STATEMENT
OF JOHN D. GRAHAM, PH.D.
ADMINISTRATOR
OFFICE OF INFORMATION AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES
BEFORE
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY POLICY, NATURAL RESOURCES
AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 11, 2002
Good morning, Mr.
Chairman, and Members of this Subcommittee. I am John D. Graham, Ph.D.,
Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA),
Office of Management and Budget. Thank you inviting me to testify about
the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). I am pleased to have this opportunity
to discuss how the Federal Government is improving the quality of the
information it collects, uses, and disseminates, while also reducing
the associated burdens that are imposed on the American public. The
Bush Administration, while recognizing the public benefits of information
collections, is committed to reducing needless paperwork burdens and
agency violations of the PRA. I appreciate this Subcommittee's strong
interest in information policy, and I look forward to working with
you and other members of this Subcommittee on the challenges we face
in advancing the objectives of the PRA.
In my testimony,
I will provide an overview of the Federal Government's need for and
use of information, briefly describe OMB's efforts to enhance the quality
of information disseminated by agencies, and discuss the challenges
of achieving and measuring burden reduction.
I would first,
however, like to address a number of issues that you raised in your
letter of invitation. Specifically, you asked that I discuss (1) OMB's
disclosure of changes made during our review of agency information
collection requests, (2) agency efforts to resolve violations of the
PRA, (3) agency progress in reviewing 15 non-Internal Revenue Service
(IRS) regulations with 10 million burden hours, and (4) specific reductions
in reporting and recordkeeping requirements that agencies accomplished
last year and expect to accomplish in 2002.
Disclosure Measures
for OIRA's Role in Paperwork Reduction
I am pleased to
report that OMB is beginning to collect information on whether an agency's
information collection changed during PRA reviews. Specifically, OMB's
computerized database will begin to indicate whether the collection
is "approved without change" from what the agency originally
submitted or "approved with change." The first public reports
with this information will be available by the end of this month.
As you may know,
OIRA is currently working with the Regulatory Information Services
Center (RISC) at the General Services Agency (GSA) to create a new
information system that will replace OIRA's current, somewhat antiquated,
database. GSA has hired Booz-Allen Hamilton to develop this new system,
which will expand on the existing system, the RISC/OIRA Consolidated
Information System (ROCIS), that RISC uses to produce the Semi-Annual
Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions. Our
goal is have the new, enhanced ROCIS fully operational by November
2003.
ROCIS will be an
internet-based system that will accept paperwork and regulatory submissions
from Federal agencies and provide materials to OIRA staff for their
review. ROCIS will maintain a record of each OIRA review, including
the information submitted by an agency and a record of OIRA's actions.
Almost all the public records that are currently located in OIRA's
Docket Library in paper form will be accessible to the public in electronic
form. Search capabilities in the new system will make it easy for individuals
to search these public files for information about paperwork and regulatory
issues that might be of interest.
Resolving Agency
Violations of the Paperwork Reduction Act
Over the past several
years, the Subcommittee has expressed concerns about agency violations
of the PRA. We appreciate your interest in this issue and acknowledge
the leadership role you have played in addressing this problem. I would
like to provide a brief summary of OMB's recent efforts on this front
and update you on the progress we are making.
As you know, at
last year's hearing on the Paperwork Reduction Act, the General Accounting
Office testified that agencies were responsible for 487 PRA violations
in FY 2000, which was down from the 710 violations committed in FY
1999 and the 872 violations committed in FY 1998. This represented
a 44 percent reduction in violations during this time period.
Last October, to
help us prepare the FY 2002 Information Collection Budget (ICB), we
sent OMB Bulletin No. 02-02 to 15 agencies (the Cabinet agencies and
the Environmental Protection Agency). (1) The
OMB Bulletin reminded agencies that OMB is required to report to Congress
violations of the PRA, and requested that they document their compliance
with the information collection provisions of the PRA. Agencies were
specifically asked to report the title of the information collection,
the nature of the violation, and how the violation was discovered and
remedied.
