OMB Watch Testimony Page 12 We have found, however, that looking at disapprovals alone is not an adequate statistic when speaking about paperwork decisions. For example, it is not unusual for an agency to withdraw a proposal from OIRA review at OIRA's request. It is also quite common for OIRA to give short-term approvals, for less than one year, to proposals with which they have a problem-forcing agencies to resubmit justification or make modifications. Finally, it is not unusual for OIRA to give an approval contingent on any number of changes. The agency must make these modifications to receive an OIRA approval. Despite major OIRA interference, it is logged as an approval, without any indication of OIRA interference. Taking disapprovals, withdrawals, and approvals for less than 6-months, we have developed a picture of which agencies have had the most problem getting through the OIRA paperwork clearance process. Chart 5, below, shows that HUD, OSHA, EPA, and MSHA led the way in 1989. Roughly one in five of their submissions were either disapproved, withdrawn, or approved for less than 6 months. The data about short-term approvals suggests the need for further research and oversight by Congress. It is also interesting to see how OIRA has used its resources. For example, although EPA accounts for roughly 4% of all federal paperwork burden (110 proposals in 1988 and 91 in 1989), OIRA has assigned four of its less than three dozen Desk Officers to review EPA paperwork. By comparison, Treasury accounts for 43% of government paperwork burden and submitted 325 proposals in 1988 and 429 in 1989. Yet only one Desk Officer was as Page 13 OMB Watch Testimony office, which submitted 10 proposals). As just mentioned, less than three dozen Desk Officers are reviewing all information collection activities in government-not to mention all regulations under E.O.s 12498 and 12291. A review of the biographies of OIRA Desk Officers makes evident their general lack of experience with agency concerns, especially with the agencies for which they are directly responsible. Chart 6, below, shows that in 1988, nearly half (47%) of OIRA Desk Officers had no previous federal agency experience at all, and an additional 31% had agency experience unrelated to their area of responsibility. Only 22%-less than one-quarter of Desk Officers-listed previous employment with agencies under their purview. There are numerous examples of how little Desk Officers may actually know about the subject involved in a particular proposal they are supposed to evaluate. Futhermore, few Desk Officers have any scientific background at all. Yet they seem to have no compunction about passing scientific judgment on studies, designed and reviewed by agency and outside scientific experts. For some examples, see OMB Watch's Playing the Numbers: OMB and Paperwork Reduction - An Analysis of 1988 OMB Paperwork Decisions. Even without describing case examples, the above information cries out for the need to reform the paperwork clearance process. S. 1742 would go a long way to fix some of these problems. Unfortunately, S. 1742 doesn't go far enough in challenging the criteria OIRA uses in reviewing paperwork. But requirements mandating the review of benefits, not just OMB Watch Testimony Page 14 Information Resources Management OMB Watch Position 1 We support S. 1742's proposal to change the name of the Act from the Paperwork Reduction Act to the Federal Information Resources Management Act. This provides a better description of the purposes and goals of the law. 2 S. 1742 more clearly defines the intention of the 1980 Act by improving the description of information resources management and delineating OIRA's responsibilities. It acknowledges the importance of paperwork reduction, but goes well beyond this narrow purposeand responds to a host of needs that we face in the 1990s. The IRM emphasis in S. 1742 is critical as it defines a coordinated federal policy approach to managing an essential national resource - our public information. 3 We support S. 1742's provision for a chief IRM official in each agency. It appears that the bill's authors have given careful thought to this provision, especially by requiring the individual be a career civil servant. This will help provide “institutional memory" and depoliticize information activities. Our experience is that it is very difficult to encourage the type of communication within agencies that is envisioned by S. 1742-where program staff work hand-in-hand with IRM experts. Nevertheless, it is needed and should be encouraged. 4 We support provisions in S. 1742 to improve statistical policy and coordination. These include revision of OIRA's statistical responsibilities and inclusion as part of the U.S. budget an analysis of resources allocated for statistical programs. We also support the creation of an Advisory Committee on Statistical Policy as provided in S. 1742, but believe more detail needs to be provided on tasks of the Committee. 5 We support creation of an Advisory Committee on Information Policy, but believe its tasks should be defined more clearly. 