The senior official designation establishes an identifiable
line of accountability for agency information management activities.
Each agency is to inventory its major information systems and re-
view its information management activities involving the collection,
use, and dissemination of information ; take steps to ensure that its in.
formation systems do not overlap or duplicate those of other agencies ;
develop procedures for assessing the paperwork and reporting burden
of proposed legislation relating to the agency; and establish necessary
procedures to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Federal
Information Locator System.
Agencies are also to ensure that information collection requests to
nine or fewer persons, as opposed to ten or more as the term collection
of information is applied elsewhere in the chapter, display a statement
to inform the person receiving the request that the request is not
.subject to the clearance requirements of section 3507 of the chapter.
This requirement applies only to collections of information required
by law or to obtain a benefit as opposed to voluntary requests. The
purpose of this requirement to inform persons is to complement the
purpose of section 3512, the public protection section.
The words "or officials" are intended to accommodate only the po-
tential need of the Department of Defense and its military depart-
ments whose primary mission involves the discharge of functions re-
lating- to national security. Other establishments in the executive
branch of the Government which constitute an agency for the purposes
of the senior official designation are subject to the Director's authority
under section 3516 to promulgate rules and regulations.
The intent of the requirement for each agency to develop procedures
to assess the information burden of, proposed legislation affecting the
agency's scope of activities is to provide a basis for more effective
agency and executive branch comment on the potential burden of pro-
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
posed legislation. For example, the Senate rules of procedure require
committee reports accompanying public bills to the floor of the Senate
contain a regulatory and paperwork impact statement. Better execu-
tive branch comment in the early stages of legislative deliberations will
enable Senate committees to reflect more substantive consideration
of the burden of new legislation. It is not the Committee's intention
that agencies be obligated to prepare assessments for every bill intro-
duced or considered. This provision only requires that procedures for
making such assessment be put into place.
SECTION 3507. PUBLIC INFORMATION COLLECTION ACTIVITIES-SUBMISSION
TO DIRECTOR; APPROVAL AND DELEGATION
This section establishes the conditions for the clearance of informa-
tion collection requests. Before agencies may conduct or sponsor an
actual collection of information they are required to submit their pro-
posed information collection requests to the Director of OMB. Before
an agency makes this submission it is to eliminate any information
collections which seek to obtain information available from other
sources within the Federal Government; to minimize, to the extent
practicable and appropriate, the compliance burden on respondents;
and to formulate plans for tabulating the information in a manner
such that the information will be useful not only to that agency, but
also to other agencies and the public.
Agencies are required to submit to the Director with their proposed
information collection requests, copies of pertinent regulations and
other related materials specified by the Director and an explanation
of measures they have taken to eliminate duplication, minimize burden,
and tabulate data. They are also to prepare a notice which the Director
will cause to be published in the Federal Register for the purpose of
obtaining comment from the public.
A Federal agency is considered to "sponsor" the collection of infor-
mation if the agency itself collects information or if it uses a procure-
ment contract and the contractor collects information for the agency.
A Federal agency is not considered to "sponsor" the collection of infor-
mation if a recipient of a grant or cooperative agreement undertakes
a collection of information unless the terms and conditions of the
grant or agreement provide for approval by the Federal agency of
such collections.
Grants and cooperative agreements are not to be used by Federal
agencies for the principal purpose of obtaining information for the
Federal Government. Procurement contracts, grants agreements, and
cooperative agreements are to be used by agencies consistent with the
requirements and purpose of the -Federal Grants and Cooperative
Agreement Act of 1977 (Public Law 95-224).
The Director shall review, and thereafter, modify, approve, or deny
the information collection requests submitted. He is to notify an agency
of his decision to approve or disapprove a proposed information col-
lection request within 60 days of receipt. If circumstances warrant,
the Director may extend the review period for an additional 30 days.
If the Director does not notify the agency of his decision within 60
days or within the time extension, his approval may be inferred, he
shall immediately assign a control number to the information collec-
Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
tion request, and the agency may collect the information for a period
of up to one year. The Director's approval of information collection
requests are to be valid for a period of no more than three years.
Section 3507(c) provides that an independent regulatory agency
as defined in this Act may override any disapproval, in whole or in
part, of an information collection request by the Director. The Com-
mittee considers the override an important protection for the inde-
pendent status of the regulatory agencies. The override, in effect,
provides an opportunity for those agencies to take a second close look
at any information collection request disapproved by the Director. This
provision strikes a necessary and appropriate balance between the goals
of centralized control of Federal collection of information and the
legitimate information needs of the various independent agencies.
The authority contained in Section 3507 may be triggered by an
action, including any modification, of an information collection request
by the Director. Whenever such disapproval occurs-and to the extent
that' it occurs-then the override is available. Thus any such specific
action by the Director under sections 3507 or 3508 or any other relevant
provision of this bill would be subject to the override. That of course
involves the Director's determination on whether the information is
necessary, including whether the information will have practical util-
ity, and any other permitted reason upon which the disapproval is
based. To cite two further examples, an inferred approval under sec-
tion 3507(b) may be made express, and a rejection of an emergency
request under section 3507(g) may be nullified. In those cases, the inde-
pendent agency may determine to proceed, and once that determination
is made the request shall be valid, at the discretion of the agency, for
a period of up to three years.
Once the override occurs, the Director must immediately assign a
control number. It is the Committee's intention that the ministerial
function of assigning a control number shall not in any way result in
any further delay.
In addition, any specific exercise of authority by the Director under
section 3504(h) or 3509 is also subject to override. Any action by the
Director under those provisions is subject to this subsection. As such,
the final decision on whether information will be efficiently and effec-
tively collected pursuant to a regulation rests squarely with an inde
pendent regulatory agency. So too, the Director's designation of a
central collection agency is subject to possible override.
However, the Committee was convinced of the importance of estab
lishing certain safeguards for the proper exercise of this authority.
Therefore, an override may occur only if a majority of the members
of an independent commission decide to take that action. That has the
effect of having the decision made at the highest levels of the agency.
The Director must be informed of the decision, and the agency must
explain the reasons for exercising the override. That will assist the
public and the Congress in understanding why the override was used.
Finally, once overriden, the information collection request is not per-
manent. Instead, it is subject to the same time limitations-namely,
three years-which apply under section 3507(d) in other circum-
stances. Of course the agency could decide on an earlier termination
date. If the information request is withdrawn, discontinued, or modi-
Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
48
fled. successor information requests must be submitted for review by
the Director in the same manner as any new request.
The effort to reduce the Federal paperwork burden, of necessity,
involves certain limitations on the ability of Federal agencies, in-
cluding those that are independent, to collect information. Although
the Committee believes that the override authority is important to
protect the independent status of these regulatory agencies, it expects
that all agencies will cooperate to the fullest extent possible in the
effort to reduce paperwork.
The Director may delegate his information collection approval au-
thority to an agency if he determines that the senior official within
that agency designated pursuant to section 3506(c) is sufficiently in-
dependent from any program responsibility and has sufficient re-
sources to evaluate whether proposed information collection requests
should be approved. This delegation is subject to the notice and com-
ment provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act.
The determination of "independence" will have to be made by the
Director on a case-by-case basis. However, it should be clear that no
person who is responsible for, or otherwise directly involved in, the
administration of any program for which information is sought could
possess the requisite independence to evaluate information collection
requests of that program.
The scope of delegation is to be determined by the Director. It could
encompass, for example, information requirements which impose a
small burden on the public, but not those which demand more than
an hour of each respondent's time. Delegation does. not preclude the
Director, on his own initiative or on request of interested persons,
from reviewing individual information collection requests if he deter-
mines that circumstances warrant such review. The Director retains
the authority to revoke delegations to the agencies both in general and
with regard to any specific matter. He may approve, modify, or dis-
approve any requests on which a delegee has already ruled. Any of-
ficial to whom the approval powers have been delegated is to comply
fully with rules, regulations, or procedures established by the Director.
Section 3507(f) declares no agency shall engage in a collection of
information without obtaining from the Director a control.number to
be displayed upon the information collection request. This require-
ment complements the provisions of section 3512 on public protection.
The Director shall ensure that control numbers are assigned promptly
so that this ministerial function does not contribute in any way to
delays in obtaining information.
Section 3507(g) establishes a "fast track" procedure whereby an
agency head may seek clearance of an information collection request
in one working day if the agency head determines a collection of in-
formation is (1) needed prior to the expiration of the sixty day
period authorized for the Director's review of information collection
requests, (2) is essential to the agency's mission, and (3) that the
agency cannot reasonably comply with the provisions of this chapter.
A request to authorize a collection of information under the fast
track procedures of section 3507(g) may be made by an agency head
at the time a request for clearance is originally made or at any time
prior to a decision by the Director on a request for clearance, and shall
Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
4$
be acted on by the Director within one working day'of its receipt. If
the Director approves the authorization request, a control number
shall be assigned to the information collection request immediately.
Any collection of information conducted pursuant to section 3507(g)
may be conducted without compliance with the provisions of this
chapter for a maximum of 90 days from the time the Director received
the request for authorization.
If the Director denies a request for "fast track" clearance, review
of the information collection request shall proceed as generally pro-
vided in this chapter. Of course, the Director, notwithstanding the
refusal to provide "fast track" clearance, may agree to act on the re-
quest on an expedited schedule, as appropriate.
It is intended that agency heads employ this discretionary authority
only for emergencies, or where an unforseen event or public harm is'
a consideration. The use of this authority by agencies will be listed
and described in the Director's annual report to the Congres., required
by section 3514.
SECTION 3508. DETERMINATION OF NECESSITY FOR INFORMATION
The provisions of this section replace the language of Section 3(d)
of the original Federal Reports Act of 1942 (44 U.S.C. 3506). The
Director is required, before approving, modifying, or denying a pro-
posed information collection request, to determine whether the collec-
tion is needed for the performance of agency functions. Necessity is
thus the test under this section. This determination is to include
whether the collection of information : (1) has practical utility for the
agency, (2) is not more than the minimium needed to meet the agen-
cy's objective, or (3) is not duplicative of similar information other-
wise accessible. If the Director determines that a collection is not.
necessary, he should not approve it. The Director is authorized to give
the agency and other interested- persons an opportunity to be heard
or to submit statements in writing before making a determination.
Unless the collection of information is specifically required by sta-
tutory law the Director's determination is final for agencies which are
formation is specifically required by statute does not, however, relieve
not independent regulatory agencies. The fact the collection of in-
an agency of the obligation to submit the proposed collection for the
Director's review. Independent regulatory agencies may override a
Director's determination pursuant to the provisions of section 3507(c)
of this chapter.
This section allows the Director to designate a collection agency to
obtain information for two or more agencies if the Director decides
that the needs of such agencies for information would be adequately
served by a single collection body. The purpose of the authority is to
promote the sharing of information so that the burden on the public
may be reduced.
Designation of a collection agency under this section is not author-
ized if the sharing of data between agencies is inconsistent with any
applicable law. To be inconsistent, the applicable law must prohibit
Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003 R000300050008-8
-50
the sharing of data betwen agencies or must totally prohibit the dis-
closure to anyone outside the agency. A mere prohibition on disclosure
to the public would not be inconsistent with sharing the data with
another agency unless the sharing would inexorably lead to a viola-
tion of that prohibition. Section 3510(b) of this chapter provides for
penalties relating to the unlawful disclosure of data and is sufficient
to protect against unauthorized disclosure of data by a receiving
agency.
The Director's designation is to prescribe the duties and functions
of the collection agency and the agencies for which information is to
be collected. While the designation is in effect, an agency covered by
the designation is not to obtain for itself the information which it is
the duty of the collection agency to obtain. The Director may modify
any designations under this section as circumstances require.
An independent regulatory agency may override a specific exercise
of the Director's authority under this section in accord with pro-
visions of section 3507(c).
SECTION 3510. COOPERATION OF AGENCIES'IN MAKING INFORMATION
AVAILABLE
This section specifically provides discretionary authority to the
Director of OMB to direct the sharing of information among agencies
to the extent such sharing is not precluded by statutory law or by a
policy specifically authorized by law. Agencies are also authorized to
share information with other agencies on their own volition and under
the same conditions.
As with section 3509, for the sharing of data to be inconsistent with
applicable law, the applicable law must prohibit the sharing of data
between agencies or must totally prohibit the disclosure to any one
outside the agency. A mere prohibition on disclosure to the public
would not be inconsistent with sharing the data with another agency
unless the sharing would inexorably lead to a violation of that
prohibition.
The Director also may not direct sharing of information if the dis-
closure would be inconsistent with applicable agency policy. Thus the
Director is not authorized to contravene an established agency policy
which would limit disclosure of information obtained pursuant to an
information collection request. For example, the Federal Communica-
tions Commission has expressed concern that the privacy rights of
licensees and other regulatees would be significantly reduced if the
Director could require divulgence to other agencies of sensitive eco-
nomic information collected by the FCC. Under existing FCC policy,
a regulated entity which had submitted information to the agency in
confidence generally would be notified when another agency sought
that information and would be given an opportunity to contest dis-
closure of the information. Another example of information for which
such sharing could not be required under this section is the case of
certain data collected by Federal agencies that regulate federally
insured depository institutions. In the course of their supervisory
activities, such agencies, by necessity, must obtain access to confiden-
tial information relating to insured depository institutions and cus-
Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
tomers, which cannot be made available to other without destroying
the very basis of the present structure of supervision of such financial
institutions. Congress has repeatedly recognized this fact in various
situations covered under the Freedom of Information Act, the Gov-
ernment in the Sunshine Act, and the Right to Financial Privacy Act,
to mention only a few. Moreover, Congress also specifically recognized
this need for confidentiality in the Federal Bank Agency Audit Act.
Accordingly, this principle of confidentiality inherent in the Federal
supervision of depository institutions has again been fully recognized
in formulating the requirements of this section. Policies such as this
both protect the privacy of persons whose economic affairs are subject
to regulation and enhance a Federal agency's ability to obtain infor-
mation by allowing the agency to provide a meaningful assurance of
confidentiality.
This section provides for penalties relating to the unlawful disclo-
sure of data and is sufficient to protect against unauthorized disclo-
sure of data by a receiving agency. If information obtained by an
agency is released to another agency, all provisions of law, including
penalties which relate to the unlawful disclosure of the information,
apply to the officers and employees of the receiving agency to the same
extent and in the same manner as the provisions apply to the officers
and employees of the agency which originally obtained the
information.
The provisions of this section are not intended to detract from the
authority the Director has exercised under the original Federal Re-
ports Act (44 U.S.C. 3507) to direct agencies to share information.
SECTION 3511. ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION OF FEDERAL INFORMATION
LOCATOR SYSTEM
Section 3511 requires the establishment and operation of a Federal
Information Locator System. This System shall be comprised of a
directory of information resources, a data element dictionary and an
information referral service. Both the directory and dictionary com-
ponents shall provide a common base or standards from which to
select definitions and terms and to cross-check current information
bases when planning a new information collection. The information
referral service should serve as a communication link for intra-
government functions (i.e. Federal information centers and clearing-
houses, Federal libraries, archives, records centers and repositories)
as well as a communication link for the public to locate and use infor-
mation which has been collected by the Government. Together, the
System's components are to serve as the register of information col-
lection requests by Federal agencies.
The Director is to design and operate an indexing system to facili-
tate the System's use ; require agencies to submit a data profile, (a
synopsis of the data to be requested as well as other identifying char-
acteristics such as the requesting agency, where the information col-
lected will be maintained, and authorizing statutes and regulations
for the collection), for each information collection request; and com-
pare data profiles of proposed information collection requests against
existing profiles in the System. The results of these comparisons
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
should be available, upon payment of a reasonable fee, to state and
local governments, and members of the general public. The Director
is to ensure that no actual data collected by Federal agencies are con-
tained within the System.
The purpose of this section is to protect the public from the burden
of collections of information which have not been subjected to the
clearance process described by section 3507. Information collection re-
quests which do not display a current control number or, if not, indi-
cate why not are to be considered "bootleg" requests and may be ig-
nored by the public.
Section 3504(c) (3) (A) requires the Director to ensure that all in-
formation collection requests display a control number. Section 3507
(f) declares that an agency shall not engage in a collection of infor-
mation without obtaining from the Director a control number to be
displayed. Section 3506(c)(5) requires each agency to ensure that
information collection requests specifically required by law or to ob-
tain a benefit and submitted to nine or fewer persons contain a state-
ment to inform the person receiving the request that the request is not
subject to the clearance requirements of section 3507.
Section 3512 states, notwithstanding any other provision of law,
no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to maintain infor-
mation for or provide information to any agency if the information
collection request involved was made after December 31, 1981, and
does not display a current control number assigned by the Director,
or fails to state that such request is not subject to this Act. These are
the only circumstances under which a person may justify the failure
to maintain information for or provide information to any agency
otherwise required, by reliance on this Act.
If an information collection request displays a current control num-
ber or states that the request is not subject to this Act, it is valid for
the purposes of this Act.
The protection provided by this section does not go into effect until
December 31, 1981 in order to provide agencies adequate time to com-
ply with the provisions of this Act.
The term "current control number" is used to ensure that the public
is also protected from information collection requests which may dis-
play a control number that is expired. Section 3504(c) (3) (A) man-
dates that the Director ensure information collection requests display
an expiration date when appropriate. Consistent with the provisions
of section 3507 (b), (c), (d), and (g), all control numbers are to be
assigned by the Director and are valid for a period not to exceed three
years.
The only collections of information by a Federal agency which are
exempted, and for which a person or persons could not claim protec-
tion under section 3512, are those collections of information which
this chapter does not apply to and are exempted by section 3518. They
are collections of information
(1) during the conduct of a Federal criminal investigation or
prosecution, or during the disposition of a particular criminal
matter;
Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
(2) during the conduct of a civil action to which the United
States or any official or agency thereof is a party, or an adminis-
trative action or investigation involving an agency against spe-
cific individuals or entities;
(3) by compulsory process pursuant to the Antitrust Civil
Process Act; and
(4) during the conduct of intelligence activities as defined by
executive order.
