ahead with Mr. Blumstein's nominaLion. That is not back room blackmail. it is just there is not a position for which we would confirm him, legisla tively approved by the Senate and by the Congress of the United States. So, Mr. President, I think that puts a little different view on this thing. I am sorry about this rolling. anonymous hold on the other side. I deplore that way of operating. In the Senate we usually can do better than that in accommodating each other and working out the details of our disagree ments. important office, and as a result, the OIRA is the President's eyes and ears for the review of information collections, recordkeeping requirements and regulations issued by the regula. tory agencies of the Federal Government. It is here where the President regulates the regulators and has the opportunity to curb the Government's appetite for information from the public. Without this office. Congress has no specific point to hold accountsble for these reviews. This office creates a fulcrum for a conflict that is fundamental to the Government of the United States. It is also a point on which to debate the powers of the President and the control of these powers wielded by the Congress. With our inability to reach agreement on even bringing this bill to the floor for debate, we are sacrificing this office, and a level of Congress' oversight into the execution of the laws we pass. We Management Act-Bingaman and Lieber are also hurting the Americar people But an anonymous rolling hold I cannot fight this evening on this Senate floor. So, Mr. President, I am sorry the unanimous consent I asked for was not accommodated on the other side, and I yield the floor. EXHIBIT 1 OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET. Washington, DC, October 24, 1990. STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY S. 1742. Federal Information Resources man) The Administration strongly supports pas. sage of S. 1742 (with Comunittee amend ment substitute) reauthorizing the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) 1742, as reported by the Commitee on Gov. for four full years from enactment. While S. ernmental Affairs, contained a number of items on which Senior Advisors recommended veto, a compromise has been reached which accommodates Administration and small business concerns. The amended S. on Presidential oversight of regulatory 1742 would no longer significantly intrude review and paperwork reduction. The House passed last night a bill which the Administration and small business strongly oppose, but indicated they would accept the amended Senate bill. To not pass the Committee substitute will significantly impair OIRA's ability to operate next year and threaten OIRA appropriations. Equally important, there is agreement by the Senate Committee on Governmental Af fairs to hold hearings early next year on legislation which would remedy the problems created by the Supreme Court's decision in Dole vs. Steelworkers. Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, the bill we are trying to bring up at this time has been problematic for quite some time. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA] authorization is a piece of legislation that the Governmental Affairs Committee has worked on now for 2 years. This office has been a lightening rod for controversy since its creation as part of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1930. Every time the Congress has tried to reauthorize this office, there have arisen problems stemming from the fundamental governmenta! functions embodied here. With its most recent authorization having expired in 1929. I would hope that the Senate could move forward with this measure. There has been over the last 2 years, every effort made to reach a compromise over the functions and limita tions of authority of OIRA. With the closing of this session of Congress, we have no authorization for this most as they carry the burden of govern- I urge the Senate to take action on balance that OIRA strikes is between October 27, 1990 has devoted to this task. However. 1 hope this Congress adjourns before it becomes possible for him to preside for another 100 hours. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objec tion is heard. Mr. MITCHELL I regret the objection of the Senator from Iowa. I think it is important the Senate and the American people understand what has happened here. Earlier this year, in February, the Senate passed by vote of 92 to 8 the Educational Equity and Excellence Act. That was President Bush's bill. That is the bill that President Bush asked be introduced and we passed it 92 to 8. Later that same month, the Senate passed by a vote of 99 to nothing the United States. literacy bill to reduce illiteracy in the Later still in the year, the Senate Labor and Education Committee reported out by a vote of 15 to 1, the National Teachers Act. Those three bills were combined into a single legislation package and were SENATOR BRYAN PRESIDES FOR approved yesterday by the House of 100 HOURS Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, on October 12, 1990, at 7:20 p.m. the Junior Senator from Nevada (Mr. BRYAN] now presiding over the Senate, completed 100 hours of presiding over the Senate during the 2d session of the 101st Congress. He is the first Senator to reach this milestone during this session. The duty of Presiding Officer falls mainly on the shoulders of the junior Democratic members of this body. It is an extremely important job and one in which Members become familiar with the rules and precedents of the Senate. Presiding for 100 hours in volves a significant commitment of time and energy. Evidence of his enthusiasm for this task was revealed during our recent weekend session. On Sunday, September 30, the junior Sennator from Nevada [Mr. BRYAN) volunteered to preside for the first 3 hours the Senate was in session and the folloving Saturday, October 6, he presided for the first 2 hours of session. I personally-and I know I speak for all Senators-appreciate the many hours the junior Senator from Nevada Representatives without a single dissenting vote, not one vote against it. The White House and House and Senate negotiators have worked over the past 3 weeks on this package of legislation which I