Subsequently, then-OMB
General Counsel Jay Lefkowitz and I sent a memorandum to agency chief
information officers and general counsels that further emphasized the
importance of full agency compliance with the PRA. We requested more
specific information from CIOs on the steps they were taking to resolve
PRA violations that we reported in the FY 2001 ICB. We also asked that
they describe the procedures that they have instituted to prevent future
violations, including monthly reviews of OMB's computer-generated reports,
CIO oversight, and direct CIO participation in their agencies' programmatic
functions. Further, we asked that agency general counsels and solicitors
assist CIOs whenever possible.
In response to
OMB's requests for information on PRA compliance, agencies contributing
to this year's ICB reported 406 violations of the Paperwork Reduction
Act in FY 2001, only 109 of which remain unresolved as of March 12,
2002 (which was the cut-off date for preparing the lists of violations
that appear in the FY 2002 ICB). In the FY 2001 ICB, these agencies
reported 161 unresolved violations. Although we are reporting fewer
unresolved PRA violations than we did last year, there are still too
many, and we are committed to reducing them further in the future.
Agency Progress
in Reviewing 15 Non-IRS Rules with 10 Million Burden Hours
Mr. Chairman, your
letter of invitation raised an issue relating to OMB's report to Congress
on regulations that impose paperwork burdens of more than 10 million
hours. In this report - which was required by Section 518 of the FY
2001 Consolidated Appropriations Act and was issued as part of the
FY 2001 ICB - OMB limited its evaluation to only two Department of
Labor (DOL) major rules. Subcommittee staff subsequently identified
15 non-IRS major rules imposing more than 10 million burden hours that
you believe OMB should have addressed in its report. As we have discussed
in previous correspondence with the Subcommittee, the disagreement
over the scope of OMB's report is based on OMB's interpretation of
the statutory language in Section 518, specifically the time frame
that it covered.
I would like to
provide some background on how OMB developed the report, and then suggest
how we may move beyond this issue and work cooperatively to identify
and address paperwork burdens that are unnecessary. Section 518 required
OMB to prepare a report that
(1) evaluates,
for each agency, the extent to which implementation of chapter [44]
of title 31, United States Code, as amended by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-13), has reduced burden imposed by rules issued
by the agency, including the burden imposed by each major rule issued by
the agency;
(2) includes a
determination, based on such evaluation, of the need for additional
procedures to ensure achievement of the purposes of that chapter,
as set forth in section 3501 of title [44], United States Code, and
evaluates the burden imposed by each major rule that imposes more
than 10,000,000 hours of burden, and identifies specific reductions
expected to be achieved in each of fiscal years 2001 and 2002 in
the burden imposed by all rules issued by each agency that issued
such a major rule.
In implementing
Section 518, OMB understood it as directing OMB to prepare a report
that assessed the impact that the 1995 PRA amendments have had on the
paperwork burdens that agencies impose on the public through rules,
and in particular through their "major rules." OMB's report
therefore discussed how agency implementation of the PRA has reduced
burden imposed by regulations, including major rules, as defined by
the Congressional Review Act. It also evaluated the burden imposed
by major rules that impose more than 10 million hours of burden. OMB
found that DOL was the only agency that had issued a major rule that
imposes more than 10 million hours of burden. Section 518 further required
that, for agencies that issued such a rule, OMB identify the expected
reductions in FY 2001 and in FY 2002 in the burden imposed by all of
their rules. Accordingly, OMB's report identified DOL's expected reductions
in FY 2002 in the burden imposed by all DOL rules. Expected reductions
in FY 2001 in the burden imposed by all rules issued by DOL were addressed
elsewhere in the FY 2001 ICB.