SECTION 3513. DIRECTOR REVIEW OF AGENCY ACTIVITIES; REPORTING;
AGENCY RESPONSE
This section requires the Director, with the advice and assistance
of the Administrator of General Services, to review, at least once
every three years, the information management activities of each
agency, as defined by the bill. These reviews are to determine the ade-
quacy and efficiency of the agencies' information activities, including
the acquisition and use of information technology, as well as compli-
ance with the information policies, principles, standards, and guide-
lines prescribed by the Director.
The Director shall also determine whether an agency has complied
with the responsibilities imposed on it by Section 3506. The results of
these reviews are to be reported by the Director 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 having jurisdic-
tion over legislation relating to the operations of the agency involved.
Each agency receiving a report, in turn, is to submit its response within
60 days to the Director and the Congressional Committees identified
above. This response is to be a written statement describing measures
taken by the agency to alleviate or remove any problems or deficiencies
identified in the Directors' report.
SECTION 3514. RESPONSIVENESS TO CONGRESS
Section 3514 requires the Director to keep the Congress and its com-
mittees fully and currently informed of the major activities carried out
under this chapter by submitting a report on such activities to the
President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representa-
tives annually and at other times as may be necessary. Topics to be in-
eluded by the Director in such reports are :
(1) proposals for legislative changes needed to improve Federal
information management activities including recommendations
to ease the paperwork burden imposed by the Government on in-
dividuals and small business, State and local government, and
other persons;
(2) a compilation of legislative impediments to the collection
of information in cases where the Director concludes that an
agency needs the information but does not have the authority to
collect it;
(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
Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
when practicable, identification of statutes and regulations which
in ose the greatest number of hours;
(4) a summary of accomplishments and planned initiatives to
reduce the information burdens of compliance with Federal in-
formation collection requests;
(5) a tabulation of areas of duplication in agency information
requests and efforts made to preclude the collection of duplicative
information including the central collection agency designations;
(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 the provisions of this chapter or
of the rules, regulations, guidelines, policies, and procedures issued
pursuant to the chapter;
(8) information with respect to the recommendations of the
Commission on Federal Paperwork including the specific actions
taken on, or planned for each recommendation accepted but not
yet implemented and an assessment and explanation of the reasons
for any delays in action to implement accepted recommendations.
In preparing any reports required by section 3514, the paperwork
barden shall not be increased on persons outside the Federal Govern-
ment. The information needed should be available from agencies or
within the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
The requirement of section 3514(a) (3), concerning information on
estimated reporting hours, is intended to be similar to data which has
previously been provided by OMB in its paperwork reports to the
President and Congress. In those reports, the estimated reporting
hours are given on an agency by agency basis. This provision is
intended to continue that practice.
SECTION 3515. ADMINISTRATIVE POWERS
This section provides that at the request of the Director, each agency
shall make its services, personnel and facilities available for assisting
the Director in performing the assigned functions under this chapter.
While independent regulatory agencies are excluded, such agencies
may voluntarily decide to provide assistance.
It should be noted that this section does not require agencies to
provide access to agency information determined by the Director as
necessary for the execution of the assigned functions. That authority
exists under the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, 31 U.S.C. 21.
This section provides that the Director may promulgate rules,
regulations and procedures to exercise the authority provided by this
chapter. The word "may" instead of shall is used to clarify that the
Director may exercise the authority contained in this chapter without
necessarily resorting to rules and regulations.
SECTION 3517. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES AND THE PUBLIC
This section provides that, in developing information policies, plans,
rules, regulations, procedures and in reviewing information collection
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
55
requests, the Director is mandated to consult with persons inside and
outside the Federal Government. Consultation with these persons and
affected agencies shall include an early and meaningful opportunity
to comment. Persons consulted shall include not only those directly
affected by a particular policy or information request, but any
interested person. The policies developed pursuant to this section
should include the requirement that in implementing them, agencies
also consult with the affected public and thereby benefit from its
advice.
Section 3518 concerns the effect of this chapter on existing laws and
regulations. Section 3518 (a) states that, except as otherwise provided
in this chapter, the authority of an agency under any other law to
prescribe policies, rules, regulations, and procedures for Federal
information activities is subject to the authority conferred on the
Director by this chapter. An example of such an agency prescription
would be the actual means, instruments, or forms used for the
collection of information.
Section 3518 (b) states that nothing in this chapter shall be deemed
to affect or reduce the authority of the Secretary of Commerce pur-
suant to Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1977, as amended and executive
order, which relate to telecommunication and information policy,
procurement and management of telecommunications and information
systems, spectrum use, and related matters.
The purpose of this section is to make clear that the Secretary of
Commerce's authority ,for telecommunications policy for the private
sector as opposed to the acquisition and use of telecommunications by
Federal agencies is not diminished. The present arrangement reflecting
this purpose was expressed in Reorganization Plan No. 1 and Execu-
tive Order 12046 and is not changed by the provisions of this chapter.
The term "information policy" and "information systems" as they
appear in this section are not intended to refer to the statistical policy
function assigned to the Director by section 3504. They refer only to
the Director's "telecommunications" policy function assigned by
section 3504(g).
Section 3518(c) makes clear that a collection of information during
the conduct of general investigations with reference to a category of
individuals or entities such as a class of licensees or an entire industry
is covered by the requirements of this Act. Section 3518 (c) does how-
ever, exempt specific kinds of collections of information from the
provisions of this Act. Collections of information are excluded from
the requirements of this Act : (1) during the conduct of a Federal
criminal investigation or prosecution, or during the disposition of a
particular criminal manner; (2) during the conduct of a civil action
to which the United States or any official or agency is a party, or an
administrative action or investigation involving an agency against
specific individuals or entities.
Thus section 3518(c) (1) creates certain exemptions for civil and
criminal law enforcement that apply to collection of evidence pur-
suant to investigations, whether before or after initiation of formal
charges. These exemptions are not limited to formal discovery or
Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
analagous stages in administrative processing and include interroga-
tories, depositions and subpoenas. Section 3518(c) (1) (B) covers all
law enforcement investigations, as distinguished from "general in-
vestigations," provided for in section 3518(c) (2). The language in
this subsection regarding "an administrative action or investigation
involving an agency against specific individuals or entities" is in-
tended to preserve a well-settled exception for subpoenas and similar
forms of compulsory process used for the collection of evidence or
other information in an adjudication or investigation for law enforce-
ment purposes. See 4 C.F.R. section 10.6 (c) (5), (c) (8). Section 3518
(c) (1) (B) is not limited to agency proceedings of a prosecutorial na-
ture but also include any agency proceeding involving specific adver-
sary parties. Similar to the collection of information in litigation, an
agency's intended use of investigatory and adjudicative process is
sufficiently safeguarded through judicial superintendence to render un-
necessary the administrative clearance process of this Act.
Collections of information as a result of compulsory process pur-
suant to the Antitrust Civil Process Act and information gathering
activities for the purposes of foreign and counterintelligence as de-
fined in Executive Order 12036 or successor orders are also exempt.
The collections of information covered by the exemption for the
conduct of criminal investigation, prosecution or deposition of a par-
ticular matter include direct actions by attorneys, courts, investigators,
or probation, pardon, parole, or correctional authorities to collect
information.
Section 3518(d) states that nothing in the Act 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 Manage-
ment and Budget. The language of section 3518(d) was adopted by the
Committee as a result of a recommendation of the Secretary of Defense
to clarify that the provisions of the bill did not expand or decrease
the authority conferred by Public Law 89-306, the Brooks Act, which
relates to the purchase of automatic data processing equipment.
Section 3518 (e) provides that nothing in this Act affects in any way
the authority of the President, the Office of Management and Budget
or the Director thereof, under the laws of the United States, with re-
spect to the substantive policies and programs of departments, agen-
cies and offices. This provision results from concern that the authority
of this Act might be used to increase the power of OMB over sub-
stantive policy. .
The Committee notes that there have been problems along that line
in the past. It has been argued that the Federal Reports Act-which
S. 1411 amends-was used to interfere with regulatory policy under
the guise of clearing information requests. Those arguments prompted
Congress to remove the independent agencies from OMB supervision
back in 1973-and place those agencies under GAO.
The bill has provisions to guard against that. Section 3518(e) pro-
vides that the bill does not affect in any way the powers of the Presi-
dent or OMB respecting the substance of agency policies. Thus S. 1411
draws an important distinction between paperwork management and
substantive decisions.
Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
This section provides that under the conditions and procedures pre-
scribed in section 313 of the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, as
amended (31 U.S.C. 54), the Comptroller General of the United States,
or his designated representatives shall have access to all books, docu-
ments, papers, and records of the Office of Information and Regula-
tory Affairs within OMB.
The conditions under 31 U.S.C. 54 limit access to such materials
only when court procedures are sought by the Comptroller or a repre-
sentative to enforce the comptroller's general access authority. Those
conditions do not limit the Comptroller's initial access right under
31 U.S.C. 54(a).
Section 3520 authorizes appropriations to carry out provisions of
Chapter 35, and for no other purpose, the following amounts for the
fiscal years indicated:
Mittiona
1981
------------------------------------------------------------ -
$8.0
1982
-----------------------------------------------------------------
8.5
1983
-----------------------------------------------------------------
9.0
Section 2 (b) amends the table of contents for the chapters contained
in Title 44, United States Code, by striking out the present title and
inserting the new title, "Coordination of Federal Information Policy."
Section 2(c) (1) amends sections 2904 of Title 44, United States
Code, by striking out the paragraph (10) and inserting a new para-
graph requiring the Administrator of General Services to report to
the appropriate oversight and appropriations committees of the Con-
gress and to the OMB Director annually and at,such other times as
he deems desirable on the results of his records management activities,
on evaluations of responses by Federal agencies to any recommenda-
tions resulting from his records management inspections or studies,
and on estimates of costs to the Federal Government resulting from
the failure of agencies to implement such recommendations.
Section 2(c) (2) amends section 2905 of Title 44, United States Code,
by redesignating the present text as subsection (a) and adding a new
subsection requiring the Administrator of General Services to assist
the Associate Director of the Office of Federal Information and Reg-
ulatory Affairs in conducting studies and developing standards re-
lated to record retention requirements imposed on the public and on
State and local government agencies by Federal agencies.
Section 3(a) provides for the President and the Director of OMB
to delegate to the Associate Director of the Office of Federal Informa-
tion and Regulatory Affairs all their functions, authority, and respon-
sibility for statistical policy and coordination under section 103 of the
Budget and Accounting Procedures Act of 1950.
Section 3 (b) provides the Director of OMB may delegate to the
Associate Director of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
all functions, authority, and responsibility of the Director under see-
Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
tion 552a of Title 5, United States Code (the Privacy Act of 1974),
and under section 110 and 111 of the Federal Property and Adminis-
trative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 757, 759), pertaining to auto-
matic data processing and telecommunications. In both Sections 3(a)
and 3 (b) , the Director may not delegate such functions, authority, and
responsibility to any other officer or employee of the Federal
Government.
Section 4(a) amends Section 400A of the General Education Provi-
sions Act (GEPA) to require the Secretary to coordinate the collec-
tion of information and data acquisition activities of all Federal agen-
cies, (1) whenever the respondents are primarily educational agencies
or institutions, or (2) whenever the purpose of such activities is to
request information needed for the management of, or the formulation
of, policy related to Federal education programs or research or evalua-
tion studies related to the implementation of Federal education
programs.
Prior to this amendment, agencies' information collections and data
acquisition activities would be submitted to the Secretary for review
only when the two conditions above existed. Changing the word "and"
to' or" expands the scope of the Secretary's review to bring all primari-
ly educational information collection requests through the Federal
Data Education Acquisition Council (FEDAC) and the Secretary's
review process.
Subsection (a) (3) (B) is amended so that, "No collection of infor-
mation or data acquisition activity subject to such procedures shall be
subject to any other review, coordination, or approval procedure out-
side of the relevant Federal agency except as required by this subsec-
tion and by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget
under the rules and regulations established pursuant to Chapter 35 of
Title 44, United States Code. If a requirement for information is sub-
mitted pursuant to this Act for review, the timetable for the Director's
approval established in section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1980 shall begin to run on the date the request is submitted and no
independent submission to the Director shall be required.
This change to the General Education Provision Act restores to the
Director of OMB ultimate clearance authority for educational infor.
mation collection activities. This amendment does not delay the clear-
ance process and require two independent submissions and reviews.
Once the information collection request has been submitted to the
Secretary of Education the 60 days (30 day extension option) ap-
proval time established in Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction
Act shall apply. Within a maximum period of 90 days the requesting
agency should know of the Director's approval or disapproval decision.
Section 4 (b) repeals the provision in the Surface Mining Control
and Reclamation Act of 1977 which states that for the purposes of
Chapter 35 of Title 44 the Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and
Enforcement of the Department of Interior is to be considered an in-
dependent regulatory agency.
Section 4(c) repeals the provision of section 708(f) of the Public
Health Service Act which excludes the collection of information of
the health professions from clearance by the Director of OMB.
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
Section 4(d) establishes the salary level for the Associate Director
of the Office of Federal Information and Regulatory Affair at Execu-
tive Level IV.
Section 5 establishes October 1, 1980, as the effective date of this
Act.
VIII. REGULATORY AND PAPERWORK IMPACT STATEMENT
In compliance with 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of
the Senate, the following is an evaluation of the anticipated regula-
tory and paperwork impacts of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980.
Estimates of the numbers of individuals and businesses who would be
regulated and a determination of the groups and classes of such
individuals and businesses
It is the intent of this legislation to reduce and minimize the govern-
ment paperwork and reporting requirements imposed on all sectors
of the public. OMB estimates that of current reporting requirements,
businesses receive 39 percent; individuals and households, 29 percent;
State and local governments, 15 percent; and farmers and others, 17
percent of the reports generated by the Federal Government. As a
result of law and regulations, the hourly burden to comply with these
requests falls heaviest on individuals and households since they con-
tribute 44 percent of the total reporting hours required to comply with
government's requests for information. Businesses bear 21 percent of
the hourly burden, State and local governments, 12 percent and farm-
ers and others absorb 23 percent of the currently estimated 783 million
burden hours.
It is not anticipated that the public will be directly regulated by
this legislation. Rather, the Office of Management and Budget will be
responsible for developing government-wide rules and regulations to
reduce the public's paperwork and reporting requirements.
Determination of the economic impact of such regulations on indi-
viduals, consumers and businesses affected
The public should experience a beneficial economic impact from the
management controls established by this legislation. Benefits should
be realized in the areas of improved collection methods, reduced
duplication and the elimination of unnecessary reporting costs.
Agency regulations shall be reviewed by the OMB Director to ensure
that undue burdens have been eliminated, the public has an opportu-
nity to comment on the proposed methods of collection, and alterna-
tive means for the collection, use and dissemination of the information
have been considered.
Any regulation generated by this legislation would only result in
a voluntary cost to the public. As S. 1411 encourages the opportunity
for public participation in the decision process, a voluntary cost could
be incurred by public participation in commenting on proposed
regulations.
The bill specifically mandates a goal of 25 percent reduction of
paperwork burden over the next three years. Using a conservative
Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
figure of $10 per hour as the time value of public use reporting times
an estimated 800 million hours imposed by the Government, almost
$8 billion can be attributed to the cost of public reporting require-
ments alone. The effort to meet this goal should be a significant factor
for reducing the economic impact of all Government collections of
information felt by the public.
Regulatory and paperwork controls provided by this legislation
will be directed and placed upon the Federal departments and agen-
cies. The responsibility and accountability to bring about paperwork
improvements and a reduction in public burden is firmly assigned to
the OMB Director. Further, the bill provides that any report pre-
pared by the Director for purposes of this legislation shall not in-
crease burdens on persons outside the Federal Government.
Determination of the impact on the personal privacy of the individ-
uals affected
This legislation reflects the careful consideration by the Committee
for the protection of individual's privacy and confidentiality. Safe-
guards have been incorporated in the legislation to ensure that indi-
vidual's personal information is not jeopardized. The collection, main-
tenance, use and dissemination of information by the Federal Gov-
ernment shall be consistent with applicable laws of confidentiality and
the Privacy Act of 1974. The legislation stipulates that any sharing or
release of information shall also be consistent with laws which protect
the individual.
Determination of the amount of additional paperwork that will result
from regulations to be promulgated under this bill
S. 1411 was specifically drafted not to add, but rather to reduce,
paperwork requirements on the public. However, the anticipated plan-
ning and management system for control of paperwork may initially
increase Federal agencies' internal paperwork.
Each department and agency subject to this bill has a responsibility
to improve their information management practices and minimize
the public burden. Regulatory and paperwork requirements associ-
ated with the provisions of this bill are primarily directed to the
Government itself.
Agencies which are currently subject to, and in compliance with,
the Federal Reports Act of 1942 and the OMB clearance procedures
should not experience significant regulatory or paperwork impact as
a result of this legislation. Agencies now subject to the review proce-
dures of the General Accounting Office are familiar with the clearance
process and would only experience minor reorientation to OMB pro-
cedures as a result of the shift. (Prior to 1973, independent regulatory
agencies were subject to OMB clearance procedures.)
First time regulatory and paperwork impacts will be heavily con-
centrated on those agencies which have never been subject to an infor-
mation clearance process (i.e. Internal Revenue Service) and for those
agencies which have elected to circumvent the requirements of the
OMB/GAO clearance procedures in the past.
S. 1411 also puts in place a public protection provision. After De-
cember 31, 1981, no person will be subject to penalties or need to com-
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
ply with any Federal information collection request which has not
gone through the OMB clearance and approval process. Any agency
information request to the public which does not display a current
OMB control number, or if not, states why not can be ignored.
In summary, this legislation will result in reducing the regulatory
and paperwork impact on the public. The public should not experi-
ence any new regulatory or paperwork impacts as a result of this
legislation.
On August 5, 1980 the Committee voted to report favorably S. 1411,
the Paperwork Reduction Act to the floor of the Senate. All Senators
present voted to report the bill. Senators Eagleton, Chiles, Nunn, Sas-
ser, Pryor, Levin, Stevens, Mathias, Danforth, Durenberger and Ribi-
coff were present and voted.
