Paperwork is not all burden; it may be a burden to some people, but there are obvious social benefits and other benefits conferred. One of the ways we are going to be able to get better assessment of the net benefit is to better assess what is the actual burden.

We have beliefs-all of us have very strong beliefs-as to what the benefits are in requiring paperwork to give us a better fix on what's going on in occupational health and safety areas, other areas. But we also need to be able to better assess the burden.

One of the things we did, following the 1986 enactment, was require that agencies put their estimate of the burden on the form that they were asking the public to fill out. I mentioned the fact that we have all seen our IRS forms and for the first time you will see that the burden estimate by the IRS, now that it has to go public, is much higher than before. It's an increase of about five- to six-fold.

Once we have a better fix on the real burden, it seems to me we can then balance the benefits against that burden.

And I see my light is on.

Chairman GLENN. That's all right. That's the warning light. You have 1 more minute left. [Laughter.]

Mr. MACRAE. So the answer is: Yes, I agree we can do more, and I hope we will have better feedback from the public as to what they perceive the burden to be, and the benefit.

Chairman GLENN. Yes. Let me ask, before my time runs out too, is the Paperwork Reduction Act working? Because it doesn't appear to be very effective when both you and the GAO agree that paperwork has increased and not decreased in spite of all the efforts, legislation, sidebar agreements and all the other things we talk about; paperwork is going up and not down.

Mr. MACRAE. Well, part of that is, sir, I guess, the fact that we have had a lot of new legislative enactments. A large part of it is. Chairman GLENN. Is the increase due to congressional action that you have to respond to? Or is it the other way around? Are agencies just going out with more and more requests for information?

Mr. MACRAE. I think, in large part, that agencies are therefore required to implement new congressional enactments.

Chairman GLENN. I thought you might say that. [Laughter.]
Mr. MACRAE. But agencies also, to some extent, are at fault.
Chairman GLENN. Yes.

Mr. MACRAE. And also I would say, based on certainly the GAO report and others, that we have to be more vigorous in our reviews at OMB.

But I think there is one thing that we can say categorically: If you ask the small businessmen out there, if you ask the State and local governments and if you ask not the big guys but the average Joe, has there been some reduction in some areas, I think the answer will be "yes." Six hundred million hours that otherwise would have been imposed have been removed. Chairman GLENN. OK. My time is up.

Senator Bingaman?

One of the things that has been cited by Mr. Darman and you in your testimony as a major problem or major concern is this issue of requiring a line item budget submission for OIRA.

Now, hasn't Congress been giving you a line item when they give you the budget?

Mr. MACRAE. We are included in the OMB appropriation, sir. Senator BINGAMAN. But it is not specified how much goes to OIRA?

Mr. MACRAE. There is an amount specified that goes to OIRA for implementation of the Paperwork Reduction Act within the OMB appropriation.

Senator BINGAMAN. Right. So you don't object to Congress specifying how much goes to OIRA, you just object to it not being included or considered along with OMB's overall funding?

Mr. MACRAE. We are requesting that we remain within the OMB appropriation.

Senator BINGAMAN. Yes.

Mr. MACRAE. The actual appropriation specifies how much goes to OIRA for carrying out the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Senator BINGAMAN. It seems to me that giving you a separate line item would give OIRA the opportunity to make a case for adequate funding for the things that you are responsible for. Our concern here, my concern all through this, has been that you have a tremendous number of responsibilities, many of which are not being adequately handled and possibly one of the reasons is that you haven't been able to get the necessary funds to do them.

Giving you a line item in the budget would help to do that. But you don't see it that way?

Mr. MACRAE. Well, coming from OMB and having been there a long time, it is obviously an awkward position to be in to ever ask for an increase of anything.

But I think that we have received adequate funding. The amount that shall go to OIRA for carrying out the Paperwork Reduction Act is specified within that appropriation. I think our remaining within the OMB appropriation has worked well.

We have a staff of about 65 people. We were larger before. We had up to 80 people. But I like to think that we do more with less. And obviously I wouldn't want to fall much below that number.

Senator BINGAMAN. Well, one of my concerns that prompted this is that there are some other functions which you also are directed in the law to carry out, such as oversight of statistical information gathering. I think you have five people who work at that; right? Mr. MACRAE. That's correct, sir.

Senator BINGAMAN. Do you think you are able to give that adequate attention?

Mr. MACRAE. I think in conjunction with the support we receive from the agencies-one of the things the Paperwork Act provides is that we can draw on other agency resources-that we have been able to do an adequate job. We can do more even with the people we have, and we will be doing more.

Senator BINGAMAN. Well, I think there was testimony at our hearings last summer that there was going to be an effort to shift

Mr. MACRAE. I am urging my colleagues in that area to come forward with people they would like to hire, yes sir.

Senator BINGAMAN. Earlier you were talking about the measurment of benefits and the burdens during the information collection review process. We thought we were trying to get at that same issue in our legislation.

And then I read the attachment to Mr. Darman's letter where he is specifying the various things that are objectionable, and one of the things that is objectionable is the addition of the word "benefit" to the statute when talking about information.

He says that that is objectionable. They want to delete this word. The word is functionally duplicative with "need for," which is already in the notice, because agencies in explaining their "need for" information will necessarily explain the "benefit" to the agency and private users to be obtained from receiving that information. It says, "Thus, the use of the word 'benefit' would fragment the concept of utility in a confusing way without adding to conceptual clarity."

Could you explain that to me? [Laughter.]

Mr. MACRAE. I guess what we were basically trying to say is the benefit is largely defined by the agency. And it should be.

Senator BINGAMAN. But what is wrong with Congress using the word benefit in the statute? I mean you used it in your testimony, and it seems to be a major part of your responsibility and the agency's responsibility is to balance the benefit and the burden.