In interpreting
Section 518, OMB found it understandable that Congress would direct
OMB to prepare an oversight report on the 1995 PRA amendments, because
those amendments had been in effect for five years, which was an appropriate
time frame within which to evaluate their impact on agencies' paperwork
activities. In this regard, the direction in Section 518 that OMB focus
on the paperwork burdens imposed by "major rules" was also
understandable, because the time period during which the 1995 PRA amendments
have been in effect (i.e., since the fall of 1995) overlaps almost
entirely with the period during which the agencies have been issuing "major
rules" under the Congressional Review Act, which was enacted and
went into effect in the spring of 1996.
Because OMB's report
did not address the 15 non-IRS rules you referred to in your letter
of invitation, I do not have information on agency progress in reviewing
them. I would, however, be willing to explore burden reduction opportunities
with respect to these regulations to extent that there is an analytical
basis for doing so. In this regard, I would need some clarification
about the 15 rules you have in mind. In your letter to OMB Director
Mitch Daniels, dated September 6, 2001, you stated that
[U]sing
OMB's August 30, 2001 data on information collections with a primary
purpose of "regulatory or compliance," there appear to be
at least the following seven additional covered agencies: the Departments
of Education, Health and Human Services (HHS), Transportation, and
Treasury, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Federal Trade
Commission (FTC), and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The
15 additional non-IRS "regulatory or compliance" information
collections issued by these agencies and DOL include: one Education;
HHS's "Investigational New Drug (IND) Regulations" (17 million
hours),
"Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)" (10 million
hours), "Bloodborne Pathogens Standard" (13 million hours),
and
"Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals (PSM)"
(79 million hours); Transportation's "Hours of Service of Drivers
Regulations" (42 million hours) and "Inspection, Repair, and
Maintenance"
(35 million hours); one Treasury; EPA's "Standards for the Use or
Disposal of Sewage Sludge" (13 million hours); and two information
collections each from the FTC and the SEC.
Your letter identified
only seven regulations by name, so I am not clear what the other eight
regulations are. If, however, you could provide me with a list that
identifies all 15 regulations that you would like agencies to review,
I would certainly be willing to evaluate those 15 and, where appropriate,
follow up with agencies to determine if reductions can be achieved
without compromising regulatory benefits. Alternatively, an outside
group with analytical expertise, such as the National Academy of Public
Administration or the National Academy of Sciences, could be charged
with reviewing these rules and making recommendations to improve them.
If you would like to discuss such an initiative, I would of course
be happy to do so. I know that you are aware of how labor-intensive
such reviews can be.
Specific Burden
Reductions
As we describe
in the FY 2002 ICB, agencies have and are undertaking serious efforts
to improve the quality of Federal information collection and to reduce
burden when it is possible and makes sense to do so. Below are a number
of specific burden reductions that I offer for illustrative purposes.
A complete listing of significant burden changes is provided in the
FY 2002 ICB.
FY
2001 Reductions
- Department
of Education: Application for Child Care Access Means Parents
in School Program. Previously, reports were made at 12,
18 and 36 month periods as well as the final report. Education
decided to eliminate the requirement for the 12 month report
in order to reduce redundancy and burden on the institutions.