.Hon. ABRAHAM RIBICOFF,
U.S. CONGRESS,
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE,
Washington, D.C., August 26,1980.
Chairman, Committee on Governmental Affairs, 11.8. Senate, 3308
Dir/esen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN : Pursuant to Section 403 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974, the Congressional Budget Office has prepared
the attached cost estimate for S. 1411, the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1980.
Should the Committee so desire, we would be pleased to provide
further details on this estimate.
Sincerely,
JAMES BLUM
(For Alice M. Rivlin, Director).
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE
1. Bill number : S. 1411. AUGUST 26, 1980.
2. Bill title : Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980.
3. Bill status : As ordered reported by the Senate Committee on
Governmental Affairs, August 5,1980.
4. Bill purpose : The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 would seek
to reduce the burden of federal paperwork on the public by 25 percent
over 3 years. The bill, which would take effect on October 1, 1980,
would establish an Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs with-
in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Government-wide
information policies and procedures would be consolidated and co-
ordinated by this office, and a Federal Information Locator Service
would serve as a register for information collected. The bill authorizes
the appropriation of $8 million in fiscal year 1981, $8.5 million in fiscal
year 1982, and $9.0 million in 1983.
Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
62
5. Cost estimate : Assuming appropriation of the full amounts au-
thorized by this bill, the estimated budget impact would be as follows :
Authorization level:
Fiscal year :
8.0
8.5
9.0
1981 --------------------------------------------------------
1982 --------------------------------------------------------
1983 --------------------------------------------------------
1984 --------------------------------------------------------
1985 --------------------------------------------------------
Bstimated outlays :
Fiscal year :
1981 --------------------------------------------------------
1982 --------------------------------------------------------
1983 --------------------------------------------------------
1984 --------------------------------------------------------
1985 --------------------------------------------------------
4.5
8.3
8.7
4.0
Some of the OMB activities for which funding is authorized in this
bill are currently performed by OMB, the Department of Commerce,
or the General Accounting Office. It is estimated that the President
has requested approximately $3.5 million in budget authority for these
activities for fiscal year 1981.
The costs of this bill fall within budget function 800.
6. Basis of estimate : For purposes of this cost estimate, it has been
assumed that the full amounts authorized in each fiscal year will be
appropriated. Estimated outlays in each year are based on historical
spendout rates for the Office of Management and Budget, which have
been adjusted to account for the time it will take to fill newly added
positions.
S. 1411 would involve a consolidation within OMB of functions
currently performed by several agencies. The Comptroller General has
estimated that 120 positions would be required to carry out the provi-
sions of the bill. An estimated $3.5 million, covering 75 of these posi-
tions, is included in the President's budget request for fiscal year 1981
for OMB, the Department of Commerce, and the General Accounting
Office. If Congress takes the appropriate steps to reduce funding to
agencies currently performing activities covered by this bill to reflect
the shift of positions to the new Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, the net effect in 1981 would be an increase of approximately
$4.5 million in budget authority and $1.9 million in outlays.
7. Estimate comparison : The Comptroller General provided the
Subcommittee on Legislation and National Security of the House
Committee on Government Operations with an estimate of the costs
and budget impacts expected to result from enactment of H.R. 6410.
According to the Comptroller General, the net increase in budget au-
thority in fiscal year 1981 would be $3.7 million. The difference be-
tween the Comptroller's estimate of net additional budget authority
and that of CBO is due to slight differences in the methodology used
for estimating the budget authority requested for already existing
positions.
8. Previous CBO estimate: On March 13, 1980, the Congressional
Budget Office prepared a cost estimate for H.R. 6410, a similar bill.
Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
ordered reported by the House Committee on Government Operations
on March 4, 1980. The current estimate shows lower estimates of out-
lays for fiscal years 1981, 1982, and 1983 due to adjustments in the
spendout rate applied.
9. Estimate prepared by : Judith Walker.
10. Estimate approved by: C. G. Nucgois
(For James L. Blum,
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis).
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
This bill is the first comprehensive revision of the Federal Reports
Act of 1942, since that law was enacted. S. 1411 will contribute to
better management of Government information programs and reduced
paperwork burdens on our citizens. We strongly support the objective
of paperwork reduction and expect to work for passage of this legisla-
tion on the Senate floor.
We are, however, alarmed by Committee approved amendments to
S. 1411 that would effectively revise and expand upon the Brooks
Act of 1965, which governs acquisition of automatic data processing
(ADP) equipment by Federal agencies. These amendments were
adopted primarily to conform the Senate bill to the previously passed
House bill. They were not part of S. 1411 or H.R. 3570 as introduced
and are largely unrelated to paperwork reduction. The amendments
were not considered in Senate hearings on S. 1411 because they sur-
faced in a revised House bill, H.R. 6410, long after the Senate hear-
ings had been completed.
We believe that the ADP related amendments approved by the Com-
mittee will have a significant adverse impact on the ability of defense
and intelligence agencies to acquire and use ADP equipment in a
timely and efficient manner. They will further disrupt an already un-
reasonably complex and mismanaged ADP acquisition system, and it
would be a serious mistake if they were approved. We intend to pro-
pose an amendment on the Senate floor to correct these deficiencies.
BROOKS ACT-NONINTERFERENCE BY GSA IN AGENCY DETERMINATIONS OF
NEED FOR ADP
Unde the Brooks Act GSA is vested with authority to act as a gov-
ernment-wide agent for the purchase, lease, and maintenance of ADP
equipment by Federal agencies. The Brooks Act was intended to foster
competition in the computer industry and to promote cost reduction
for the Federal Government. These objectives were to be achieved by
encouraging greater competition in the industry through Federal pro-
curement policies and by providing for the efficient acquisition and use
of ADP equipment by and among Federal agencies through a central
management system.
The Administrator of GSA was given a central management and
procurement role, but he was specifically denied authority to interfere
with the judgments and decisions of mission agencies related to their
need for or use of ADP to accomplish mission needs. The law restricts
the Administrator as follows :
Authority so conferred upon the Administrator shall not
be so construed as to impair or interfere with the determi-
(64)
Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
nation by agencies of their individual automatic data proc-
essing requirements, including the development of specifica-
tions for and the selection of types and configurations of
equipment needed. The Administrator shall not interfere
with, or attempt to control in any way, the use made of auto-
matic data processing equipment thereof by any agency.
This limitation was included to make it clear that GSA was barred
from interference in agency prerogatives. The particular, the limita-
tion reflected the concern of defense and intelligence agencies that GSA
involvement in the procurement process should not disrupt timely pro-
curement of needed ADP, and it should not allow GSA-which has
no expertise or responsibility for meeting national security needs-to
substitute its judgment for the professional opinions of military and
intelligence authorities.
Defense and intelligence systems are uniquely dependent upon ADP
technology. Needed ADP must be acquired quickly and without dis-
ruption to related military and intelligence procurement and planning
programs. National security missions frequently involve highly com-
plex and sensitive ADP requirements calling for state-of-the-art tech-
nology. It would have been totally unrealistic to expect that GSA's
overworked ADP procurement staff could keep up with the rapidly
changing technology, let alone the specific requirements of each user
agency. Accordingly, the Congress sought to avoid a complex and in-
efficient acquisition process in which GSA might second guess agency
decisions.
OMB/GSA MISMANAGEMENT OF ADP ACQUISITIONS
Unfortunately, implemention of the Brooks Act by GSA and OMB
has resulted in unforeseen adverse impacts on timely and efficient pro-
curement of needed ADP equipment by U.S. Government agencies. In
1979, an analysis by the President's Reorganization Project on Federal
agencies' utilization of ADP made the following findings, among
others:
The Federal Government is, in general, mismanaging its
information technology resources * * * This condition is mani-
fested by such major symptoms as: * * * a military enterprise
which is operationally vulnerable as a consequence of obso-
lescent equipment and systems * * *.
The average age of computing equipment in DOD is about
six years greater than that of comparable equipment used in
the private sector. This is nearly a full generation of com-
puter technology behind the private sector.
Implementation of the Brooks bill has led to an excessively
long procurement cycle of some three to five years-instant
obsolescence.
The Central Agencies Team Study of the President's Reorganiza-
tion Project indicated that GSA and OMB have seriously mismanaged
their responsibilities under the Brooks Act and that this is a primary
cause of a wide variety of ills in Federal ADP utilization. The de-
ficiencies of the existing system include an unreasonably complex and
time consuming acquisition process that frequently results in acquisi-
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
tion of obsolete or inappropriate systems and even serves to under-
mine the competitive process by imposing unreasonable barriers to
vendor responsiveness to Government proposals. OMB and GSA have
been narrowly focused on budgetary and procurement control. In the
words of the President's Reorganization Project (PRP) they have
engaged in "punitive oversight" rather than providing leadership and
service to executive branch agencies. This has resulted in many lost
opportunities for improved productivity througji ADP utilization and
in the unnecessary waste of the taxpayers' money.
NATIONAL SECURITY IMPACTS OF ADP ACQUISITION PROCESS-NORAD EARLY
WARNING SYSTEM FAILURES
The deficiencies of the present ADP acquisition system have a
government-wide impact; however, agencies involved in national de-
fense and intelligence programs have been particularly hard hit under
the Brooks Act. Within the past year there has been a series of com-
puter failures at the North American Air Defense Command's stra-
tegic warning facility at Cheyenne Mountain, Colorado. The com-
puter failures caused a false warning of Soviet missile attack against
the United States and U.S. strategic forces were unnecessarily placed
on nuclear alert. The Senate Armed Services Committee appointed
Senators Hart and Goldwater to study these computer failures and
report back to the Committee on the causes of this disturbing incident.
Senator Hart has determined that procurement of new state-
of -the-art computer hardware is a major problem for NORAD because
timely updating of early warning hardware is being hindered by
present Government purchasing policies. Senator Hart's preliminary
recommendation was that NORAD's strategic warning ADP equip-
ment be excluded from Brooks Act procurement procedures to assure
that this important element of our defense posture is provided with
the most up-to-date equipment at all times.
Unfortunately, NORAD is not alone among defense and intelli-
gence agencies in experiencing considerable delays in procuring new
ADP equipment. From start to finish the average acquisition period
for complex ADP systems by DOD is 37 months as opposed to 12 to
15 months for private industry. A significant portion of the difference
can be attributed to the delays imposed by the procedures mandated
in Public Law 89-306. Consider the following cases :
A. The Navy Oco zn Surveillance and Intelligence Sys-
tem.-The Navy requested approval from GSA to procure
two PDP 11/70 computers with peripheral equipment in or-
der to upgrade two OSIS sites which had become saturated.
No procurement of additional software was required.
As the system had been in place for some time and func-
tioned satisfactorily, permission to proceed with expansion of
the system to meet expanded requirements should have been
obtained expeditiously. Instead, eight months were required
to obtain a Delegation of Procurement Authority (DPA)
Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
from GSA. Most of this time involved justifying a sole source
procurement of the needed computers. Furthermore, after a
DPA was finally received, a further two months was required
to compete the ADP Equipment to a third-party vendor.
B. Air Force Global Weather Central System.-Procure-
ment authority was requested by the Air Force to initiate ac-
quisitions of this system in August, 1978. In June, 1979, GSA
delegated authority but required that revalidation of the sys-
tem architecture take place. Two independent contractors
revalidated the proposed architecture in December, 1979.
Procurement authority was subsequently sought once again
in January, 1980. Purchase authority was finally granted by
GSA in July, 1980.
C. Air Force Intelligence Data Handling System.-In this
case, the Air Force needed to upgrade its data processing
capabilities for handling information generated by the
SLBM strategic warning system as new radars began to come
on line in the late 1970's. A request for delegation of procure-
ment authority was submitted in October, 1976, in order to
allow acquisition of additional hardware to take place in time
to meet an October, 1977, operational need date.
GSA granted an interim DPA in August, 1977, which
allowed the equipment to be procured sole-source and to be
installed in June, 1978. However, at the time the DPA was
granted, the Air Force was given four years to replace the
system completely by competitive bid.
No operational requirement has been established for the
directed competitive replacement of the present IDHS. The
current ADPE in use satisfy present and projected growth
needs of the SLBM-warning mission. Simply for the purpose
of satisfying a GSA-mandated competition to replace the
sole-source improved system upwards of $30 million will be
unnecessarily spent-a figure which does not include the cost
of actually replacing the IDHS system, estimated at an addi-
tional $18 million.
As these examples suggest, the faults of the ADP procurement proc-
ess that impaired the effectiveness of NORAD are not unique. The
Brooks Act as administered by GSA and OMB has seriously con-
strained the ability of our armed forces and the intelligence commu-
nity to perform efficiently their various missions. GSA has repeatedly
interfered with defense and intelligence agency determinations of
need for ADP equipment contrary to the intent of the Brooks Act.
S. 1411 WOULD AMPLIFY FAILURES OF EXISTING ADP ACQUISITION SYSTEM
The Committee bill and report recognize that the present law is not
working well. The purpose of the ADP provisions in S. 1411 is to
correct the deficiencies of the existing system. Unfortunately, the
Committee bill would merely amplify the defects of the present system
by further complicating the ADP acquisition process and expanding
the roles of the very agencies, OMB and GSA, that are most respon-
sible for the system's present failures.
Approved For Release 2007/05/17 CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
68
The Senate bill would expand the scope of the Brooks Act and the
roles of GSA and OMB in the following ways, among others :
1. Telecommunications Equipment.-S. 1411 effectively amends the
Brooks Act to bring telecommunications equipment acquisition under
the existing ADP acquisition process administered by GSA and
OMB. Such equipment is not currently within the scope of the Brooks
Act. An amendment proposed by the Department of Defense and
approved by the Committee seeks to limit this extension of the
Brooks Act to exclude certain defense and intelligence applications
of telecommunications equipment. No such exclusion is included in
the House bill; and if the House provision were to prevail in Confer-
ence, Brooks Act controls would be extended to the following types
of critical defense and intelligence telecommunications functions,
among others :
Joint Tactical Communications Program.-Interoperable tac-
tical communications to equip tactical forces such as the Rapid
Deployment Joint Task Force.
National Emergency Airborne Command Post.-Survivable
communications connectivity between national command author-
ity and military forces.
Air Force Satellite Communications System.-Satellite com-
munications connectivity to the nuclear capable forces.
Navy TACAMO.-Airborne communications relay platform
to nuclear submarines.
Airborne Warning and Control Systems--Airborne command
and control system which uses telecommunications to control air
battle and provides sensor information to ground command
centers.
Joint Crisis Management Capability.-Joint Air Transport-
able Command and Control System to link national command
authorities to "on scene" commander in remote areas of the world.
PAVE PAWS.-Telecommunications links to Sea Launched
Ballistic Missile early warning radars.
To subject such acquisitions to the present GSA ADP acquisition
system is not only without justification, it would constitute a dangerous
impairment of our defense and intelligence capabilities. While we sup-
port the DOD amendment to the Senate bill, we object to inclusion of
any telecommunications equipment in this bill without justification
having been provided in the Committee record. Based on past per-
formance under the Brooks Act, we are concerned that GSA will at-
tempt to broadly define such equipment to include systems which were
intended to be excluded. Finally, we are alarmed at the mere pos-
sibility that the House position might eventually prevail in whole or in
part.
2. Open Ended Meaning of ADP.-The term "automatic data
processing equipment" is not defined in the Senate bill or the House
bill; however, it is used in contexts that give extremely broad meaning
to the term. Given GSA's history of overreaching interpretations of
the term ADP, we are deeply concerned that this legislation will be
Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
interpreted as an affirmation of existing overbroad agency interpreta-
tions and as a mandate for further broadening of its application.
Embedded Computers-Overbroad Interpretations of ADP.-An
example of what we are concerned about occurred last December when
GSA served notice on DOD that certain "embedded computers" (i.e.
computers embedded in weapons systems) would be reclassified as ADP
equipment subject to the Brooks Act's procurement procedures. Draft
regulations were circulated by GSA making such items as guided mis-
siles, weapons fire control equipment, space vehicles, microcircuits and
miniprocessors subject to the massive hierarchy of GSA ADP acqui-
sition requirements. If accomplished, this reclassification would bring
several thousand new items containing embedded computers under
GSA's control. Based on such past performance, we are fearful that,
in the absence of an explicit definition of ADP-one which delineates
and limits the scope of GSA's authority over ADP procurement, the
General Services Administration will be encouraged to continue pur-
suing an overly expansive interpretation of its authority under the
Brooks Act. It would be intolerable to have weapons system design and
procurement subject to arbitrary and unnecessary delays as now char-
acterize computer acquisitions.
3. Additional GSA Planning and Review Authorities.-S. 1411
would authorize the Administrator of GSA to participate in the
development of a 5-year plan for meeting the ADP and telecommuni-
cations needs of Federal agencies, including defense and intelligence
agencies. It would also direct the Administrator to conduct reviews of
the adequacy and efficiency of agency utilization of ADP every 3
years and report the results of these reviews directly to the Congress.
The House bill, as interpreted in the House Committee report, would
go the final step and explicitly subject agency "determinations of
need" and specifications for ADP to GSA review. Notwithstanding
this Committee's expression of intent to the contrary, we are deeply
concerned that these provisions are an open invitation for additional
GSA usurpation of mission agency prerogatives concerning the deter-
mination of mission need. Such a result would be totally unjustified
and dangerous to the integrity and effectiveness of vital national
security programs. Again, these provisions constitute an expansion of
GSA's and OMB's role under the Brooks Act and contradict this
Committee's expression of intent. We believe that if GSA's role is
allowed to expand into definition of mission agency ADP require-
ments, it will seriously undermine the present oversight, budgetary
review, authorization, and appropriations process.
4. Direct OMB Administration of Brooks Act.-S. 1411 authorizes
$25.5 million over a three year period for additional OMB staff to
carry out the paperwork reduction and ADP provisions of this Act.