6 We support provisions in S. 1742 regarding the Federal Information Locator System (FILS). The idea of establishing a computerized comprehensive inventory of information collection requests is very important in achieving paperwork reduction. Assuming the system will be publicly accessible, it can be used by agencies and the public to determine whether there is duplication in paperwork. It can also better serve the public and Congress in assessing the scope and detail of paperwork that government is requiring. Background on Information Management Resources OIRA's implementation of the Paperwork Reduction Act has generally pleased those who believe the federal government's appetite for information should be curbed. However, it has not pleased those who note the ways in which OIRA has used paperwork clearance to target particular programs for exceedingly critical review, such as occupational and environmental health research. Or to target information collection in areas of disfavor with the Page 15 OMB Watch Testimony government's ability to provide needed statistical information to policymakers in government, as well as in the private sector. OMB was charged in 1980 with developing comprehensive information policies for the entire federal government. The Act specified a number of tasks that went beyond paperwork clearance. Over the years, OMB has been criticized by the General Accounting Office, Congress, and public interest groups for ignoring these information resources management tasks. Information resources management involves the coordinated planning and management of all information activities, from creation, collection, and use, through dissemination and archiving. IRM figured prominently in the deliberations of the Paperwork Commission of 1970s, which seized on the concept to call for the coordinated management of all federal information activities. Criticizing the way in which the management of information activities was fragmented within and among agencies, the Commission called for a "single management coordination umbrella." The Paperwork Reduction Act was intended to be that IRM "umbrella." Unfortunately, OMB's fixation with paperwork control interfered with its functions to improve the management of federal information activities. OMB disregarded its responsibilities for statistical policy and coordination and records management. It has trivialized its supervision of the Privacy Act, passing off the development of policies and guidelines for simple reiteration of statutory mandates, leaving agencies without direction. It has given scant attention to its ADP and telecommunications responsibilities. In short, OMB has virtually ignored its statutory responsibility to improve federal information resources manage ment. S. 1742 makes an important statement. It acknowledges that the 1990s are the information age and that the federal government must make a concerted effort to manage its information resources. The bill does not repudiate paperwork reduction goals. Rather, it subsumes paperwork reduction as a critical part of the management of information resources-a logical thing to do. There must be a fundamental shift in perspective on the value of federal information activities and the responsibility of the federal government to carry them out. First and foremost, government information should be recognized as an essential public service function, undertaken at public expense to fulfill public needs. Its status as a commodity or resource should be secondary to its nature as a public service. S. 1742 helps us to begin moving in this direction. Criticism should only be leveled at the bill for not going far enough. While the bill strengthens the IRM capabilities of federal agencies, it falls short of fulfilling obvious needs to increase the budgets of OIRA and agen OMB Watch Testimony Dissemination Page 16 OMB Watch Position 1 We wholeheartedly support principles that call for the affirmative responsibilities of agencies to disseminate information regardless of format-print and electronic. S. 1742 provides such principles. 2 We believe S. 1742 should provide greater specificity on what it expects from OMB in carrying out its dissemination responsibilities. For example, one principle-shared public and private responsibility is "sound public policy" - needs greater clarification, given OMB's past resolve to privatize government information activities. 3 The bill does not address specific agency responsibilities, such as the need for procedures on fee waivers, user fees that don't exceed the marginal cost of dissemination, and more. This needs to be done. 4 The bill would be better off addressing dissemination instructions to agencies, not OMB. Given the past problems of OMB interference in agency dissemination activities and OMB's recent view that it should not be involved in the operational decisions of agencies, it would be wise to redraft this section. 5 We strongly support a requirement that encourages agencies to review available public and private information products and services to identify initiatives that are equivalent to the agency's and “reasonably achieves the dissemination objectives of the agency." Our support for this provision is based on our understanding that this is a repudiation of OMB's current privatization policy (see below). Our reading of the provision is that an agency would not be required to use the private sector's services if did not meet the agency's objectives. But the provision would require agencies to first review services that exist prior to undertaking such efforts, thereby reducing the need for them to reinvent the wheel. 6 We believe Congress will need to revisit these issues in the near future. For example, vigilant congressional oversight will be needed on OMB's regulations to carry out these provisions. Congress will also need to insure that public information handled by the private sector has provisions for reasonable public access, such as through the Depository Library Program, and that long-term considerations to the maintenance and provision of information services are given prior to consideration of private sector involvement. Congress will need to review OIRA's assessment on the feasibility of creating an inventory of all information dissemination products and services and determine who be responsible for carrying out this inventory. Finally, Congress, not through S. 1742, will need to review the printing laws to bring them up to date with the 1990s and the use of electronic information technology. Background on Dissemination When passed in 1980, the Paperwork Reduction Act contained two mentions of the |