Reports are now made at 18 and 36 months, followed by the final
report. Change in burden: -105,000 hours
- Environmental
Protection Agency: Motor Vehicle Emission Standards and Emission
credits Provisions under the Tier 2 Rule. This collection
ensures that vehicle designs meet applicable emission standards
for their useful lives. EPA reduced the number of durability demonstrations
and tests required and increased flexibility in how demonstrations
are conducted. Change in burden: -445,918 hours
- Environmental
Protection Agency: Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Program; Consolidated
Information Collection Request. The Toxic Substances Control
Act directs EPA to regulate the marking, disposal, manufacturing,
processing, distribution in commerce, and use of PCBs. EPA collects
data to ensure PCBs and PCB wastes are managed in an environmentally
safe manner. EPA promulgated PCB regulations to, among other things,
(1) provide less burdensome mechanisms for obtaining EPA approval
for a variety of activities; (2) clarify and/or modify the regulations
where ambiguity may exist; and (3) address outstanding issues associated
with the notification and manifesting of PCB wastes and changes
in the operation of commercial storage facilities. Change in burden:
-1,256,987 hours
- Department
of Interior: Report of Sales and Royalty Remittance (Form MMS-2014). This
form is used for reporting oil and gas royalties, certain rents,
and other lease-related transactions to Minerals Revenue Management
(MMS). During the reengineering of the MMS core business processes,
the MMS developed a new Form MMS-2014 to incorporate revised reporting
requirements that reduced the volume of lines reported and processed,
and minimized errors and related error correction workloads. Change
in burden: -55,229 hours
FY
2002 Reductions
- Department
of Commerce: Shippers Export Declaration Program. The SED
form and the Automated Export System (AES) electronic equivalent
are the means by which the Census Bureau collects and compiles
U.S. trade statistics. The official export statistics provide
a basic component for the compilation of the U.S. position on
merchandise trade. The AES takes only 3 minutes on average to
complete, whereas the paper SED form takes over 11 minutes. We
are making an extensive effort to encourage shippers and freight
forwarders to switch to using the AES. As more and more respondents
use the AES, the burden keeps decreasing. Change in burden: -340,761
hours
- Department
of Labor: Report on Employment, Payroll, and Hours. The Current
Employment Statistics program provides current monthly statistics
on employment, hours, and earnings by industry. The statistics
are fundamental inputs in economic decision processes at all levels
of government, private enterprise, and organized labor. The decrease
is due to the introduction of a probability-based sample. Some
additional quota sample units needed to produce estimates in smaller
metropolitan areas are being retained until research on small area
estimation is completed. Change in burden: -88,530 hours
- Department
of Transportation: Submissions of Continuous Discharge Book. The
information is collected from Merchant Mariners. The information
is used to determine eligibility for issuance of a Coast Guard
credential (i.e. a license, certificate of registry or merchant
mariner document). DOT revised a number of forms to reduce the
error rate of incomplete/improper submissions. Change in burden: -61,969 hours
- Department
of Justice: State Point of Contact (POC) Final Determination Electronic
Submission. The State POC Final Determination Electronic Submission
is a means to obtain final status for transactions initiated by
POC States. This information will be used for statistical purposes,
for use in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) inspections
of Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) records, and to assist in
the National Instant Criminal Background Checks System (NICS) appeal
process. The POC information will also enhance the performance
of the NICS by giving it the same information about the determination
on the checks processed by POCs that the system has about the determination
on the checks processed by the FBI. DOJ plans to require POCs to
submit only 2 percent of denials instead of all denials, resulting
in a burden reduction of 72,534 hours
OMB Initiative
to Improve Agency Performance and Reduce Burden.
The significant
burden reductions that agencies reported in the FY 2002 ICB, some of
which I just mentioned, reflect the ongoing efforts by the Government
to alleviate paperwork whenever possible. To build on these efforts
and make burden reduction an even higher priority, OMB asked agencies
to identify at least two initiatives that:
-
improve program
performance by enhancing the efficiency of information collections;
-
significantly
reduce the burden per response on the public; or
-
lead to a
comprehensive review of an entire program, including regulations
and procedures.
In response to
this directive, agencies have reported a variety of burden reduction
initiatives that have the potential to make meaningful improvements
for the public. While these initiatives generally fall into two broad
categories, incorporating information technology and simplifying information
collection activities, the majority involve the use of some type of
information technology. This is not unexpected given the evolving nature
of information technology capabilities and potential to improve the
vast amount of information collection activities by the federal government
through harnessing these capabilities.
OMB has listed the
agency initiatives in this year's ICB. I would like to mention just
a few of them now.
- Loan Deficiency
Payments (LDP) Program Enhancement -LDPs are payments made
to eligible producers who, although eligible to obtain a marketing
assistance loan, agree to forgo the loan in return for an LDP.