We are advised by OMB that if fully funded, this would amount to
about 200 additional OMB positions.
OMB has not demonstrated competence in the administration of its
current oversight and management responsibilities under the Brooks
Act. Accordingly, there is no justification for an explicit Congres-
sional directive that OMB become directly involved in the day-to-day
Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
70
administration of the Brooks Act. It is just as inappropriate to au-
thorize OMB to substitute its views on mission requirements for those
of professional defense and intelligence authorities as it has been to
arm GSA. with effective powers to do so. OMB is a budget and over-
sight agency, not a mission agency. Like GSA, OMB does not have the
expertise or the responsibility to provide for national security needs.
OMB's role in defense and intelligence ADP acquisition programs
should be no different than its role in the budgetary process for other
DOD programs. There is no more basis for singling ADP procurement
out for micromanagement by OMB, than there would be for making
the OMB Director a super Secretary of Defense-Director of Central
Intelligence for other national security programs.
A more immediate concern is that OMB presently manages its
responsibilities under the Federal Reports Act and the Brooks Act
with a staff of eight professionals. OMB's total staff to carry out all
management and budget functions for the entire Government is
approximately 570 professionals. It is totally unrealistic to anticipate
that it will increase its staff by more than 200 in order to administer
this new ADP and paperwork reduction program. We have been
informally advised by OMB that OMB has already advised the Ap-
propriations Committee that it will not seek the substantial funding
for expansion of its ADP oversight staff mandated by this bill. Be-
cause it is unrealistic to expect OMB to directly administer the ADP
acquisition process contemplated by this bill, we are concerned that
this will inevitably necessitate a larger role for GSA than this Com-
mittee intends. For the reasons stated above, we believe that this would
be a serious mistake, especially in the area of reviewing agency
"determinations of need" for ADP technology.
Defense and Intelligence Amendments Adopted by the Com'imittee
The Defense Department testified on this bill in February before
the House and expressed no objection to the ADP provisions. Sub-
sequently, working level elements of the defense and intelligence
agencies became aware of the Department's official position and were
deeply dissatisfied. Among other things, the Joint Chiefs of Staff
have recommended to the Secretary that the Department should
oppose inclusion of ADP and telecommunications provisions in the
bill and seek Senate hearings. The Joint Logistics Commanders of the
armed services made a similar recommendation. The Assistant Secre-
tary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications, and Intel-
ligence recommended to OMB on June 20, 1980 that the Administra-
tion ask for Senate hearings so that the Department could express its
views to the Committee on :
a. GSA role in determination of needs,
b. inclusion of telecommunications, (and)
c. possible disclosure of classified information * * * .
In addition, the Assistant Secretary expressed concern that current
OMB interpretations of GSA's authority embodied in a 1976 OMB
memorandum give GSA "too broad a charter."
Senator Chiles became aware of the defense and intelligence con-
cerns about this bill and worked with Administration officials to
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
address those concerns. He proposed important amendments which
improved the bill from a defense and intelligence viewpoint. These
amendments were consistent with Administration policy and were
coordinated by OMB. Unfortunately, OMB was not fully responsive
to defense and intelligence concerns and DOD/intelligence community
efforts to solicit support for its concerns has proved unproductive
throughout consideration of this bill. Several days prior to the Com-
mittee markup of this bill, Senator Jackson inquired of the Secretary
of Defense by letter whether the proposed Committee bill was really
adequate from a defense and intelligence viewpoint. The Jackson
letter provoked four days of intense efforts by OMB, DOD, and Cen-
tral Intelligence officials to work out solutions to the defects in this
bill. These efforts resulted in several amendments which were proposed
to this Committee by DOD and the intelligence community and which
have been included in the Committee bill.
In brief, the amendments would partially exclude telecommunica-
tions equipment from coverage of the bill, limit access to classified
intelligence information under audit and review provisions to reduce
the possibility of unauthorized disclosure, and attempt to assure that
this Act neither expands nor reduces the scope of the Brooks Act. We
approve of these amendments ; however, we do not believe that they
fully address defense and intelligence concerns with this bill.
We are particularly concerned that the DOD amendment to prevent
expansion of the scope of the Brooks Act fails to accomplish its pur-
pose. This amendment is well intended; however, it is contradicted
by the previously cited specific provisions of the bill, which have the
effect of expanding the Brooks Act. This Committee's Report attempts
to reinforce the intent of the DOD amendment; however, this is
merely a point of departure for GSA to interpret this provision should
it become law. The House report, existing interpretations of the
Brooks Act, and prima facie expansions of the Brooks Act in this bill
create a serious ambiguity about the effectiveness of the DOD amend-
ment in achieving its purpose.
Three facts stand out : First, this subject merits a far more thorough
and deliberate consideration-and review by the Congress-than was
possible during the hasty and intense negotiations conducted by the
Administration, in the course of which the Administration's amend-
ments to S. 1411 were drafted. For example, as a result of the hasti-
ness with which this issue was considered, it would appear that these
amendments do not adequately protect cryptologic activities that are
communications security activities. Second, these amendments do not
address many of the previously cited concerns of working level pro-
fessionals in the defense and intelligence community. In fact, in some
cases, the Administration's position actually contradicts those stated
concerns. Third and most important, the defense and intelligence
amendments are an exercise in damage limitation; they do not address
the deficiencies of the existing law as it affects defense and intelligence
programs. Indeed, modification of the existing law was beyond the
permitted scope of the discussions between DOD, CIA and OMB.
Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
FLOOR AMENDMENT-ADP DEFINED TO EXCLUDE PURELY MILITARY AND
INTELLIGENCE APPLICATIONS
At the appropriate time during floor consideration of S. 1411, we
intend to offer an amendment to this legislation aimed at alleviating
the serious deficiencies of the present ADP acquisition system as it
affects defense and intelligence programs.
Our amendment will provide a definition of automatic data process-
ing equipment which will exclude from the definition of the term
Automatic Data Processing equipment used for certain national secu-
rity command, control, communications and intelligence functions.
This approach is similar to the DOD amendment accepted by the
Committee which further defines telecommunications equipment to
exclude equipment used for certain purely military and intelligence
functions. Under our amendment, ADP procurement by defense and
intelligence agencies and national defense laboratories in connection
with the development or deployment of weapons systems, strategic and
tactical warning systems, command, control, communications and in-
telligence functions, and other similar critical national security func-
tions, would be excluded from the government-wide ADP acquisition
system. To the maximum degree feasible and consistent with U.S. na-
tional security interests, publicly advertised, competitively bid proce-
dures would continue to be employed in the acquisition of such ADP
systems.
In the interest of assuring that the mission agencies responsible
for conducting ADP equipment procurements shall not abuse their
authority, duly authorized auditing services such as the Defense
Audit Agency shall continue to audit these procurements and advise
the appropriate authorizing Committees of the Congress of their
findings.
The purpose of our amendment is to ensure that procurements of
ADPE specifically related to the execution of the defense and intelli-
gence missions be allowed to proceed in a timely and efficient manner.
It will have no effect upon automatic data processing equipment used
by these agencies for administrative and business applications such
as payroll, finance, logistics and personnel management.
Our amendment is in conformity with the actions taken by the
Governmental Affairs Committee in adopting amendments to S. 1411
recommended by the Department of Defense, Central Intelligence
Agency, and the national laboratories designed to limit the additional
adverse effects of S. 1411 on these entities. To take the latter step,
however, without correcting the underlying problem-the effect of
the Brooks Act on our national defense posture-would be tantamount
to treating some of the symptoms of the disease without addressing
the causes.
There is considerable support for this approach within the Depart-
ment of Defense and the other agencies responsible for meeting na-
tional security needs. The concerns expressed by the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, the Joint Logistics Commanders, the Assistant Secretary of
Defense Communications, Command, Control, and Intelligence-vir-
tually none of which have been included by the compromises approved
by the Administration-are addressed by our amendment.
Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-000038000300050008-8
73'
The arguments for bringing ADP procurement procedures more
closely in line with national security needs are compelling. Timely and
efficient acquisition of such equipment is not possible under the present
procedures, mandated fifteen years ago. The formula we propose will
ensure needed flexibility, while guaranteeing the continued safeguard
of monitoring by appropriate auditing agencies and proper budgetary
oversight by OMB.
HENRY M. JAC$SON.
WILLIAM S. COHEN.
.JOHN GLENN.
TED STEVENS.
Approved For RPIPasP 21)07/05/i7`` GE
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MR. CHARLES H. PERCY
There are few subjects that come before this Committee that have
as much universal appeal as "paperwork reduction." No one supports
more paperwork for business, consumers and state and local govern-
ments. It is clearly outlined in this report that there is a need for a
co-ordinated approach to begin to cut through the redtape that domi-
nates American life today.
Once again this summer while in Illinois I heard from constituents
who have encountered this paperwork maze. One was an elderly gentle-
man who employs a part-time domestic workers. Yet he has written
me that he must file 13 forms a year to facilitate the payment of about
$400 in taxes on the worker's income. The problem is not just with the
Federal government, for some of the forms he must fill out comply
with state regulations. Something is clearly wrong with our system of
government when one individual must cope with a barrage of paper-
work like this.
S. 1411 moves in the direction of beginning to make sense out of
Federal information needs. The coordination of information within
the Office of Management and Budget places the emphasis where it
should lie and begins, for the first time, to add meaning to the "Man-
agement" part of OMB.
I am concerned, however, that, under S. 1411, the important man-
agement functions of paperwork may be lost in the shuffle of regula-
tory review. Under this bill, an Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs is established within OMB. This compares with the House-
passed bill (H.R. 6410) which limits the office to enforcement of Fed-
eral information policy.
Under regulatory reform legislation that our Committee has recently
reported out (S. 262), OMB is directed to review the compliance of
Federal agencies with the regulatory analysis requirements of the bill.
It seems likely that these requirements will be assigned to an Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, possibly burying the paperwork
reduction requirements of S. 1411. This legislation is simply too impor-
tant to be given a back seat to regulatory review.
Can it happen? My experience with the Federal establishment has
proven that unless legislation is tightly drawn and Congressional
intent made abundantly clear, an agency will interpret it to suit its
interests and not necessarily those envisaged by Congress.
It will be very important in the new OMB information management
office for paperwork reduction to be given the highest priority if we
are to succeed. We have strong evidence that lack of direction from the
top can result in noncompliance with Congressional intent.
The Joint Economic Committee, in hearings it conducted earlier this
year, has given us an excellent picture of agency avoidance of a Fed-
eral statute. The grandfather of information management-the Fed-
eral Reports Act of 1942-is the basic statute providing for control
(74)
Aprn v?ri Fnr Rah=.^ e 9007/05/17 ? CIA RDDQF 000n3R000300050000-8
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
of Federal paperwork burdens. During the JEC hearings, Comptroller
General Elmer Staats revealed that "about 75 percent of all Federal
paperwork is exempt from the Federal Reports Act or any other legis-
lation providing for central control."
What is most disturbing about this charge is that USDA is subject
to the Federal Reports Act and still did not comply with its modest
terms. GAO found that the Food Safety and Quality Service alone
had issued 1,100 bootleg forms-forms developed locally and not
approved under the Federal Reports Act. This one agency has gen-
erated nearly a foot of forms that had not gone through the required
processes and was requiring compliance with them around the country.
How could it happen? An aide to Mr. Staats said during the hear-
ing: "Agriculture's clearance officer said he found it difficult to inform
program people about the Federal Reports Act. His problems were
aggravated because top management at Agriculture did not strongly
support paperwork management."
This is the crux of our problem. We should not establish a new office
at OMB unless we are abolutely sure that it will have the ability to
meet its obligations. I am concerned that under an Office of Informa-
tion and Regulatory Affairs neither paperwork nor regulatory review
will be given adequate attention. I am particularly concerned that
paperwork reduction will be given a back seat.
Consequently I feel the House title for this new and important office
should be retained and its responsibilities limited. We need to make
it clear that it will have primary responsibility for information
management.
XII. 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 re-
ported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is
enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, existing law
in which no change is proposed is shown in roman) :
TITLE 44, UNITED STATES CODE
Chap.
Sec.
1. Joint Committee on Printing---------------------------------------
101
3. Government Printing Office ----------------------------------------
301
5. Production and Procurement of Printing and Binding----------------
501
7. Congressional Printing and Binding--------------------------------
701
9. Congressional Record---------------------------------------------
901
11. Executive and Judiciary Printing and Binding----------------------
1101
13. Particular Reports and Documents---------------------------------
1501
15. Federal Register and Code of Federal Regulations------------------
1501
17. Distribution and Sale of Public Documents--------------------------
1701
19. Depository Library Program---------------------------------------
1901
21. Archival Administration------------------------------------------
2101
23. National Archives Trust Fund Board-------------------------------
2301
25. National Historical Publications and Records Commission -----------
2501
27. Federal Records Council------------------------------------------
2701
29. Records Management by Administrator of General Services----------
2901
31. Records Management by Federal Agencies--------------------------
3101
33. Disposal of Records-----------------------------------------------
3301
35. Coordination of Federal [Reporting Services] Information Policy/----
3501
37. Advertisements by Government Agencies---------------------------
3701
Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-.RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
CHAPTER 29-RECORDS MANAGEMENT BY ADMINISTRATOR OF
GENERAL SERVICES
SEC.
2901. Definitions.
2902. Objectives of records management.
2903. Custody and control of property.
2904. General responsibilities of Administrator.
2905. Establishment of standards for selective retention of records ; security
measures.
2906. Inspection of agency records.
2907. Records centers and centralized microfilming services.
2908. Regulations.
2909. Retentions of records.
[2910. Repealed.]
? 2904. General responsibilities of Administrator
The Administrator shall provide guidance and assistance to Fed-
eral agencies with respect to records creation, records maintenance
and use, and records disposition. In providing such guidance and
assistance, the Administrator shall have responsibility to-
(1) * * *
E(10) report to the Congress and to the Director of the Office
of Management and Budget each year, at such time or times as
he may deem desirable, on the results of the foregoing activities,
including evaluations of responses by Federal agencies to any
recommendations resulting from studies or inspections conducted
by him.]
(10) report to the appropriate oversight and appropriation
committees of the Congress and to the Director of the O ffcce of
Management and Budget annually and at such other times as
he deems desirable (A) on the results of activities conducted
pursuant to paragraphs (1) through (9) of this section, (B) on
evaluations of responses by Federal agencies to any recommen-
dation resulting from inspections or studies conducted under
paragraphs (8) and (9) of this section, and (C) to the extent
practicable, estimates of costs to the Federal Govern. rent result-
ing from the failure of agencies to implement such recommenda-
tion.
? 2905.. Establishment of standards for selective retention of rec-
ords ; security measures
(a) The Administrator of General Services shall establish stand-
ards for the selective retention of records of continuing value, and
assist Federal agencies in applying the standards to records in their
custody. He shall notify the head of a Federal agency of any actual,
impending, or threatened unlawful removal, defacing, alteration, or
destruction of records in the custody of the agency that shall come
to his attention, and assist the head of the agency in initiating action
through the Attorney General for the recovery of records unlawfully
removed and for other redress provided by law.
Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
(b) The Administrator of General Services shall assist the Asso-
ciate Director of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
in conducting studies and developing standards relating to record
retention requirements imposed on the public and on State and local
governments by Federal agencies.
[CHAPTER 35-COORDINATION OF FEDERAL REPORTING SERVICES
Sec.
[3501. Information for Federal agencies.
[3502. Definitions.
[3503. Duties of Director of the Bureau of the Budget.
[3504. Designation of central collection agency.
[3505. Independent collection by an agency prohibited.
[3506. Determination of necessity for information ; hearing.
[3507. Cooperation of agencies in making information available.
[3508. Unlawful disclosure of information ; penalities ; release of information to
other agencies.
[3509. Plans or forms for collecting information ; submission to Director ;
approval.
[35010. Rules and regulations.
1[35011. Penalty for failure to furnish information.
[? 3501. Information for Federal agencies
[Information needed by Federal agencies shall be obtained with
a minimum burden upon business enterprises, especially small business
enterprises, and other persons required to furnish the information,
and at a minimum cost to the Government. Unnecessary duplication
of efforts in obtaining information through the use of reports, ques-
tionnaires, and other methods shall be eliminated as rapidly as prac-
ticable. Information collected and tabulated by a Federal agency shall,
as far as is expedient, be tabulated in a manner to maximize the use-
fulness of the information to other Federal agencies and the public.
[? 3502. Definitions
[As used in this chapter-
["Federal agency" means an executive department, commission,
independent establishment, corporation owned or controlled by
the United States, board, bureau, division, service, office, authority,
or aministration in the executive branch of the Government ; but
does not include the General Accounting Office, independent Fed-
eral regulatory agencies, nor the governments of the District of
Columbia and of the territories and possessions of the United
States, and their various subdivisions ;
["person" means an individual, partnership, association, cor-
poration, business trust, or legal representative, an organized
group of persons, a State or territorial government or branch, or
a political subdivision of a State or territory or a branch of a
political subdivision ;
["information" means facts obtained or solicited by the use
of written report forms, application forms, schedules, question-
naires, or other similar methods calling either for answers to iden-
tical questions from ten or more persons other than agencies,
instrumentalities, or employees of the United States or for an-
swers to questions from agencies, instrumentalities, or employees
Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
of the United States which are to be used for statistical compila-
tions of general public interest.
[?'3503. Duties of Director of the Bureau of the Budget
[With a view to carrying out the policy of this chapter, the Director
of the Bureau of the Budget from time to time shall-
[ (1) investigate the needs of the various Federal agencies for
information from business enterprises, from other persons, and
from other Federal agencies;
[(2) investigate the methods used by agencies in obtaining in-
formation; and
[(3) coordinate as rapidly as possible the information-collect-
ing services of all agencies with a view to reducing the cost to
the Government of obtaining information and minimizing the
burden upon business enterprises and other persons, and using,
as far as practicable, for continuing organization, files of informa-
tion and existing. facilities of the established Federal agencies.