Mr. MACRAE. Sure. There are cases where "need for" may not have anything to do with benefit.

Senator BINGAMAN. Right.

Mr. MACRAE. So I see that benefit is really a subset of the expression "need for." An agency may say, "you know, we have an enactment, we've got to collect this information, that's it." In the agency's own judgment, there may not be any benefit of that, but they've got to follow the law.

Senator BINGAMAN. We are not dropping out "need for."
Mr. MACRAE. Yes, sir.

Senator BINGAMAN. We are leaving that in.

Mr. MACRAE. Well, I am simply saying that I think the word "benefit" is subsumed in "need for."

Senator BINGAMAN. So that is a major problem you have with the bill?

Mr. MACRAE. Well, it is a problem only in that I think it may focus away from just the bigger question of the "need for" it. The agency basically makes the justification.

Senator BINGAMAN. My time is up, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GLENN. Mr. MacRae, we have had the latest examples of OMB abuse of its review authority under the PRA, whereby regulatory activity of agencies has been curtailed or hampered. Many of these seem to be in the area of health and safety: OSHA, NIOSH, and so on.

The charge has been made that OMB has played politics: where OMB has disagreed with a certain congressional requirement their authority has been used to send back requests for information, to

will of the Congress by pushing these things back to the agencies because of disagreement on policy.

What is your response to that?

Mr. MACRAE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the record-I don't have it with me a statement that we provided to the House with regard to a number of these allegations. And I would like to be able to submit that for the record.

Chairman GLENN. Fine. That will be included as part of our record.

But I would like to hear your response today also.

Mr. MACRAE. But in response to the question you pose, I would urge that the Committee might wish to call the political levels at these agencies where the allegations have been made that OMB has interfered with their rulemaking or their attempts to collect information. The reason is that the political level is ultimately responsible in those agencies for carrying out the laws of the Congress. And I think you might get a different reaction.

I also would urge that perhaps the Committee would inquire of some of the agency clearance officers with regard to paperwork— the clearance officers who coordinate the agencies' requests and provide them to us-whether they think we have been acting in an improper fashion. I think you might get a different impression.

And I think, as our document will show, that we have acted in a proper fashion. I am a career employee. I have been there a long time under different Presidents-Republicans and Democrats. I have never been given instructions of an ideological or partisan nature. And if I were, I would quit.

Chairman GLENN. Executive Orders 12291 and 12498 appear to have created a two-tiered regulatory process. There's one for agencies pursuant to their statutory missions and quite another for OMB pursuant to a political standard, which is along the same lines as my questioning to you. Isn't that an inconsistency?

Mr. MACRAE. I don't understand the reference to the political standard.

Chairman GLENN. I'm sorry?

Mr. MACRAE. The reference to the political standard?
Chairman GLENN. Yes.

Mr. MACRAE. You mean the cost-benefit?

Chairman GLENN. Well, the agencies have their statutory missions, and under the Executive Order, OMB pursues a political standard.

Mr. MACRAE. Oh. I guess that is in reference to Executive Order 12498.

Chairman GLENN. Yes.

Mr. MACRAE. We always thought that the requirement of the Executive Order for agencies to come forward with their regulatory programs and to lay before the Congress and the public what they intended to do in the forthcoming year with regard to regulation was a good-Government proposal. If that is political, then we stand

But the whole intent of the Executive Order, as I think a reading of it will show, was that this is an attempt to get the cards on the table.

Chairman GLENN. The Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission has written me a letter on behalf of the Commission, which I quote in part. It says:

Only modest opportunities remain for further reductions in paperwork burdens. Accordingly, additional burden reduction goals based on a percentage of existing activities do not appear realistic. Any significant percentage reduction in the burden now attributed to the Federal Trade Commission would require the elimination of disclosure requirements that are either required by law or are serving an appropriate function in the marketplace.

Can you comment on this, particularly in light of S. 1742's goal of reducing paperwork burdens by 5 percent annually?

Mr. MACRAE. We have always assumed that 5 percent across the board would not necessarily mean that any one agency would have to achieve 5 percent-some agencies maybe less, and maybe other agencies would achieve a lot more. I would say clearly in the case of the FTC and certain other agencies, they have cut about as much as they reasonably can.

Chairman GLENN. As I understand it, the "regulatory Program of the United States", is supposed to be published every September by OIRA. Now, this is required by Executive Order 12498.

Was the 1990 Program published last September?

Mr. MACRAE. No, it was not. And the reason was that the new Administration appointees were barely in the saddle at the time and had not had a chance to review the agency submissions, and it was therefore decided that it would be put off for that year.

Chairman GLENN. Well, that is one of our problems, where something is not in statute and is authorized by Executive Order, it's easy for the President to ignore it. How can Congress be assured that the report will be forthcoming this year and in future years and not just in election years for example?

Mr. MACRAE. Well, I would say, sir, that I certainly feel comfortable that it will be published next year and thereafter. And I would hope that it would.

Chairman GLENN. Are you going to catch up by doing an early submission soon from last year, or do we wait until September to get it this year? [Laughter.]

Mr. MACRAE. I believe we published in August for 2 years.
Chairman GLENN. Are we just going to skip a year?

Mr. MACRAE. Well, as I say, interestingly enough, some people would say that given that Executive Order 12498 is an imposition by OMB it's great that it wasn't published at all. So I am glad to hear you say that you would like to see it get out. We would, too. Chairman GLENN. We would like to see it so we can review it. Mr. MACRAE. Surely.

Chairman GLENN. And we feel that that is something that should be put out every year. When we see Executive Orders being ignored, we can't enforce them. That's the reason we like to put things in statute up here so we know what's going to happen. Mr. MACRAE. I understand, sir.