Currently, producers requesting LDPs must: (1) provide a
Department of Agriculture (USDA) county-based service center
a CCC-633 LDP request, in person or by fax; (2) meet the marketing
assistance loan eligibility requirements for the producer and
commodity; and (3) agree to accept such payment in lieu of obtaining
marketing assistance loans. Through this initiative, USDA is
simplifying program polices and developing a new Internet-based
delivery system for processing "eLDP."
- Electronic
Reporting Option for Electric Power Companies - The Department
of Energy's Energy Information Administration (EIA) has developed
a new, completely electronic reporting option for 2002 that respondents
may use to complete the electric power surveys using EIA's web
site. The electric power forms collectively cover the entire range
of companies involved in the generation, transmission, distribution,
and sales of electricity.
- Adverse Event
Reporting System - The Department of Health and Human Service's
(HHS) medical device reporting system currently provides a capability
for some manufacturers to submit files of reports to the Food and
Drug Administration on electronic media. An initial pilot test
of the electronic submission of alternate summary reports has just
begun. The pilot will be expanded to further exercise the pilot
system. It is anticipated that electronic reporting will reduce
administrative processing costs, including data submission, entry
and quality control. The receipt of adverse event information will
be more rapid and data entry errors will be reduced or eliminated.
- Labor-Management
Electronic Reporting Initiative - The Labor-Management Reporting
and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) requires the filing of various reports
by labor organizations, union officers and employees, employers,
labor relations consultants, and surety companies. This Department
of Labor electronic reporting initiative will enhance the efficiency
of agency information collection by permitting reporting entities
to submit these reports electronically. This capability will allow
reporting entities to better file reports on time and with improved
accuracy.
- TRI-ME -
This Environmental Protection Agency initiative involves the Office
of Environmental Information's Toxics Release Inventory-Made Easy
(TRI-ME) software system. The TRI-ME software is an interactive,
user-friendly intelligent software that guides facility managers
through the entire process of completing their annual reports for
their releases and waste management activities for over 600 toxic
chemicals. This intelligent software eliminates much of the analysis
required to determine if a facility is subject to the TRI reporting
requirements under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know
Act (EPCRA).
- DOD Acquisition
Process Review - This information collection encompasses 24
million hours of burden (about 26% of the Department's total) and
involves applications for benefits/contracts, including the acquisition
of goods and services under the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation
Supplement. The initiative will review these information collection
requirements with the intent of reducing burden by 10 percent.
- Common Data
Definitions - In order for ED to communicate between and among
its external education partners and with its own programs, there
needs to be a common language underpinned by common data definitions.
The collections approved under the Paperwork Reduction Act and
the data elements comprising them are being analyzed to develop
consensus definitions and code sets. Both state and local education
agencies will join ED as partners in this project. Ultimately,
this effort will eliminate duplicative requests of information
and reduce the total volume of data collected while ensuring that
ED collects higher quality and more useful data.
- Mining Forms
Consolidation - DOI's Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement (OSM) is planning to improve program performance
by enhancing the efficiency of agency information collections across
agencies. An effort to combine forms related to coal tonnage and/or
accident information at coal mining sites into a single mineral
industry report system is being considered by OSM, the Mine Safety
and Health Administration (MSHA), and the Energy Information Administration
(EIA).
- RCRA Review -
The EPA's Office of Solid Waste (OSW) recently completed a comprehensive
review of the reporting and recordkeeping requirements of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) program, and plans to propose
a rule to streamline or eliminate many of these requirements. This
OSW effort will streamline data collection for RCRA's Biennial Report,
which is a major information collection mechanism for hazardous waste
generation and management.
We have asked agencies
to provide OMB with regular status reports on all of their initiatives
so that we can monitor their progress and help ensure they achieve
meaningful outcomes.
Why the Government
Needs Information
As a general matter,
the Federal Government must have information to serve the American
people. Agencies can only deliver services to individuals if they have
information about whether programs are needed, the extent and nature
of those needs, and how these needs are changing over time. Without
information to support planning, management, and enforcement activities,
Government programs may be poorly designed to address public needs
or may fail to adapt to the changing needs of the American population.