[? 3504. Designation of central collection agency
[When, after investigation, the Director of the Bureau of the
Budget is of the opinion that the needs of two or more Federal
agencies for information from business enterprises and other persons
will be adequately served by a single collecting agency, he shall fix
a time and place for a hearing at which the agencies concerned and
other interested persons may have an opportunity to present their
views, After the hearing, the Director may issue an order designating
a collecting agency to obtain information for two or more of the agen-
cies concerned, and prescribing (with reference to the collection of
information) the duties and functions of the collecting agency so
designated and the Federal agencies for which it is to act as agent.
The Director may modify the order from time to time as circumstances
require, but modification may not be made except after investigation
and hearing.
[? 3505. Independent collection by an agency prohibited
[While an order or modified order is in effect, a Federal agency
covered by it may not obtain for itself information which it is the
duty of the collecting agency designated by the order to obtain.
[? 3506. Determination of necessity for information; hearing
[Upon the request of a party having a substantial interest, or upon
his own motion, the Director of the Bureau of the Budget may deter-
mine whether or not the collection of information by a Federal agency
is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency
or for any other proper purpose. Before making a determination, he
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 the collection of information by the agency is un-
necessary, for any reason, the agency may not engage in the collection
of the information.
[? 3507. Cooperation of agencies in making information available
[For the purposes of this chapter, the Director of the Bureau of
the Budget may require a Federal agency to make available to an-
other Federal agency information obtained from any person after.
Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
December 24, 1942, and all agencies are directed to cooperate to the
fullest practicable extent at all times in making information avail-
able to other agencies.
[This chapter does not apply to the obtaining or releasing of in-
formation by the Internal Revenue Service, the Comptroller of the
Currency, the Bureau of the Public Debt, the Bureau of Accounts,
and the Division of Foreign Funds Control of the Treasury Depart-
ment, nor to the obtaining by a Federal bank supervisory agency of
reports and information from banks as authorized by law and in
the proper performance of the agency's functions in its supervisory
capacity.
[? 3508. Unlawful disclosure of information; penalties; release
of information to other agencies
[(a) If information obtained in confidence by a Federal agency is
released by that agency to another Federal agency, all the provi-
sions of law including penalties which relate to the unlawful disclo-
sure 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 em-
ployees of the agency which originally obtained the information.
The officers and employees of the agency to which the information
is released, in addition, shall be subject to the same provisions of
law, including penalties, relating to the unlawful disclosure of in-
formation as if the information has been collected directly by that
agency.
[(b) Information obtained by a Federal agency from a person
under this chapter may be released to another Federal agency only-
[(1) in the form of statistical totals or summaries; or
[ 2 if the information as supplied by persons to a Federal
agency had not, at the time of collection, been declared by that
agency or by a superior authority to be confidential; or
[(3) when the persons supplying the information consent to
the release of it to a second agency by the agency to which the in-
formation was originally supplied : or
{ (4) when the Federal agency to which another Federal agency
releases the information has authority to collect the information
itself and the authority is supported by legal provision for crim-
inal penalties against persons failing to supply the information.
[? 3509. Plans or forms for collecting information; submission to
Director; approval
[A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor the collection of
information upon identical items, from ten or more persons, other than
Federal employees, unless, in advance of adoption or revision of any
plans or forms to be used in the collection-
(1) the agency has submitted to the Director the plans or
forms, together with copies of pertinent regulations and of other
related materials as the Director of the Bureau of the Budget has
specified; and
[(2) the Director has stated that he does not disapprove the
proposed collection of information.
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
[? 3510. Rules and regulations
(The Director of the Bureau of the Budget may promulgate rules
and regulations necessary to carry out sections 3501-3511 of this title.
[? 3511. Penalty for failure to furnish information
[A person failing to furnish information required by an agency
shall be subject to penalties specifically prescribed by law, and no other
penalty may be imposed either by way of fine or imprisonment or by
the withdrawal or denial of a right, privilege, priority, allotment, or
immunity, except when the right, privilege, priority, allotment, or
immunity is legally conditioned on facts which would be revealed by
the information requested.
[? 3512. Information for independent regulatory agencies
[(a) The Comptroller General of the United States shall review
the collection of information required by independent Federal regu-
latory agencies described in section 3502 of this chapter to assure
that information required by such agencies is obtained with a mini-
mum burden upon business enterprises, especially small business
enterprises, and other persons required to furnish the information.
Unnecessary duplication of efforts in obtaining information already
filed with other Federal agencies or departments through the use
of reports, questionnaires, and other methods shall be eliminated
as rapidly as practicable. Information collected and tabulated by an
independent regulatory agency shall, as far as is expedient, be tab-
ulated in a manner to maximize the usefulness of the information
to other Federal agencies and the public.
[(b) In carrying out the policy of this section, the Comptroller
General shall review all existing information gathering practices of
independent regulatory agencies as well as requests for additional
information with a view toward-
[ (1) avoiding duplication of effort by independent regulatory
agencies, and
[(2) minimizing the compliance burden on business enter-
prises and other persons.
[(c) In complying with this section, an independent regulatory
agency shall not conduct or sponsor the collection of information
upon an identical item from ten or more persons, other than Federal
employees, unless, in advance of adoption or revision of any plans or
forms to be used in the collection-
[(l) the agency submitted to the Comptroller General the
plans or forms, together with the copies of pertinent regula-
tions and of other related materials as the Comptroller General
has specified; and
[(2) the Comptroller General has advised that the informa-
tion is not presently available to the independent agency from
another source within the Federal Government and has deter-
mined that the proposed plans or forms are consistent with the
provision of this section. The Comptroller General shall main-
tain facilities for carrying out the purposes of this section and
shall render such advice to the requestive independent regula-
tory agency within forty-five days.
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
[(d) While the Comptroller General shall determine the avail-
ability from other Federal sources of the information sought and
the appropriateness of the forms for the collection of such informa-
tion, the independent regulatory agency shall make the final deter-
mination as to the necessity of the information in carrying out its
statutory responsibilities and whether to collect such information.
If no advice is received from the Comptroller General within forty-
five days, the independent regulatory agency may immediately pro-
ceed to obtain such information.
[(e) Section 3508(a) of this chapter dealing with unlawful disclo-
sure of information shall apply to the use of information by inde-
pendent regulatory agencies.
[(f) The Comptroller General may romulgate rules and regula-
tions necessary to carry out this chapter.
Snc. 400A. (a) (1) (A) In order to eliminate excessive detail and
unnecessary and redundant information requests and to achieve the
collection of information in the most efficient and effective possible
manner, the Secretary shall coordinate the collection of informa-
tion and data acquisitioned activities of all Federal agencies, (i)
whenever the respondents are primarily educational agencies or in-
stitutions [and] or (ii) whenever the purpose of such activities is to
request information needed for the management of, or the formula-
tion of, policy related to Federal education programs or research or
evaluation studies related to the implementation of Federal educa-
tion programs.
(3) (A) * * *
[(B) No collection of information or data acquisition activity sub-
ject to such procedures shall be subject to any other review, coordi-
nation, or approval procedure outside of the relevant Federal agency
except as required by this subsection and except that an aggrieved
agency may seek review of an adverse action by the Secretary under
subparagraph (A) by the Director of the Office of Management under
the rules and regulations established pursuant to section 3509 of title
44, United States Code, and the Director shall issue a decision thereon
within 10 days after receipt of the request for review.]
(B) No collection of information or data acquisition activity sub-
ject to such procedures shall be subject to any other review, coordina-
tion, or approval procedure outside of the relevant Federal agency
except as required by this subsection and by the Director of the Office
of Management and Budget under the rules and regulations estab-
lished pursuant to chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code. If a re-
quirement for information is submitted pursuant to this Act for re-
view, the timetable for the Director's approval established in section
3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 shall commence on the
date the request is submitted, and no independent submission to the
Director shall be required under such Act.
Approved For Release 2007/0.5L17..-CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
SECTION 201 OF THE SURFACE MINING CONTROL AND RECLAMATION
ACT OF 1977
TITLE II-OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION
AND ENFORCEMENT
SEC.201. (a)
*
[(e) The Office shall be considered an independent Federal regu-
latory agency for the purposes of sections 3502 and 3512 of title 44
of the United States Code.]
TITLE VII-HEALTH RESEARCH AND TEACHING FACIL-
ITIES AND TRAINING OF PROFESSIONAL HEALTH
PERSONNEL
SEC. 708. (a)
[(f) In carrying out his responsibilities under this section, the
Secretary shall not be subject to the provisions of chapter 35 of title
44, United States Code.]
SECTION 5315 OF TITLE 5, UNrrED STATES CODE
CHAPTER 53-PAY RATES AND SYSTEMS
* * * * *-
SUBCHAPTER II-EXECUTIVE SCHEDULE PAY RATES
* * * * * ? * *
? 5315. Positions at level IV
Level IV of the Executive Schedule applies to the following posi-
tions, for which the annual rate of basic pay shall be the rate de-
Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
termined with respect to such level under chapter 11 of title 2, as
adjusted by section 5318 of this title:
Associate Director, Office of Information and Regulatory Af-
fairs, Office of Management and Budget.
[S. 1411, 96th Congress, 2d Session]
A BILL To improve the economy and efficiency of the Government and the
private sector by improving Federal information management, and for other
purposes.
That this Act may be cited as the "Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980".
SEC. 2. (a) Chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code, is amended
to read as fo ows:
"CHAPTER 35-COORDINATION OF FEDERAL
INFORMATION POLICY ?
"Sec.
"3501. Purpose.
"3502. Definitions.
"3503. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
"3504. Authority and functions of Director.
"3505. Assignment of tasks and deadlines.
"3506. Federal agency responsibilities.
"3507. Public information collection activities-submission to Director, approval
and delegation.
"3508. Determination of necessity for information; hearing.
"3509. Designation of central collection agency.
"3510. Cooperation of agencies in making information available.
"3511. Establishment and operation of Federal Information Locator System.
"3512. Public protection.
"3513. Director review of agency activities; reporting; agency response.
"3514. Responsiveness to Congress.
"3515. Administrative powers.
"3516. Rules and regulations.
"3517. Consultation with other agencies and the public.
"3518. Effect on existing laws and regulations.
"3519. Access to information.
"3520. Authorization of appropriations.
3501. Purpose
"The purpose of this chapter is-
"(1) to minimize the Federal paperwork burden for individ-
uals, small businesses, State and local governments, and other
persons;
"(2) to minimize the cost to the Federal Government of col-
lecting, maintaining, using, and disseminating information;
"(3) to maximize the usefulness of information collected by
the Federal Government;
"(4) to coordinate, integrate and, to the extent practicable and
appropriate, make uniform Federal information policies and
practices;
"(5) to ensure that automatic data processing and telecommuni-
cations technologies are acquired and used by the Federal Govern-
ment in a manner which improves service delivery and program
Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
management, increases productivity, reduces waste and fraud,
and, wherever practicable and appropriate, reduces the informa-
tion processing burden for the Federal Government and for per-
sons who provide information to the Federal Government; and
"(6) to ensure that the collection, maintenance, use and dissemi-
nation of information by the Federal Government is consistent
with applicable laws relating to confidentiality, including section
552a of title 5, United States Code, known as the Privacy Act.
3502. Definitions
"As used in this chapter--
"(1) the term `agency' means any executive department, mili-
tary department, Government corporation, Government con-
trolled corporation, or other establishment in the executive branch
of the Government (including the Executive Office of the Presi-
dent), or any independent regulatory agency, but does not in-
clude the General Accounting Office, Federal Election Comimis-
sion, the governments of the District of Columbia and of the
territories and possessions of the United States, and their various
subdivisions, or Government-owned contractor-operated facili-
cties including laboratories engaged in national defense research
and production activities;
"(2) the term `burden' means the time, effort, or financial re-
sources expended by persons to provide information to a Federal
agency;
"(3) the term `collection of information' means the obtaining
or soliciting of facts or opinions by an agency through the use of
written report forms, application forms, schedules, question-
naires, reporting or reeordkeeping requirements, or other similar
methods, calling for either-
"(A) answers to identical questions posed to, or identical
reporting or reeordkeeping requirements imposed on, ten or
more persons, other than agencies, instrumentalities, or em-
ployees of the United States; or
"(B) answers to questions posed to agencies, instrumen-
talities, or employees of the United States which are to be
used for general statistical purposes;
"(4) the term `data element' means a distinct piece of informa-
tion such as a name, term, number, abbreviation, or symbol;
"(5) the term `data element dictionary' means a system con-
taining common definitions and cross references for commonly
used data elements;
"(6) 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 list of any compilations, anal-
yses, or reports derived or to be derived from such information,
any record retention requirements associated with the request,
the agency responsible for the request, the statute authorizing the
request, and any other information necessary to identify, obtain,
or use the data contained in such information;
" (7) the term `Director' means the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget;
Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
"(8) the term `directory of information resources' means a cata-
log of information collection requests, containing a data profile
for each request;
"(9) the term 'independent regulatory agency' means the Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. the Civil Aero-
nautics Board, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the
Consumer Product Safety Com mission. the Federal Communica-
tions Commission, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the
Federal Energy Regulatory/ Commission, the Federal Home Loan
Bank Board, the Federal Maritime Commission, the Federal
Trade Commaision, the Interstate Commerce Commission, the
Mine Enforcement Safety and Health Review Commmission, the
National Labor Relations' Board, the Nuclear Regulatory Com-
mission, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission,
the Postal Rate Commission, the Securities and Eaichange Com-
mission, and any other similar agency designated by statute as a
Federal independent regualtory agency or commission;
"(10) the term `information collection request' means a written
report form, application form, schedule. questionnaire, reporting
or recordkeeping requirement, or other similar method calling for
the collection of information,
"(11) the term `information referral service' means the func-
tion that assists offrcials and persons in obtaining access to the Fed-
eral Information Locator System;
"(12) the term `information systems' means management infor-
mation systems;
"(13) the term `person' means an individual partnership, asso-
ciation, corporation. business trust, or legal representative, an
organized group of individuals, a State, territorial, or local gov-
ernment or branch thereof, or a political subdivision of a State,
territory, or local government or a branch of a political subdivi-
sion;
"(14) 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;
"(15) the term `recordkeeping requirement' means a require-
ment imposed by an agency on persons to maintain specified
records; and
"(16) the term `telecommunications' equipment, technology,
functions, activities, or needs means the equipment, technology.
functions, activities, or needs used solely for (A) the `collection of
information' as defined in subsection (3) of this section, or (B)
the processing, storage, and transmission of such collected in f or-
mation.
3505. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
"(a) There is established in the O ffice 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 Associate Director.
who shall be appointed by and shall report directly to the Director.
The Associate Director shall serve as principal adviser to the Director
on Federal information policy. The Director may delegate to the A8so-
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
86
date Director functions under this chapter, except that any such dele-
gation shall not relieve the Director of responsibility for the admin-
istration of such function. The Director may not delegate any unc-
tion under this chapter to any other officer or employee of the Office of
Management and Budget except the Associate Director.
3504. Authority and functions of Director
"(a) The Director shall provide overall direction in the development
and imz plementation o f Federal information policies, pried ples, stand-
arils, and guidelines, including direction over the review and approval
of information collection requests, the reduction o f the paperwork
burden, Federal statistical activities, records management activities,
privacy of records, interagency slurring o f information, and acquisition
and use of automatic data processing and other technology for manag-
ing information resources. The authority under this section shall be
exercised consistent with applicable law.
"(b) The general information policy functions of the Director shall
include-
" (1) establishing uniform information resources management
policies and overseeing the development of information, manage-
ment principles, standards, and guidelines and promoting their
use;
"(2) initiating and reviewing proposals for changes in legisla-
tion, regulations, and agency procedures to improve information
practices, and informing the President and the Congress on the
progress made therein;
"(3) coordinating, through the review of budget proposals and
as otherwise provided in this section, agency information
practices;
"(4) promoting, through the use of the Federal Information
Locator System, the review of budget proposals and other meth-
ods, greater sharing of information by agencies;
"(5) evaluating agency information management practices to
determine their adequacy and efficiency, and to determine compli-
ance Olt such practices with the policies, principles, standards, and
guidelines promulgated by the Director; and
"(6) overseeing planning for, and conduct of research with re-
spect to, Federal collection, processing, storage, transmissian, and
use of information.
"(c) The information collection request clearance and other paper-
work ?'_'
control functions of the Director shall include-
"(1) reviewing and approving information collection requests
proposed by agencies;
"(9) determining whether the collection of information by an
agency is necessary for the proper performance of the functions
of the agency, including whether the information will have practi-
cal utility for the agency;
"(3) ensuring that atl 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 clear-
ance requirements Of section 3507; and
Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
"(C) contain a statement to inform the person receiving the
request why the information is* being collected, how it is to
be used, and whether responses to the request are voluntary,
required to obtain a benefit, or mandatory;
"(4) designating as appropriate, in accordance with section
3509, a collection agency to obtain information for two or more
agencies;
"(5) setting goals for reduction of the burdens of Federal in f or-
mation collection requests;
"(6) overseeing action on the recommendations of the Commis-
sion on Federal Paperwork; and
"(7) designing and operating, in accordance with section 3511,
the Federal Information Locator System.
"(d) The statistical policy and coordination functions of the Di-
rector shall include-
"(1) developing long range plans for the improved perform-
ance of Federal statistical activities and programs;
"(2) coordinating, through the review of budget proposals and
as otherwise provided in this section, the functions of the Federal
Government with respect to gathering, interpreting, and disserrni-
rtuting statistics and statistical information,
"(3) overseeing Government wide policies, principles, stand
ards, and guideli nes concerning statistical collection procedures
and methods, statistical data classifications, and statistical infor-
mation presentation and dissemination; and
"(4) evaluating statistical program performance and agency
compliance with Government-wide policies, principles, standards,
and guidelines.