have now sought to bring to the Senate floor for consideration. The distinguished Senator from Iowa objects to it. Over and over in the past several weeks, President Bush has gone around the country and criticized the Democratic Congress for no! acting on his education bill. Yet the Democratic Congress has passed his education bili and is now trying to pass it tonight and is prevented from doing so by the objections of a Republican Senator. The President has said he wants this bill. We are prepared to enact this bill. The House passed this bill without & single disserting vole. So there can be no question about it. It will be fals and inaccurate for the President to state that the Democratic Congress prevented the passage of his education bill. The Democratic Congress passed it unanimously in the House and is now prepared to pass it this evening in It was my pleasure to cosponsor your bill, S. 1942, the Regulatory Review Sunshine Act of 1991. Abuses of the regulatory oversight process have become a serious issue in the implementation of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and other important environmental protection programs. Your bill will go a long way to restoring the public's right to be informed with respect to government actions. I do have one concern about the bill that I would bring to your attention. S. 1942 provides limited time periods for the review of regulations. It authorizes the reviewing entity to extend these time periods under certain conditions. I am concerned that this authority to extend the review period could be read as authority to delay regulatory deadlines that are otherwise set in statute or by court order. The Environment and Public Works Committee has considered similar limits on the authority of reviewing entities in preparation of our RCRA reauthorization bill, S. 976. I would refer you to section 105 of that bill and especially to the savings clause contained in the proposed paragraph (5) on page 12. The following is a modified version of that provision that might be appropriate for your bill: "( ) Nothing in this Act alters in any manner- "(1) rulemaking authority vested by law in the head of any federal agency to initiate or complete a rulemaking proceeding or to issue, modify or rescind a rule or regulation; "(2) the criteria for rulemaking applicable under other statutes; or "(3) any legally applicable deadline for action by any federal agency. PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER -2 I believe this language would be a useful addition to S. 1942 and would urge you to consider it. Thank you for your attention to these concerns. Sincerely, John Cha. John H. Chafee JHC: jp CC: Honorable William V. Roth This letter presents the views of the Department of Justice on S. 1942, the "Regulatory Review Sunshine Act of 1991." Many of the provisions in S. 1942 are objectionable as a matter of policy, as the Office of Management and Budget ("OMB") explained in its testimony on the bill. As a legal matter, the Department of Justice believes that S. 1942 would, in several respects, encroach upon the President's constitutional authority to protect the confidentiality of deliberations within the Executive Branch. Accordingly, the President's senior advisors would recommend disapproval of this bill. - The Department of Justice expressed similar objections to an earlier but narrower version of this legislation introduced during the 101st Congress -- S. 1742, the "Federal Information Resources Management Act of 1989" that contained provisions analogous to those presently under consideration. See Letter from Bruce C. Navarro, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legislative Affairs, to Chairman John Glenn (Feb. 20, 1990) ("DOJ Letter"). We strongly objected to the legislation in the 101st Congress on the ground that it would "requir[e] Executive branch deliberations over regulations to take place in a fishbowl." DOJ Letter at 2. As we detail below, S. 1942 would constitute an even greater intrusion upon Executive deliberations. In his capacity as unitary executive under Article II of the Constitution, the President has the obligation to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." U.S. Const., Art. II, § 3. Consequently, the President has the constitutional authority to "supervise and guide" Executive Branch officials in "their construction of the statutes under which they act in order to secure that unitary and uniform execution of the laws which Article II of the Constitution evidently contemplated in vesting general executive power in the President alone." Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52, 135 (1926). The President has chosen to exercise his supervisory control over the Executive Branch regulatory process through, among other means, delegation of his constitutional power to OMB pursuant to Executive Orders Nos. 12,291 and 12,498. The Constitution further empowers the President to protect the confidentiality of deliberations within the Executive Branch. See United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 708 (1974); Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425, 446-55 (1977). The Supreme Court has recognized that the deliberative process privilege is "fundamental to the operation of Government and inextricably rooted in the separation of powers under the Constitution." United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. at 708. In the Court's words, the deliberative process privilege protects "the public interest in candid, objective, and even blunt or harsh opinions in Presidential decisionmaking." Id. In particular, the Court has noted the valid need for protection of communications between Id. at 705. As we observed in our previous letter: The types of materials that constitute deliberative DOJ Letter at 3. As we have recognized, "current requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act potentially interfere to some extent with Executive Branch deliberations" by, for instance, requiring disclosure of written communications between OMB and any agency concerning proposals for the collection of information. Id. at 4 (citing 44 U.S.C. S 3507(h)). We added that such requirements in existing law are "in tension with" the President's constitutional |