If agencies do not have access to accurate and complete information,
they are less likely to understand the needs and challenges that their
programs seek to address. The extraordinary scope and complexity of
Government programs requires agencies to obtain a broad range of information
on program performance, statistical information, information provided
by applicants for Federal benefits, information demonstrating compliance
with regulatory requirements, and - with April 15th around
the corner - taxpayer information.
To see how collecting
critical information from the public advances our understanding of
the problems faced by our citizens, consider the various ways in which
empirical research on societal and human behavior has contributed to
policy and practice in areas ranging from drug abuse to education,
health, retirement, and welfare. Similarly, supplementing clinical
and biomedical research with empirical investigations of cancer patterns
and associated risk behaviors in the population can stimulate prevention
and education programs as well as increase our basic knowledge of the
causes and effects of this disease. And, while recognizing the paperwork
burden that forms and surveys may impose, the collection of agricultural
production and marketing data from farmers is key to understanding
and addressing issues in the agricultural economy such as genetic engineering
and the changing structure of agriculture.
Agency Dissemination
of Information
Government also
uses information by providing it to citizens as a public service. In
the Information Age, the public needs timely, accurate information.
Investors need to access public filings from the Securities and Exchange
Commission quickly and easily. Residents want to know if they are at
risk from exposure to pollutants in their communities. Taxpayers expect
quick responses from the IRS and fast refunds.
To ensure that
the public can rely on the information provided by Government, Congress
directed OMB in December 2000 to issue Governmentwide guidelines designed
to maximize the quality of information disseminated by Federal agencies.
Specifically, Congress directed OMB to issue, by September 30, 2001,
Governmentwide guidelines that "provide policy and procedural
guidance to Federal agencies for ensuring and maximizing the quality,
objectivity, utility, and integrity of information (including statistical
information) disseminated by Federal agencies." (2)
OMB's information
quality guidelines apply to Federal agencies subject to the Paperwork
Reduction Act. Agencies are directed to develop information resources
management procedures for reviewing and substantiating (by documentation
or other means) the quality (including the objectivity, utility, and
integrity) of information before it is disseminated. In addition, agencies
are to establish administrative mechanisms allowing affected persons
to seek and obtain, where appropriate, correction of information disseminated
by the agency that does not comply with the OMB or agency guidelines.
Consistent with the underlying principles described above, these guidelines
stress the importance of having agencies apply these standards and
develop administrative mechanisms in a common-sense and workable manner.
Moreover, agencies must apply these standards flexibly, and in a manner
appropriate to the nature and timeliness of the information to be disseminated,
and incorporate them into existing agency information resources management
and administrative practices.
Achieving Burden
Reduction
While information
plays a critical role in good government, the collection of that information
imposes a cost on the public. It takes time and (often) money to organize
and provide information to the government. To minimize burden, agencies
are expected to collect only the information necessary to perform their
missions. They can do so by ensuring that they avoid collecting redundant
or irrelevant information and by looking for simpler, easier, and faster
ways for citizens to provide essential information.
An evaluation of
agency efforts to reduce reporting burdens on the American public would
be meaningless without information on reporting burdens and how they
change over time. To address this need, the PRA requires Federal agencies
to produce "a specific, objectively supported estimate of the
burden" for each information collection that they propose to conduct. (3) Agency
estimates of burden are also reported to OMB so that an agency-by-agency
and Governmentwide accounting of burden can be presented in the annual
Information Collection Budget (ICB). The ICB, which is included this
year's report, thus helps identify each agency's and the Government's
progress toward meeting the burden reduction goals of the PRA.
I
should note that President Bush is committed to improving the Government's
performance, and he has launched an ambitious management agenda that requires
careful evaluation of agency activities. The success of the President's
management agenda will depend largely on the quality of the measures we
use to evaluate the success and progress of agency programs. These measures
must be consistently applied and accurately reflect performance and may
entail additional paperwork burdens on the public.