"(e) The records management functions of the Director shall
include-
"(1) providing advice and assistance to the Administrator of
General Services in order to promote coordination in the admin-
istration of chapters 29, 31, and 33 of this title with the informa-
tion policies, principles, standards, and guidelines established
under this chapter;
"(2) reviewing compliance by agencies with the requirements
of chapters 29, 31, and 33 of this title and with regulations pro-
mulgated by the Administrator of General Services thereunder;
and
"(3) coordinating records management policies and programs
with related information programs such as information collec-
tion, statistics, automatic data processing and telecommunica-
tions, and similar activities.
"(f) The privacy functions of the Director shall include-
(1) establishinq policies, principles, standards, and guidelines
on information disclosure and confidentiality, and on safeguard-
ing the security of information collected or maintained by
agencies;
"(2) providing agencies with advice and guidance about infor-
mation security, restriction, exchange, and disclosure, and,
"(3) monitoring compliance with section 552a o f title 5, United
States Code, and related in formotion, management laws.
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
~88
"(g) The Federal automatic data processing and telecommunica
tions functions of the Director shall include-
"(1) establishing policies, principles, standards, and guidelines
for automatic data processing and telecommunications functions
and activities of the Federal Government, and overseeing the
establishment of standards under section 111(f) of the Federal
Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949;
"(2) monitoring the effectiveness of, and compliance with, di-
rectives issued pursuant to sections 110 and 111 of such Act of
1949 and reviewing proposed determinations under section 111(g)
of such Act;
"(3) providing advice and guidance on the acquisition and use
of automatic data processing and telecommunications equipment,
and coordinating, through the review of budget proposals and
other methods, agency proposals for acquisition and use of such
equipment;
"(4) promoting the use of automatic data processing and tele-
communications equipment by the Federal Government to im-
prove the effectiveness of the use and dissemination of data in the
operation of Federal programs; and
"(5) initiating and reviewing proposals for.changes in legis-
lation, regulations, and agency procedures to improve automatic
data processing and telecommunications practices, and informing
the President and the Congress of the progress made therein.
"(h) The Director shall, subject to section 3507(c) of this chapter,
ensure that, in developing rules and regulations, agencies-
"(1) utilize efficient means in the collection, use, and dissemina-
tion of information;
"(2) provide an early and meaningful opportunity for the pub-
lic to comment on proposed means for collection of information;
and
"(3) assess the consequences of alternative means for the col-
lections, use, and dissemination of information..
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 fed-
eral collections of information by 15 per centum by October 1,
1982; and
"(B) for the year following, set a goal to reduce the burden
which existed upon enactment by an additional 10 per
centum;
"(2) within one year after the effective date of this Act-
"(A) establish standards and requirements for agency
audits of all major information systems and assign responsi-
bility 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 con-
duct of criminal investigations or intelligence activities as
defined in section 4-206 of Executive Order 12036, issued Jan-
uary 24, 1978, or successor orders;
Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
"(B) establish the Federal Information Locator System;
" (C) identify areas of duplication in information collection
requests and develop a schedule and methods for eliminating
duplication;
"(D) develop a proposal to augment the Federal Informa-
tion Locator System to include data profiles of major in-
formation 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 percentum
reduction in the burden of Federal collections of information
associated with the administration of Federal grant pro-
grams; and
"(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 han-
dling disciplines, including records management, are appro-
priately integrated with the information policies mandated
by this chapter;
"(B) identify initiatives to improve productivity in Fed-
eral operations using information processing technology;
"(C) develop a program to (i) enforce Federal informa-
tion processing 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,
and separate such programs from technological advisory
services;
"(D) complete action on recommendations of the Commis-
sion on Federal Paperwork by implementing, implementing
with modification or rejecting such recommendations includ-
ing, where necessary, development of legislation to implement
such recommendations,-
11 (E) develop in consultation with the Administrator of
General Services, a five-year plan for meeting the automatic
data processing and telecommunications needs of the Federal
Government in accordance with the requirements of section
111 of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act
of 1949 (d0 U.S.C. 759) and the purposes of this chapter, and
"(F) submit to the President and the Congress legislative
proposals to remove inconsistencies in laws and practices
involving privacy, confidentiality, and disclosure of
information.
3506. Federal agency responsibilities
"(a) Each agency shall be responsible for carrying out its informa-
tion management activities in an e fjEcient, effective, and economical
manner, and for complying with the information policies, principles,
standards, and guidelines prescribed by the Director.
"(b) The head of each agency shall designate, within three months
after the effective date of this Act, a senior official or officials who
report directly to such agency head to carry out the responsibilities of
the agency under this chapter.
"(c) Each agency shall-
Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
90
"(1) systematically inventory its major information systems
and periodically review its information management activities,
including planning, budgeting, organizing, directing, training,
promoting, controlling, and at r managerial activities involving
the collection, use, and dissemination of information;
"(2) ensure its information systems do not overlap each other
or duplicate the systems o f other agencies;
"(3) develop procedures for assessing the paperwork and
reporting burden of proposed legislation affecting such agencyz
"(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); and
"(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.
"(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.
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 Informa-
tion Locator System and other means, information collections
which seek to obtain information available from another
source within the Federal Government;
"(B) reduce to the extent practicable and appropriate the
burden on persons who will provide information to the
agency; and
"(C) formulate plans for tabulating the information in a
manner which will enhance its usefulness to other agencies
and to the public;
"(2) the agency (A) has submitted to the Director the proposed
information collection request, copies of pertinent regulations
and other related materials as the Director may specify, and an
explanation of actions taken to carry out paragraph (1) of this
subsection, and (B) has prepared a notice to be published in the
Federal Register stating that the agency has made such
submission; and
"(3) the Director has aeproved the proposed information
collection request, or the period for review of information collec-
tion requests by the Director provided under subsection (b) has
elapsed.
"(b) The Director shall, within sixty days of receipt of a proposed
information collection request, notify the agency involved of the
Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
decision to- approve or disapprove the request. If the Director deter-
mines that a request submitted for review cannot be reviewed within
sixty days, the Director may, after notice to the agency involved,
extend the review period for an additional thirty days. If the Director
does not notify the agency of an extension, denial, or approval within
sixty days (or, if the Director has extended the review period for an
additional thirty days and does not notify the agency of a denial or
approval within the time of the extension), a control number shall be
assigned without further delay, the approval may be inferred, and the
agency may collect the information for not more than one year.
"(c) Any disapproval by the Director, in whole or in part, of a
proposed information collection request of an independent regulatory
agency, or an exercise of authority under sections 3504(h) or 3509
concerning such an agency, may be voided, if the agency by a majority
vote of its members overrides the Director's disapproval or exercise of
authority. The agency shall certify each override to the Director, shall
explain the reasons for exercising the override authority. Where the
override concerns an information collection request, the Director shall
without further delay assign a control number to such request, and such
override shall be valid for a period of three years.
"(d) The Director may not approve an information collection
request for a period in excess of three years.
"(e) If the Director finds that a senior official of an agency des-
ignated pursuant to section 3506(b) is sufficiently independent of pro-
gram responsibility to evaluate fairly whether proposed information
collection requests should be approved and has sufficient resources to
carry out this responsibility effectively, the Director may, by rule in
accordance with the notice and comment provisions of chapter 5 of
title 5, United States Code, delegate to such official the authority to
approve proposed requests in specific program areas, for specific pur-
poses, or for all agency purposes. A delegation by the Director under
this section shall not preclude the Director from reviewing individual
information collection requests if the Director determines that cir-
cumstances 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 o fflcia.l to whom approv-
al 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 with-
out obtaining from the Director a control number to be displayed
upon the information collection request.
"(g) If an agency head determines a collection of information (1)
is neede prior to the expiration o f the sixty-day period for the review
of information collection requests established pursuant to subsection
(b), (2) is essential to the mission of the agency, and (3) the agency
cannot reasonably comply with the provisions o f this chapter within
such sixty-day period, the agency head may request the Director to
authorize such collection of information prior to expiration of such
sixty-day period. The Director shall approve or disapprove any such
authorization request within one working day after its receipt and, if
approved, shall assign the information collection request a control
number. Any collection of information conducted pursuant to this
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
subsection may be conducted without compliance with the provisions
of this chapter for a maximum of 90 days after the date on which the
Director received the request to authorize such collection.
"? 3508. Determination of necessity of information; hearing
"Before approving a proposed information collection request, the
Director shall determine whether the collection of information by an
agency is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the
agency, including whether the information will have practical utility.
Before making a determination the Director may ,give the agency and
other interested persons an opportunity to be heard o e to submit state-
ments in writing. To the extent, if any, that the Direcor determines
that the collection of information by an agency is unnecessary, for any
reason, the agency may not engage in the collection of the information.
"? 3509. Designation of central collection agency
"The Director may desigate 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 incon-
sistent with any applicable law. In such cases the Director shall pre-
scribe (with reference to the collection of information) the duties and
functions of the collection agency so designated and of the agencies for
which it is to act as agent (including reimbursement for costs). While
the designation is in effect, an agency covered by it may not obtain for
itself information which it is the duty of the collection agency to
obtain. The Director may modify the designation from time to time as
circumstances require. The authority herein is subject to the provi-
sions of section-3507(c) of this chapter.
3510. Cooperation of agencies in making information available
"(a) The Director may direct an agency to make available to an-
other agency, or any agency may make available to another agency,
information obtained pursuant to an information collection request if
the disclosure is not inconsistent with any applicable law or policy.
"(b) If information obtained by an agency is released by that
agency to another agency, all the provisions of law (including penal-
ties which relate to the unlawful disclosure of information) apply to
the officers and employees of the agency to which information is re-
leased to the same extent and in the same manner as the provisions
apply to the officers and employees of the agency which originally ob-
tained the information. The officers and employees of the agency to
which the information is released, in addition, shall be subject to the
same provisions of law, including penalties, relating to the unlawful
disclosure of information as if the information had been collected
directly by that agency.
3511. Establishment and operation of Federal Information
Locator System
"(a) There is established in the Office of Information and Regula-
tory affairs a Federal Information Locator System (hereafter in this
section referred to as the 'System') which shall be composed of a direc-
tory of information resources, a data element dictionary, and an infor-
mation referral service. The System shall serve as the register of all
information collection requests.
Approved Ear Rinlinase 2007405117 GI A R1DP8G-GE)E)G3RE)E)"
8568 E)5E)EO)E)8--
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
".(b) In designing and operating the. System, the Director shall-
"(1 design and operate an indexing system for the System;
"(21 require the head of each agency to prepare in a form
specified by the Director, and to submit to the Director for inclu-
sion 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 avail-
able 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 pro-
files necessary to identify duplicative data or to locate informa-
tion, are contained within the System.
3512. Public protection
"Notwithstanding an other provision of law, no person shall be
subject to any penalty. fir failing to maintain or provide information
to any agency if the information collection request involved was
made after December 31, 1981, and does not display a current control
number assigned by the Director, or fails to state that such request is
not subject to this chapter.
3513. Director review of agency activities; reporting; agency
response
"(a) The Director shall, with the advice and assistance of the Ad-
ministrator of General Services, selectively review, at least once every
three years, the information management activities of each agency to
ascertain their adequacy and efficiency. In evaluating the adequacy
and eSciency of such activities, the Director shall pay particular atten-
tion to whether the agency has complied with section 3506.
"(b) The Director shall report the results of the reWews to the ap-
propriate agency head, the House Committee on Government Opera-
tions, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations, and the committees of the Con-
gress having jurisdiction over legislation relating to the\ operations of
the agency involved.
"(e Each agency which receives a report pursuant to subsection
(b) shall, within sixty days after receipt of such report, prepare and
transmit to the Director, the House Committee on Government Opera-
tions, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations, and the committees of the Con-
gress 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 o deficiencies identified in such report.
3514. Responsiveness to Congress
"(a) The Director shall keep the Congress and its committees fully
and currently informed of the major activities under this chapter,
and shall submit a report thereon to the President of the Senate
and the Speaker of the House of Representatives annually and at
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
such other times as the Director determines necessary. The Director
shall include in any such report-
"(1) proposals for legislative action needed to improve Federal
information management, including, with respect to information
collection, recommendations to reduce the burden on individuals,
small businesses, State and local governments, and other persons;
"(2) a compilation of legislative impediments to the collection
of information which the Director concludes that an agency
needs but does not have authority to collect;
"(3) an analysis by agency, and by categories the Director finds
useful and practicable, describing the estimated reporting hours
required of persons by information collection requests, including
to the extent practicable identification Of statutes and regulations
which impose the greatest number of reporting hours;
"(4) a summary of accomplishments and planned initiatives to
reduce burdens of Federal information collection requests;
"(5) a tabulation of areas of duplication. in agency information
collection requests identified during the preceding year and efforts
made to preclude the collection of duplicate information, includ-
ing 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 o f each agency involved;
"(7) a list of all violations of provisions of this chapter and
rules, regulations, guidelines, policies, and procedures issued pur-
suant to this chapter; and
"(8) with respect to recommendations of the Commission on
Federal Paperwork-
"(A) a description of the specific actions taken on or
planned for each recommendation;
"(B) a target date for implementing each recommenda-
tion accepted but not implemented; and
"(C) an explanation of the reasons for any delay in com-
pleting action on such recommendations.
"(b) The preparation of any report required by this section shall
not increase the collection of information burden on persons outside
the Federal Government.
3515. Administrative powers
"Upon the request of the Director, each agency (other than an
independent regulatory agency) shall make its services, personnel,
and facilities available to the Director for the performance of func-
tions under this chapter.
3516. Rules and regulations
"The Director may promulgate rules, regulations, or procedures
necessary to exerveise the authority provided by this chapter.
3517. Consultation with other agencies and the public
"In the development of information policies, plans, rules, regula-
tions, and procedures, and in approving information collection re-
quests, the Director shall provide affected agencies and persons early
and meaningful opportunity for consultation.
Approved For Release 2007/n!~/17 C'IA_RnPRF_nnn03R000300050008 g
^~ oovovovov v
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
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, regu-
lations, and procedures for Federal information activities is subject
to the authority conferred on the Director by this chapter.
"(b) Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to affect or reduce
the authority of the Secretary of Commerce pursuant to Reorgani-
zation Plan No.1 of 1977 (as amended) and Executive order, .-elating
to telecommunications and information policy, procurement and man-
agement of telecommunications and information systems, spectrum
use, and related matters.
"(c) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), this chapter does not
apply to the collection of information-
"(A) during the conduct of a Federal criminal investigation or
prosecution, or during the disposition of a particular criminal
matter;
" (B) during the conduct of (i) a civil action to which the United
States or any official or agency thereof is a party or (ii) an ad-
ministrative action or investigation involving an agency against
specific individuals or entities;
"(C) by compulsory process pursuant to the Antitrust Civil
Process Act; or
"(D) during the conduct of intelligence activities as defined in
section 4-206 of Executive Order 12036, issued January 24, 1978,
or successor orders.
"(2) This'chapter applies to the collection of information dur-
ing 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 Ad-
ministrator of the General Services Administration, the Secretary of
Commerce, or the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
"(e) Nothing in this chapter affects in any way an existing 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 sub-
stantive policies and programs of departments, agencies and offices.
3519. Access to information
"Under the conditions and procedures prescribed in section 313 of
the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, as amended, the Director and ,
personnel in the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs shall
furnish such information as the Comptroller General may require for
the discharge of his responsibilities. For this purpose, the Comptroller
General or representatives thereof shall have access to all books, docu-
ments, papers and records of the Office.
3520. Authorization of appropriations
"There are hereby authorized to be appropriated to carry out pro-
visions of this chapter, and for no other purpose, sums-
Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
"(1) not to exceed $8,000,000 for the fiscal year ending Septem-
ber 30, 1981;
"(2) not to exceed $8,500,000 for the fiscal year ending Sep-
tember 30,1982; and
"(3) not to exceed $9,000,000 for the fiscal year ending Sep-
tember 30,1983 "
.
(b) The item relating to chapter 35 in the table of chapters for such,
title is amended to read as follows :
"35.Coordination of Federal Information Policy.
(e) (1) Section 2904(10) of such title is amended to read as follows:
"(10) report to the appropriate oversight and appropriations
committee of the Congress and to the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget annually and at such other times as
the Administrator deems desirable (A) on the results of activ-
ities conducted pursuant to paragraphs (1) through (9) of this
section, (B) on evaluations of responses by Federal agencies to
any recommendations resulting from inspections or studies con-
ducted under paragraphs (8) and (9) of this section, and (C) to
the extent practicable, estimates of costs to the Federal Govern-
ment resulting from the failure of agencies to implement such
recommendations."
(2) Section 2905 of such title is amended by redesignating the text
thereof as subsection (a) and by adding at the end of such section the
following new subsection:
"(b) The Administrator of General Services shall assist the Asso-
ciate Director for the Ogee of Information and Regulatory Affairs
in conducting studies and developing standards relating to record
retention requirements imposed on the public and on State and local
governments by Federal agencies."
SEC. 3. (a) The President and the Director of the Ogee of Man-
agement and Budget may delegate to the Associate Director for the
Ogee of Information and Regulatory Affairs all functions, author-
ity, and responsibility under section 103 of the Budget and Account-
ing Procedures Act of 1950 (31 USC 186). The Director may not
delegate such functions, authority, and responsibility to any other
officer or employee of the Office of Management and Budget.
(b) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget may
delegate, but only to the Associate Director for the Office of Informa-
tion and Regulatory Affairs all functions, authority, and responsi-
bility of the Director under section 552a of title 5, United States Code,
and under sections 110 and 111 of the Federal Property and Admin-
istrative Services Act of 1,949 (40 USC 757 and 758). The Director
maiy not delegate such functions, authority, and responsibility to any
other officer or employee of the Office of Management and Budget.
SEC. 4. (a) Section 400A of the General Education Provisions Act
is amended by (1) striking out "and" after "institutions" in subsec-
tion (a) (1) (A) and inserting in lieu thereof "or", and (2) by amend-
ing subsection (a) (3) (B) to read as follows:
"(B) No collection of information or data acquisition activity sub-
ject to such procedures shall be subject to any other review, coordina-
tion, or approval procedure outside of the relevant Federal agency,
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
except as required by this subsection and by the Director of the Of-
fice of Management and Budget under the rules and regulations estab-
lished pursuant to chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code. If a
requirement for information is submitted pursuant to this Act for
review, the timetable for the Director's approval established in sec-
tion 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 shall commence
on the date the request is submitted, and no independent submission
to the Director shall be required under such Act.".