As you know,
throughout the history of the PRA, Congress has used Governmentwide
paperwork burden reduction goals as a means to evaluate agency performance.
In 1980, 1986, and 1995, Congress established annual 5 percent or
10 percent paperwork burden reduction goals, which together called
for a burden reduction of 85 percent between 1981 and 2001. During
this time period, OMB's inventory indicates - as a rough estimate
- that the total annual burden of Federal information collections
increased by over 50 percent. (4)
Although this
record may be disappointing to some, I view it in a different light.
Most importantly, I would point out that the decision to set targets
at 5 and 10 percent was not based on an analysis of the amount of
burden reduction that agencies could and should achieve. Rather,
Congress set goals that agencies should aspire to meet while also
performing their missions. Because the PRA calls on agencies and
OMB to reduce reporting burdens only when information is unnecessary
or not practically useful, burden reduction can be achieved only
to the extent that it does not interfere with agencies' ability to
meet their programmatic responsibilities. The aspirational nature
of the PRA's burden reduction goals thus reflects the need for agencies
to achieve a proper balance between reducing burden and performing
their missions.
Moreover, in
assessing the efforts by agencies to achieve burden reduction - while
also ensuring that Government information is of high quality and
useful to the public - we must remember that the demand for public
services has increased over time. Since the PRA was first enacted
in 1980, the size of the U.S. population has increased by over a
quarter and U.S. gross domestic product has more than tripled.
In addition to
the steady expansion of Government services over time, Federal agencies
may also need to respond quickly to emerging challenges that require
the public to provide information. For example, in FY 2001, the total
paperwork burden imposed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) increased
by 8.3 %, the largest increase reported in this year's ICB. This
increase was due largely to the creation or modification of information
collections by DOJ to implement the Legal Immigration Family Equity
Act of 2000 (LIFE Act). Similarly, the IRS had to create two forms
and revise 56 others in response to the Victims of Terrorism Tax
Relief Act of 2001.
Mr. Chairman,
in focusing on the upward trend in the level of Government paperwork,
I would not want important PRA success stories to be overlooked.
I would therefore like to provide a few examples illustrating how,
during recent OIRA reviews of agency information collections requests,
we were able to work with agencies to improve program performance.
-
Department
of Education: School and Community Prevention Activities: A
National Study of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program--Phase
I. The Safe and Drug-Free Schools program is the largest
and broadest school-based drug and violence prevention program
nationally. When the Department of Education originally requested
OMB approval last fall of a 5-year evaluation study, it focused
almost exclusively on assessing program implementation and
quality. This study consisted of national surveys and extensive
longitudinal case studies. Yet, the availability of program
outcomes was going to be assessed only in a feasibility study
to be conducted in year 3. Additional design and investigation
would then be required to examine the actual effects of the
program on drug-use and school violence outcomes. OMB asked
the Department to refocus the study to include program outcomes.
Based on our feedback, Education redesigned this investigation
study so that a thorough feasibility study would be conducted
first. Based on the information from this study, the Department
will then examine quality and outcomes in the next phase
of the research, thereby providing more rigorous data much
earlier and enhancing the practical utility of this information
collection.
-
Environmental
Protection Agency: Printers' Simplified Total Environmental
Partnership (PrintSTEP). EPA requested OMB approval of
an information collection to evaluate an EPA pilot project
designed to identify the impact PrintSTEP has on three stakeholders:
printers, community residents, and the State agencies administering
the program. EPA withdrew its request after OMB's initial review
and resubmitted a revised request that incorporated OIRA-recommended
design changes. The design changes that improved the practical
utility of the data collected include: the use of a control
group, inclusion of methodology for calculating quantitative
values, and the addition of actions to improve response rates.
-
Department
of Health and Human Services - The National Study on Child
Protective Services Systems and Reform Efforts. This
study was developed to examine State and local practices in
Child Protective Services (CPS) to provide a comprehensive
picture of the CPS system. Given the tremendous variation among
State and local CPS service delivery systems, HHS hopes that
this study will enable it to understand these variations between
as well as within States. During the course of OIRA's review,
we identified several weaknesses in the study's methodology
that would limit the quality of the data obtained, and would
impair the ability of the agency to answer their basic research
questions. Key limitations included (1) the sample size
was too small to produce nationally representative estimates
or allow for comparisons between groups of counties; (2) several
larger counties were hand-picked for participation, which introduced
bias into the sample; and (3) local sites were not selected
for visits in a systematic way, but were rather hand-picked,
which implied that the agency was endorsing these approaches
rather than objectively examining them. HHS agreed to double
the sample size, so as to make their national estimates more
precise and to facilitate meaningful comparisons between groups
of counties. HHS also agreed to use a stratified random sampling
methodology and decided not to hand-pick certain counties for
survey participation. Due to these and other changes, HHS will
be much better informed regarding the CPS system.
OMB is also seeking
public input to identify opportunities to address paperwork burdens.
In OMB's Draft Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal
Regulations, which we issued on March 18, 2002, we solicited
public comment on a broad range of issues. In particular, we requested
public nominations of "specific regulations, guidance documents,
and paperwork requirements that impose especially large burdens on
small businesses and other small entities without an adequate benefit
justification."
Measuring Burden
Reduction
Although burden
hours alone do not provide a valid PRA performance measure, I do
believe that - to the extent they are used in an analytically sound
manner - they can provide useful information. First, burden
estimation techniques should be applied consistently across the Government
to ensure that, to the extent possible, a burden hour reported by
one agency represents an amount of burden equal to that of a burden
hour reported by any other agency. The methodologies used by agencies
to estimate paperwork burden, however, vary significantly throughout
the Government. One reason that methodologies differ is that the
need for precise burden estimates increases with the size of information
collections. Agencies would not be expected to utilize identical
techniques to measure, for example, the burdens of a collection with
several million respondents and of a collection with several dozen
respondents.
Second, for burden
measurement to be accurate, it should incorporate recent developments
in estimation methodology and data collection, as well as reflect
the changes that have occurred in the collection, storage, processing,
preparation, and transmission of information. The
manner in which taxpayers provide information to IRS, for example,
has changed dramatically in recent years, particularly in the use
of technology to computerize recordkeeping systems and electronically
file tax returns.
Given the scale
of its information collection activities, IRS confronts a particularly
daunting challenge to measure burden in a meaningful way. I recently
met with IRS and Treasury officials to learn about a major, multi-year
effort by IRS to develop a quantitative model to more accurately
estimate paperwork burden and forecast the burden-reduction consequences
of alternative reforms of tax administration and tax policy. I believe
that this important initiative will significantly improve the ability
of IRS to measure taxpayer burden, and that what IRS learns will
benefit other agencies.
That concludes
my prepared testimony. I would be happy to answer any questions you
may have.
________________________
-
The
agencies that participated in the development of this year's
ICB did not include 12 independent agencies that had contributed
to previous ICBs. OMB decided to exclude the independent agencies
for several reasons. First, OMB's authority over the independent
agencies is limited, so our ability to influence their information
collection policies through OMB oversight is constrained. Second,
most of the independent agencies have total burden inventories
of under 10 million hours. Finally, and perhaps most importantly,
OMB recognizes that it too has limited resources, and it is our
judgement that we can improve our PRA oversight by focusing on
those agencies that impose the most paperwork burden and over
which we have the most direct authority under the PRA to approve
or disapprove information collections.
-
Section
515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act
for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-554; H.R. 5658).
-
44
U.S.C. 3506(c)(1)(A)(iv).
- The
total annual burden of Federal information went from 1.53 billion
hours in 1981 to an expected 7.44 billion hours in 2001. In 1988,
the Department of the Treasury reviewed all of its burden estimates
and adjusted them upward by approximately 3.4 billion hours. We
calculated the 50% increase by dividing 7.44 by 1.53 plus 3.4.