(b) Section 201 (e) of the Surface Mining Control and Reclama-
tion Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1211) is repealed.
(c) Section 708(f) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
292h (f)) is repealed.
(d) Section 5315 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by add-
ing at the end thereof the following:
"Associate Director, O frice of Information and Regulatory Af-
fairs, Office of Management and Budget.".
SEC. 5. This Act shall take effect on October 1, 1980.
Amend the title so as to read : "A bill to reduce paperwork and en-
hance the economy and efficiency of the Government and the private
sector by improving Federal information policymaking, and for other
purposes.".
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
B-182087
Hon. LAWTON CHU Es,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Federal Spending Practices and Open
Government, Committee on Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN : In response to your request, we have prepared
comments on the Subcommittee's proposed substitute bill for S. 1411,
dated June 20, 1980, the "Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980." These
comments supplement my earlier comments provided October 31,1979,
on S. 1411. The bill would create a central office in the Office of Man-
agement and Budget (OMB) responsible for setting Government-
wide information policies and for providing oversight for the agen-
cies' information management activities. Such oversight would in-
clude periodic evaluations of the agencies' information management
activities. The activities covered by the bill include reports clearance
and paperwork control, statistics, privacy, automatic data processing
(ADP), telecommunications, and records management.
Thee last three items-ADP, telecommunications, and records man-
s
agement-have been added to the information management functions
initially assigned to the OMB office by S. 1411. The addition of these
functions will provide for an integrated approach to Federal in-
formation management to insure that consistent policies are estab-
lished and that central management is strengthened. ADP and tele-
communications, in particular, provide the tools by which the Gov-
ernment can manage its information resources more effectively. Fur-
thermore, these additions are consistent with the objectives of those
areas contained in S. 1411 to reduce the reporting burden on the pub-
lic and the Government's costs in acquiring, disseminating, using,
storing, and disposing of information.
We strongly support the objectives of the proposed substitute bill.
We believe it provides the basic central management structure-in-
eluding the authority, responsibility, and accountability-for exert-
ing badly needed control and oversight for these interrelated areas.
Significantly, our analysis of the bill indicates that its provisions are
generally consistent with many of the recommendations of the Com-
mission on Federal Paperwork.
A new management structure for the Government's information
activities would be created by the bill. The proposed structure consists
of two key elements, both of which we believe are essential. First, a
(99)
COMFTOLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
Washington, D.C., July 25,1980.
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
central office is created within OMB, with broad responsibilities for
developing consistent information policies and overseeing agency ac-
tivities. Second, a high-level official is to be designated within each
agency who will be held accountable for insuring that the agencies
eRectively carry out their information management activities.
We favor the creation of a statutory office in OMB headed by an
appointee of the OMB Director as provided in the bill. Placing the
office in OMB and providing this type of appointment would give the
OMB Director line authority for exercising the office's functions to
assure accountability to the President and the Congress.
We strongly support the creation of this structure which we believe
should enhance the economy and efficiency of Government informa-
tion activities and ultimately reduce the reporting, recordkeeping,
and related regulatory burdens imposed on the public.
The, proposed bill provides for linking together OMB's existing
responsibilities for overseeing the regulatory process with the closely
related information management functions described above. This re-
lationship between the regulatory process and information manage-
ment is reflected in OMB's existing Office of Regulatory and Infor-
mation Policy.
We believe this combination of functions has worked well. The
principal areas of growth in Federal paperwork burdens are asso-
ciated with new regulations. Therefore, it seems appropriate to retain
the existing link between the functions for controlling both regula-
tory and paperwork burdens. We would urge, however, that the new
Office of Information and Regulatory Policy not be given added
responsibilities which could divert it from its basic mission of im-
proving Federal information management.
The bill authorizes specific funding to carry out the office's func-
tions. We believe this is essential for the office to succeed. Historically,
limited resources have been applied to the information management
areas. Accordingly, we agree the Congress should provide specific
resource allocations to OMB to support these activities.
Under the bill, Federal information-related activities include re-
ports clearance and paperwork control, statistics, privacy, records
management, automatic data processing, and telecommunications. We
agree that the policy-setting and oversight responsibilities-but not
the operating responsibilities-for these .areas should be vested in the
new OMB office. This should facilitate the establishment of consistent
policies and standards covering Federal information management
activities. A list of GAO reports calling for improved management
and oversight in the areas covered by the bill is in enclosure I.
At the present time, OMB has some degree of responsibility in the
paperwork, privacy, ADP, and telecommunications areas. Under the
bill, the extent of OMB's responsibility in these areas will be ex-
panded or clarified. The areas of records management policy and
statistical policy will be added-.
With regard to records management, the bill recognizes the need
to provide a cohesive Federal information policy and to coordinate
Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
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 ex-
ample, 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 pro-
grams 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 in OMB and
the periodic evaluations required by the bill would remedy this situ-
ation. In doing so, the benefits which improved records management
practices can bring to the performance of Federal programs can be
realized.
For the first time, records retention requirements imposed on the
public and on State and local governments would come under review.
The GSA presently reviews Federal agency records retention. How-
ever, no agency reviews records retention requirements imposed by
Federal regulations on individuals, industry, or State and local gov-
ernments. Therefore, these retention requirements often lack con-
sistency or clarity. We favor coordinating retention requirements as
recommended by the Commission on Federal Pape; work and as
proposed in the bill.
We strongly support the provisions in the proposed substitute bill
for consolidating, elevating, and clarifying OMB's policy function
for the acquisition and management of automatic data processing
and telecommunications resources. We are especially pleased that
policy and oversight for ADP and telecommunications are included
among the general functions of the Director.
The present situation in ADP is characterized by :
The confusion of policy roles between OMB and GSA;
Overly complex and costly software that too often fails to
meet user needs, is inefficient, or simply does not work; and
A costly, prolonged, and ineffective acquisition process which
too often emphasizes hardware characteristics over sound finan-
cial investment.
The bill reemphasizes the principles contained in the Brooks Act
(Public Law 89-306) for strong oversight and management of the
acquisition and use of ADP resources. The functions assigned OMB,
GSA, and the Department of Commerce under the Brooks Act are
not changed. However, by reemphasizing the Brooks Act, the bill
attempts to strengthen the leadership and central direction provided
by these agencies. Further, the consolidation within OMB of policy-
making and oversight responsibilities for the other information man-
agement functions covered by the bill should enhance the capa-
bility for applying advanced information technology to the problems
of controlling paperwork burdens and improving the quality of data
for program management and evaluation.
With regard to telecommunications policy, we have long been
concerned with the lack of the focal point and the fragmented organi-
zational arrangement for managing the Government's own communica-
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
tions. In a 1969 report, we recommended. that the President consider a
realignment which would establish an organization and give it stature,
authority, and resources sufficient to serve as the Government's central
focal point in telecommunications matters. As a result of our report
and other studies, the Office of Telecommunications Policy was estab-
lished. Unfortunately, this Office was not given the authority and re-
sources we considered necessary to be effective.
Executive Order 12046 dispersed the Office's limited functions and
authority to six separate organizations eliminating the focal point.
Furthermore, the specific authority and responsibilities assigned by
the Executive Order to the six organizations, and the boundaries be-
tween them, are not clear. As we understand the intent of the proposed
bill, it would establish OMB as the policy setting focal agency for
Federal Government telecommunications.
We are concerned, however, that the proposed section 3518(b) may
unnecessarily confuse OMB's Federal telecommunications responsibil-
ities as described in section 3504(g). Section 3518(b) appears to
reserve for the Secretary of Commerce responsibility for (1) establish-
ing policies concerning spectrum assignments to United States owned
and operated radio stations and (2) coordinating telecommunications
activities of the executive branch. These functions, long with responsi-
bility for advising OMB on policies for procurement and management
of Federal telecommunications systems, were transferred to the Secre-
tary by Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1977, as amended. We believe
that leaving the three functions with the Secretary of Commerce, in-
stead of clearly transferring responsibility for them to OMB, would
fragment and weaken OMB's role in establishing Federal telecom-
munications policy. The proposed provision would not truly focus
accountability for all Federal telecommunications policy in OMB. We
suggest that section 3518(b) be modified as shown in enclosure II.
This suggested modification will also take care of an additional con-
cern with section 3518(b). We believe the references to "information
ppolicy" and "information systems" are unnecessarily broad and could
be construed to refer to statistical policy responsibilities vested in
OMB by this bill and ADP. acquisition responsibilities assigned OMB
and GSA under the Brooks Act. Furthermore, we note that Executive
Order 12046, assigning the telecommunications functions to the De-
partment of Commerce, does not use these terms in describing Com-
merce's functions. We therefore suggest that the references to
"information" be deleted in both cases. This would make section 3518
(b) consistent with other parts of this bill and the telecommunications
executive order.
In another telecommunications matter, we believe the references in
section 3504 (g) (2) and section 3 (b) to section 110 of the Federal Prop-
erty and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 757) may be
inappropriate. Section 110 establishes a Federal telecommunications
fund used by GSA to finance telecommunications services and equip-
ment or other expenses for operating a Federal telecommunications
system. Since section 110 does not contain any provisions concerning
the establishment of policy or guidance, we believe the reference to it
should be eliminated.
An additional reason for deleting this reference in section 3504(g)
(2) is that only a fraction of the Government's telecommunications are
Approved For Release 2007/05/17.: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
financed by the fund. Therefore, reference to it could imply a limita-
tion on the Director's monitoring authority. Alternatively, if the in-
tent is to provide monitoring over all Federal telecommunications
under section 3504(g) (2), substitute language should be used, such as
that suggested in enclosure II.
We have issued many reports on management problems and Gov-
ernment-wide issues in the rapidly growing ADP and telecommunica-
tions areas calling on OMB to develop, strengthen, improve, or clarify
its policy and guidance. For example, in just 10 of 57 reports issued in
the last decade on software and system problems, we found waste of
almost $300 million and years of delay on individual systems. We
attribute much of this waste and delay to the lack of OMB guidance or
management control for computer system development. We have also
reported on the special and complex problems of privacy in ADP and
communications systems.
OMB has lacked both sufficient staff and the organizational struc-
ture to address many of our recommendations and concerns. The bill's
provisions for an administrator at a sufficient level of authority and
separate fund authorization address these problems. The bill's ADP
and telecommunications provisions would accomplish several of the
key recommendations of the President's Reorganization Project for
Federal ADP Activities and are also generally consistent with several
Paperwork Commission recommendations.
The bill would bring about significant changes in the controls over
collecting information from the public, which include :
Ending the currently fragmented reports clearance responsibil-
ity and combining it with the statistical policy function in a single
organization ; and
Strengthening and clarifying the Federal Reports Act.
Consolidating fragmented activities
Progress toward achieving the Federal Report Act's paperwork con-
trol objectives is hampered because there is no central management au-
thority. Instead, control responsibility is fragmented among three
organizations-OMB, GAO, and the Department of Education-and
a substantial portion of the burden imposed on the public is outside
the central control process. We strongly favor consolidating the frag-
mented responsibilities into the new OMB office and eliminating the
exemptions to the Federal Reports Act clearance process.
Until 1973, the responsibility for paperwork control was in OMB.
Then GAO was assigned responsibility for reviewing and clearing the
independent regulatory agencies' reports. Subsequently, the Depart-
ment of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW)" was assigned re-
sponsibility over all Federal data collections from educational insti-
tutions and programs. This last responsibility was recently transferred
to the Department of Education.
S. 1411, as initially introduced, would consolidate the reports ap-
proval authority in OMB, eliminating the exemptions to the central
Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
clearance process. However, the companion legislation passed by the
House of Representatives (H.R. 6410), retains the exemption vested
in the Secretary of Education. The Secretary of Education would re-
tain the final approval authority over education information collec-
tions through September 30,1982.
The Subcommittee's substitute bill achieves a compromise, retaining
the coordinating mechanism of educational information collections in
the Department of Education, but vesting final reports clearance au-
thority in the OMB Director. We concur in this compromise, recogniz-
ing that the education coordination unit could be delegated OMB's
clearance authority, provided the unit demonstrates sufficient
capability.
In 1977, the President shifted the responsibility for setting
statistical policies and standards and coordinating Federal statistical
activities from OMB to the Department of Commerce. These respon-
sibilities are closely related to the Federal Reports Act objectives for
controlling paperwork burdens. For example, the application of sta-
tistical procedures to information collection may be helpful in improv-
ing the quality of the information collected and in reducing the report-
ing burden imposed on the public.
Because of this close relationship, the necessary coordination' be-
tween the two functions is enhanced if the functions reside in a single
organization. There is also a need to balance the sometimes conflicting
interests of paperwork reduction on one hand, and those for improved
statistics on the other, which can best be performed if both functions
are in one organization. We therefore strongly favor transferring this
function from the Department of Commerce to OMB.
In addition, agencies responsible for about 75 percent of the paper-
work burdens are exempt from the Federal Reports Act. These include
the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). other Treasury Department
agencies, and supervisory functions of the bank regulatory agencies.
The Commission on Federal Paperwork recommended, and we agree,
that these exemptions be eliminated. The obvious reason is that con-
trols are weakened by the exemptions.
Preserving regulatory agencies' independence
As discussed in our October .1979 letter, a key issue raised as a re-
sult of centralizing the clearance responsibility is how to preserve
the independence of the independent regulatory agencies. For those
agencies defined either in this bill or in their enabling legislation as
independent regulatory agencies, section 3507 includes an important
"override" provision. This section provides that OMB review pro-
posed information requests. Any disapproval of a request proposed
by an independent regulatory agency may be overturned if the agency's
members vote, by a majority, to override OMB's decision.
As we understand it, as presently drafted, section 3507 would enable
an independent regulatory agency to overturn an OMB determination
that an information collection request is unnecessary, without regard
to the section of the bill relied on by OMB. For example, should the
Director, OMB, make a determination under section 3509, having the
effect of precluding an independent regulatory agency from collecting
certain information, our understanding is that the independent regu-
latory agency could overturn the Director's decision.
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
We endorse this provision, and believe it provides more than ample
protection for the independent regulatory agencies. Although GAO's
authority under the present Federal Reports Act does not extend to
the issue of the regulatory agencies' need for information, our experi-
ence indicates that those agencies should have no difficulty in justify-
ing their legitimate information requirements. The provision that the
independent regulatory agencies certify their use of the override to
OMB provides added protection, both for the agencies and the public,
as it enables Congress to monitor these actions.
Changes to the Federal Reports Act
The changes in the organizational arrangements are only part of
the problem needing resolution. We believe that major revisions are
needed to clarify and strengthen the Federal Reports Act.
Section 2(a) of the bill replaces the Federal Reports Act, incorpo-
rating five needed changes. Our October 1979 comments provide a more
detailed discussion of these changes. First, recordkeeping requirements
are specifically included in the reports clearance process. Second, the
act's definition of "information" is clarified to eliminate an ambiguity.
.Third, the bill clarifies agency responsibilities by requiring agencies
to take specific actions before they request approval of their forms.
Fourth, OMB is required to evaluate the agencies' information man-
agement controls. Fifth, the bill authorizes OMB to delegate its clear-
ance authority to the agencies in cases where the agencies have dem-
onstrated sufficient capability. This would enable OMB to shift its
emphasis to a policy setting and management oversight role in contrast
to the time-consuming effort of clearing individual reporting and rec-
ordkeeping requirements.
Emergency clearance procedure
We endorse the concept of an emergency clearance procedure and
have cleared proposed reporting requirements for the independent
regulatory agencies when emergency conditions have existed. However,
we are concerned about the specific provision for emergency clearance
of proposed reporting requirements contained in the bill and suggest
some modification as shown in enclosure II.
The provision establishes very broad criteria to serve as a basis for
agency requests for emergency clearances, with little time (1 workday)
being allowed OMB to take any sort of review action. These criteria
are an agency head's determination that the proposed reporting re-
quirement (1) is needed before 60 days, and (2) is essential to the
agency's mission. We believe such criteria provide too weak a test as to
whether emergency circumstances actually exist. All proposed infor-
mation collections should meet the criteria of being essential to an
agency's mission. It may also be necessary for an agency to collect
information before the conclusion of a 60-day period, but we question
the need for a 1-day response in each proposed emergency case. Re-
quiring a decision by the OMB Director in 1 workday essentially pre-
cludes any investigation and analysis of the proposed reporting
requirement.
To strengthen the provision, we suggest adding criteria that a pro-
posed information collection be necessary to preclude public harm or
to respond to an unforeseen event. The addition of statutory criteria
would provide the necessary guidance to limit agency proposals for
emergency clearances to true emergencies.
Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
We also suggest changing the 1 workday limit for a decision by the
OMB Director to a minimum 2 workday period. One workday effec-
tively precludes any opportunity on the part of the central clearance
agency for raising questions about the proposed reporting requirement
with either agency staff or proposed respondents. By allowing a 2 -day
period, the central clearance agency would have some chance to at
least make limited inquiries about the requirement. In our own clear- '
ance procedure, such inquiries have enabled us to rectify problems
noted during the discussions or during our brief review of the require-
ment. We were also able to meet the agencies' needs for quick approval
of proposed reporting requirements. We recognize, however, that in
cases where advance discussions with proposed respondents would
jeopardize the information collection, such discussions would not be
held. Still, a second day would permit an opportunity to at least make
a limited review of the requirement and correct identified problems.
Burden reduction goal
. The Subcommittee's proposed substitute bill requires that the OMB
Director set, upon enactment, a goal to reduce the public reporting
burden by 15 percent by October 1, 1982. The Director is to also set a
reduction goal of not less than 10 percent for fiscal year 1983.
Burden reduction goals can be useful provided the extent of the re-
porting burden is reasonably known and the goals remain flexible to
account for changing conditions. However, the true extent of the re-
porting and recordkeeping burden imposed on the public is not known
due to exemptions, information collections in violation of the Federal
Reports Act, and technical problems in estimating burden.
We believe a more useful approach would be to add a requirement
that OMB establish, within 1 year, a reasonably accurate total report-
ing and recordkeeping burden figure. This baseline figure could then
be used to establish reduction goals for subsequent years. It would be
necessary for the goals to remain flexible because new legislation can
result in increased public reporting burden.
Followup on Paperwork Commision recommendations
Further improvements in carrying out Federal information activi-
ties should be brought about as the agencies implement the Paperwork
Commission's recommendations.
We are pleased that the bill extends for an additional 2 years OMB's
statutory authority to oversee action on the recommendations of the
Commission. We recommended such an extension in our recent report.
on the Commission recommendations (GGD-80-36; March 14, 1980).
OMB's September 1979 report states that almost half of the recom-
mendations, including many requiring legislation, are still open. We
believe the additional time is necessary to complete the job.
Federal Information Locator System
We endorse the creation of a Federal Information Locator System,
which would provide a source for locating information maintained by
different Federal agencies and which would help identify and elimi-
nate unnecessary duplicate collections of information from the public.
We recommended developing such a system in a 1975 report to the
Senate Committee on Government Operations (GGD-75-85; July 24,
11975).
'Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
OMB has begun work on a locator system and some progress has
been made. Much remains to be done, however. In this regard, we sug-
gest that the milestone date for establishing the locator system be
changed to 2 years after enactment of the bill, instead of the existing
1-year milestone. We are concerned that 1 year may not be long
enough to solve the problems which inevitably arise in developing a
complex information system. We have reported over the past several
years on numerous failures of information systems development efforts
due to inadequate planning. The complexity of the locator system de-
velopment, the large number of agencies involved, and the system's
projected costs mandate that each step of development be carefully
planned.
The development of the proposed locator system should be closely
coordinated with GAO's efforts to maintain its inventory of Federal
information resources. This inventory was established under Title
VIII of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-344). The
proposed system addresses, as we do, the identification, location, and
nature of agencies' information sources and their potential use in the
congressional decisionmaking process.
Coordination between the proposed OMB office and GAO will in-
sure that overlap and duplication of efforts are minimized. As devel-
opmental efforts of the locator system proceed, OMB may wish to in-
corporate some of the features of our data files. And, if the locator
system can successfully meet its public use requirements and the Con-
gress' information needs, we may wish to consider consolidating some
of our data collection and related activities.
OMB has reorganized its information and regulatory oversight
activities, bringing together most of its existing functions related to
the bill. This is a positive step. We do not, however, believe it negates
in any way, the need for this legislation. Without the legislation, frag-
mented policy and oversight responsibilities will continue and badly
needed changes in Federal information managment controls will not
be effected. The bill would greatly strengthen the hand of OMB in
exercising its broad responsibilities for improving the management
of the Federal Government.
In conclusion, we see enactment of the proposed substitute bill for
S. 1411 as an important landmark in a concerted effort to establish
consistent Federal information policies. The management structure
lace b
t1,is le
islation kill assist
s ,., .,.,,1 in
and tools tilt into
p
y
g
u
g
bVWU1U 6V1UL1V11.S' 1Vr, u nu 111a11y n11Vr111am1U11 pruulemis now exisrln
We believe the bill offers great potential for controlling paperwor
burdens and improving program management through more efficient
and effective use of information resources. We should not, however,
deceive ourselves or others that this legislation represents more than
the beginning of a long and difficult task.
We believe this proposed legislation is extremely important and
hope that it will receive early consideration. We will be happy to
assist in any way we can.
Sincerely yours,
ELMER B. STAATS,
Comptroller General
of the United States.
Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
Title
L
Report number
and date
Program to Follos4 Up Federal Paperwork Commission Rec- The Congress_______________________ GGD-80-36,
ommendations Is In Trouble. Mar. 14, 1980.
Department Of Agriculture: Actions Needed To Enhance Joint Economic Committee---------- GGD-80-14,
Paperwork Management and Reduce Burden. Mar. 10, 1980.
Letter Report On Assessment Of The Paperwork Burden Senate Subcommittee on Federal B-129874,
On S. 2160. Spending Practices and Open gov- Feb. 11, 1980.
vernment;
Committee on Governmental Affairs.
Letter Report On Assessment Of The Paperwork Burden On Senator David Pryor_________________ Do.
S. 1782.
Protecting The Public From Unnecessary Federal Paper- The Congress_______________________ GGD-79-70,
work: Does The Control Process Work? Sept 24, 1979.
Federal Paperwork: Its Impact On American Businesses--- Joint Economic Committee ------------ GGD-79-4,
Nov. 17, 1978.
Further Simplification Of Income Tax Forms and Instruc- Joint Committee on Taxation---------- GGD-78-74,
tions Is Needed and Possible. July 5, 1978.
Better Management Needed In Exchanging Federal And _____do_____________________________ GGD-78-23,
State Tax Information. May 22, 1978.
Letter Report On OMB's Federal Reports Act Responsibili- Senate Subcommittee on General GGD-77-38,
ties And/The President's Reporting Reduction Program. Services; May 25, 1977.
Committee on Governmental Affairs.
Status Of GAO's Responsibilities Under The Federal Reports The Congress_______________________ OSP-76-14,
Act. ' May 28, 1976.
Case Study Of Department Of Labor And Office Of Manage- Senate Committee On Government GGD-75-85,
ment And Budget Activities Under The Federal Reports Operations. July 24, 1975.
Act. I
Problems In Test Censuses Cause Concern For 1980 Census- Chairman, Subcommittee On Census GGD-80-62,
And Population; House Committee June 3, 1980.
On Post Office And Civil Service.
Letter Report On Federal And State Officials' Views On The Director, Office Of Federal Statistical GGD-80-71,
Operations Of Five Federal/State Cooperative Statistical Policy and Standards; Department June 2, 1980
Programs. Of Commerce.
Problems In Developing The 1980 Census Mail List________ Chairman, Subcommittee On Census GGD-80-50,
And Population; House Committee Mar. 31, 1980.
On Post Office And Civil Service.
Reliable Local Unemployment Estimates: A Challenge For The Congress_______________________ GGD-79-79,
Federal And State Cooperation. July 27, 1979.
After Six Years, Legal Obstacles Continue To Restrict Gov - _____do_____________________________ GGD-79-17,
errlment Use Of The Standard Statistical Establishment May 25, 1979.
Li .
Better Guidance And Controls Are Needed To Improve Fed- House Subcommittee on Energy and GGD-78-24,
oral Surveys Of Attitudes And Opinions. Power; Committee on Interstate and Sept. 15, 1978.
Foreign Commerce; House Subcom-
mittee on Oversight and Investiga-
tions; Committee on. Interstate and
Foreign Commerce.
Th Statistical Reporting Service's Crop Reports Could Be Senator George McGovern------------ GGD-78-29,
f More Use To Farmers. Apr. 13, 1978.
Ai Assessment Of Capacity Utilization Statistics-Strengths Representative John Y. McCollister ---- CED-77-3,
nd Weaknesses. Oct. 28, 1976.
A 'usted Taxes: An Incomplete And Inaccurate Measure The Congress_______________________ GGD-76-12,
For Revenue Sharing Allocations. Oct. 28, 1975.
C nversion: A Costly, Disruptive Process That Must Be Con- Chairman, House Committee on Appro- FGMSD-80-35,
sidered When Buying Computers. priations. June 3, 1980.
Wider Use Of Better Computer Software Technology Can The Congress ------------------------ FGMSD-80-38,
I Improve Management Control And Reduce Costs. Apr. 29, 1980.
DOD Automated Materials Handling Systems-Need To Secretary of Defense_________________ LCD-80-49,
Standardize And Follow GSA ADPE Approval Process. Apr. 24, 1980.
tronger Management Of EPA's Information Resources Is The Congress_______________________ CED-80-18,
Critical To Meeting Program Needs. Mar. 10, 1980.
armers H. Administration's ADP Development Proj- Chairman, House Committee on Ap- CED-80-67,
ect-Current Status And Unresolved Problems. propriations. Feb. 19, 1980.
Letter Report On Review Of Selected Computer System _____do_____________________________ FGMSD-80-34,
Procurements. Feb. 15, 1980.
Letter Report On Air Force Sole Source Computer Acquisi- House Committee on Government FGMSD-80-30,
lions Not Warranted. Operations. Jan. 24, 1980.
Letter Report On The Federal Highway Administration Will The Secretary of Transportation------- FGMSD-80-22,
Redesign Its Accounts System To Eliminate Inefficient Jan. 11, 1980.
Uses Of Computers And People.
Contracting For Computer Software Development-Serious The Congress_______________________ FGMSD-80-4,
Problems Require Management Attention To Avoid Nov. 9, 1979.
Wasting Additional Millions.
The Air Force Should Cancel Plans To Acquire Two Com- House Committee on Government FGMSD-80-15
puter Systems At Most Bases. Operations. Oct. 26, 1974.
Improvements Needed In The Tennessee Valley Authority's Chairman, Board of Directors, Ten- EMD-79-102,
Management And Use Of Its Automatic Data Processing nessee Valley Authority. Sept 6, 1979.
Resources.
Approved For Release 2007/0.5/17: CIA-RnPRc;-nnnn3R0003000 0008-8
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
Managing Weapon System Software: Progress And The Congress_______________________ PSAD-78-112
Problems. July 10, 1918.
The Federal Information Processing Standards Program: _____do_____________________________ FGMSD-78-23,
Many Potential Benefits, Little Progress, And Many Apr. 19, 1978.
Problems.
Farmers Home Administration Needs To Better Plan Chairman, House Appropriations; Sub- CED-788,
Direct, Develop, And Control Its Computer-Based Unified committee on Agriculture, Rural Feb. 27, 1978.
Management Information System. Development and Related Agencies.
Accounting. For Automatic Data Processing Costs Needs The Congress_______________________ FGMSD-78-14,
Improvement. Feb. 7, 1978.
Computer Auditing In The Executive Departments: Not _____do_____________________________ FGMSD-77-82
Enough Is Being Done. Sept. 28, 19'17.
Millions In Savings Possible In Converting Programs From _____do_____________________________ FGMSD-77-34
One Computer To Another. Sept. 15, 1957.
Problems Found With Government Acquisition And Use Of ----- do----------------------------- FGMSD-71-14
Computers From November 1965 To December 1976. Mar. 15, 107.
Managers Need To Provide Better Protection For Federal _____do_____________________________ FGMSD-76-40,
Automatic Data Processing Facilities. May 10, 1976.
Improvements Needed In Managing Automated Decision - _____do_____________________________ FGMSD-76-5,
making By Computers Throughout The Federal Apr. 23, 1976.
Government.
Opportunity For Savings Of Large Sums In Acquiring _____do_____________________________ FGMSD-75-34
Computer Systems Under Federal Grant Programs. July 24, 1915.
Program To Improve Federal Records Management Prac - _____do_____________________________ LCD-80-68,
tices Should Be Funded By Direct Appropriations. June 23 1980.
Letter Report On Study Of Presidential Libraries---------- House Subcommittee on Government LCD-80-2,
ENCLOSURE I-Continued
GAO REPORTS ON INFORMATION MANAGEMENT-Continued
Title
Report number
Recipient and date
Letter Report On Problems Associated With Developing
House Committee on Government FGMSD-79-49,
Large, Complex Data Progcessing Systems.
Operations. Aug. 16, 1979.
Flaws In Controls Over The Supplemental Security Income
The Secretary of Health, Education and HRD-79-104
Computerized System Cause Millions In Erroneous Pay.
Welfare. Aug. 9
109.
ments.
,
Better Information Management Policies Needed: A Study
The Congress_______________________ PSAD-79-62
Of Scientific And Technical Bibliographic Services.
Aug. 6, 1919.
Data Base Management Systems-Without Careful Planning
_____do____________________________ FGMSD-79-35
There Can Be Problems.
June 29 1919.
Letter Report On Acquisition Of Automatic Data Processing
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts FGMSD-74-30
Resources.
Federal Judicial Center. June 21, 1919.
.IRS Can Better Plan For And Control Its ADP Resources--
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, De- GGD-79-48,
Automated Systems Security-Federal Agencies Should
partment of the Treasury. June 18 1979.
The Congress_______________________ LCD-78-1r13
Strengthen Safeguards Over Personal And Other Sensi-
Jan. 23
1?79.
tive Data.
The Labor Department Should Reconsider Its Approach To
,
_____do____________________________ HRD-78-169
Employment Security Automation.
Dec. 28 1478.
Letter Report On Review Of The Automatic Data Processing
Administrator of General Services-____ FGMSD-74-10,
Equipment (ADPE) Interim Upgrade Acquisition Process.
Dec. 28, 1978.
Letter Report On Reviewing The Bureau Of The Census'
House Committee on Government Op- FGMSD-79-5,
Management And Use Of Automatic Data Processing
erations. Dec. 13, 1978.
(ADP) Resources.
Improvements Are Needed In The Management Of The
National Archives Preservation And Trust Fund
Activities.
Impact Of The Freedom Of Information And Privacy Acts
On Law Enforcement Agencies.
Government Field Offices Should Better Implement The
Freedom Of Information Act.
Information and Individual, Rights; Dec. 5, 1979.
Committee on Government Opera-
tions.
Administrator of General Services----- LCD-80-13
Oct. 26, 1979.
Valuable Government-Owned Motion Picture Films Are The Congress_______________________ LCD-78-113,
Rapidly Deteriorating. June 19, 1978.
Challenges Of Protecting Personal Information In An _____do_____________________________ LCD-76-102,
Expanding Federal Computer Network Environment. Apr. 28, 1978.
Ways To Improve Records Management Practices In The ----- do----------------------------- B-145743,
FYederal Government. Aug. 13, 1973.
An Informed Public Assures That Federal Agencies Will Senate Committee on the Judiciary--- LCD-80-8,
Better Comply With Freedom Of Information/Privacy Oct. 24, 1979.
Laws.
Privacy Act of 1974 Has Little Impact On Federal Contrac- House Subcommittee on Government LCD-78-124
tors. Information and Individual Rights: Nov. 27, 1978.
Data On Privacy Act And Freedom Of Information Act Pro-
vided By reueral law Enforcement Agencies.
Agencies' Implementation Of And Compliance With The
Privacy Act Can Be Improved.
Timeliness And Completeness, Of FBI Responses To Re-
quests Under Freeuom Of Information And Privacy Acts
have Improved.
Committee on Government Opera-
tions.
Senate Committee on the Judiciary____ GGD-78-108,
Nov. 15 1978.
House Subcommittee on Government LCD-78-110,
Information and Individual Rights: July 25, 1978.
Committee on Government Opera.
tions.
Senate Committee on the Judiciary__- LCD-78-119,
June 16, 1978.
Office of Management and Budget_____ LCD-78-115,
June '& 1978.
The Congress_______________________ GGD-78-51
Apr. 10, 1918.
Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8 .
ENCLOSURE I-Continued
GAO REPORTS ON INFORMATION MANAGEMENT-Continued
Report number
Title Recipient and date
FBI Taking Actions To Comply Fully With The Privacy Act_ __ House Subcommittee on Government GGD-77-93,
Individual Rights; Committee on Dec.26, 1977.
Government Operations.
Reduced Communications Costs Through Centralized Man- The Congress_______________________ LCD-80-53,
agement Of Multiplex Systems. May 14, 1980.
Economic And Operational Benefits In Local Telephone _____do_____________________________ LCD-80-9,
Service Can Be Achieved Through Government-Wide Nov. 14, 1979.
Coordination.
Navigation-A New Direction Is Needed ---------------------- do----------------------------- LCD-77-109,
Mar. 3 197&
Secure Voice Telephone Systems-How Department Of De - _____do_____________________________ LCD-77-i05,
fense Can Save Millions. Dec. 30, 1977.
Need To Control Federal Warning System Proliferation ---------- do------------------------ ____ B-133202,
Apr. 9 1976.
Economies Available Through Consolidation Or Collection _____do_____________________________ B-16985,
Of Government Land Based High Frequency Communica- Feb. 6, 1976.
tions Facilities.
Proposed revision to Section 3504(g) (2)
(2) (A) Monitoring the effectiveness of, and compliance with, di-
rectives issued pursuant to section 111 of the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 759) and reviewing
proposed determinations under section 111(g) of such Act.
(B) Monitoring the effectiveness of, and compliance with, direc-
tives for Federal telecommunications.
Proposed revision to Section 3507(g)
(g) (1) If an agency head determines an information collection
(1) is needed before 60 days, (2) is essential to the agency's mission,
and (3) the agency cannot reasonably comply with the provisions of
this section, the agency head may request the Director to provide
emergency clearance of such information collection. The Director shall
either approve or disapprove such emergency requests within 2 work-
days. Any information collection conducted pursuant to this provision
may be conducted without compliance with the provisions of this
chapter for a maximum of 90 days.
(2) In determining whether to approve or disapprove emergency
requests, the Director shall require that the agency head show that
either of two conditions exist :
(A) Public harm will result if normal clearance procedures
are followed, or
(B) An unanticipated event has occurred and the use of normal
clearance procedures will prevent or disrupt the collection of
information related to the event or will cause a statutory deadline
to be missed.
(3) In the event of disapproval of a request for emergency clear-
ance, the Director shall immediately proceed with review of the col-
lection as provided in subparagraph (c).
Aproved For Release 2M7/Q_1;j7 - ('IA-RnPR5-0000'lRnnn3000 0008-8
 Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP85-00003R000300050008-8
111
Proposed revision to Section 3518 (b)
(b) (1) The Department of Commerce, pursuant to law and Execu-
tive Order, retains its responsibility for conducting telecommunica-
tions research and development and its other telecommunications
functions, except for those that pertain to the Federal sector as as-
signed to the Director, Office of Management and Budget under this
Act.
(2) The Department of State, pursuant to law and Executive Order,
shall continue to exercise primary authority for the conduct of foreign
policy with respect to telecommunications in coordination with other
agencies as appropriate.
0