William Roth

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I think that amendment is self-explanatory. It has already been explained. I think it is acceptable to the minority as well as the majority.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, on behalf of the distinguished senior Senator from Arizona, I send an amendment modification to the desk.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Michigan. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in recess until 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday, March 7, and that immediately following the prayer, the Senate resume consideration of S. 244, and Senator Levin be recognized to offer an amendment dealing with reports on which there be 10 minutes for debate, to be equally divided in the usual form. I further ask that Senator Wellstone be recognized to offer an amendment dealing with children immediately following the debate or conclusion of the Levin amendment, on which there be 90 minutes to be equally divided in the usual form. I further ask that following the conclusion of debate on the Wellstone amendment, the Senator be recognized to offer a second amendment dealing with gifts on which there be 90 minutes, to be equally divided in the usual form. I further ask that following the disposition of debate on the second Wellstone amendment, Senator Gregg be recognized to offer an amendment dealing with education, and that no second-degree amendments be in order prior to a motion to table and if offered, the second degree amendments be relevant. I further ask that the above-listed amendments be the only amendments remaining in order to S. 244. I further ask unanimous consent that any votes ordered on or in relation to the above-mentioned amendments, be stacked to occur beginning at 2:15 p.m. on Tuesday, if all time is used or yielded back.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I say to the distinguished Senator that there will be no objection so long as we are able to come back for a unanimous-consent request and that we be free to do so.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. ROTH. This act not only encourages information sharing, section 3509 in particular authorizes the OMB Director to designate a central collection agency to obtain information for two or more agencies where it is not inconsistent with applicable law.

Mr. ROTH. Clearly this section requires agencies to review the information collection actions it carries out. To the extent that the Secretary is able to reduce the information collection burden on the affected public in this area, this section requires the Secretary to do so.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. ROTH. I am available to answer the questions of the Senator from Colorado.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I make a point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendments be agreed to en bloc, that they be considered original text for purposes of further amendment, and that no points of order be waived.

Mr. ROTH. I believe it would be appropriate for the Secretary of Commerce to review the paperwork burden associated with this census collection.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, if there be no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess under the previous order.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I further ask that the Senate stand in recess between the hours of 12:30 p.m. and 2:15 p.m., in order for the weekly party caucuses to meet.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 244, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This legislation was, this year as last year, reported out unanimously from the Committee on Governmental Affairs, reflecting the bipartisan efforts of Senators Nunn, Glenn, and myself. The legislation reaffirms the fundamental purpose of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980--to reduce the paperwork burden imposed on the public by the Federal Government. But it does much more. It increases the scope of the act by 50 percent in overturning the Supreme Court's decision in Dole v. United Steelworkers of America. In that case the Supreme Court surprised many of us who had worked on fashioning this legislation by limiting OMB's authority to review Government collections of information only to those instances where the paperwork flowed from a private party to the Government and thus excluded instances where the Government requires information to be provided to another party. By overturning the Dole case, all paperwork falls under the act and is thereby subject to review by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Under the act, each agency--and the act covers all agencies, even independent agencies--must analyze each information collection for its need and its practical utility. All such information collections, even those of independent agencies, must be approved by OIRA before they become effective. The legislation also authorizes appropriations for OIRA for 5 more years at $8 million each year. OIRA is not only the hub of the wheel in enforcing this act but has come to play a significant role in executing executive orders on the subject of regulatory review. As we work in committee to draft comprehensive regulatory reform legislation, it is clear that OIRA will have even a greater role. This authorization of greater appropriations is a very important provision. The paperwork burden produced by Government's enormous appetite for information is an ever increasing problem. The fact that the problem is growing does not mean that the efforts under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 have not been worthwhile. The problem would have been even worse without such efforts. The mechanism for reducing burdens cannot be faulted because Congress passes more laws that generate more paperwork. Now, the legislation before us recognizes that an information collection may be problematic not only because the collection has no public utility but also because the collector may already have access to the information and need not bother our citizenry with a request for the same information. I applaud the efforts of GAO to underscore this simple truth by highlighting the legislation effectuates the principle that information resources management and reduction of paperwork burden are two sides of the same coin. While some may view the two aspects as competing for scarce OIRA resources, that view is mistaken. The two aspects are inextricably linked. This legislation enjoys widespread support among the business community, both big and small, as well as among State and local governments and the people, all who bear the burden of Federal Government paperwork collections. They all will be pleased to see that this legislation strengthens the paperwork reduction aspects of the act and that, in particular, it retains the direction of OIRA that it manage the paperwork burden on the public to achieve a 5-percent annual reduction. Paperwork burdens, like other regulatory burdens, are a hidden tax on the American people--a tax without measure, a tax unrestricted by budgetary or constitutional limitations, but a tax no less real. Government paperwork collections are a burden on the public. The legislation indicates an increased sensitivity to that fact by requiring each agency to develop a paperwork clearance process to review and solicit public comment on proposed information collections before submitting them to OMB for review. Public accountability is also strengthened through requirements for public disclosure of communications with OMB regarding information collections--with protections for whistleblowers complaining of unauthorized collections--and for OMB to review the status of any information collection upon public request. In combination with more general requirements, such as encouraging data sharing between the Federal Government and State and local and tribal governments, this legislation strives to further the goals of the act of minimizing government information collection burdens while maximizing the utility of government information. With regard to the act's over-arching information resources management--IRM--policies, the legislation charges agency heads with the responsibility to carry out agency IRM activities to improve agency productivity, efficiency, and effectiveness. It makes program officials responsible and accountable for those information resources supporting their programs. The IRM mandate is strengthened by focusing on managing information resources in order to improve program performance, including the delivery of services to the public and the reduction of information collection burdens on the public. With the Federal Government spending approximately $25 billion a year on information technology, the stakes are too high not to press for the most efficient and effective management of information resources. With such improvements in information resources management, the reduction of information collection burdens on the public and maximizing the utility of government information will not otherwise occur. This legislation is not the final word on the very important subject of information technology. The committee will be fashioning legislation later this session to restructure and redesign the Federal Government for the 21st century. One essential aspect of a modern Federal Government is the effective use of information technology to better accomplish public missions at lower costs. We will be back. Finally, I want to underscore a point to which Senators Glenn, Nunn, and I gave considerable attention. This legislation is a rewrite of the 1980 act. Its form is necessitated by the number of technical and other changes made. This form is in no way intended to start a new legislative history with the 1995 act. Rather, this legislation is only a pro tanto modification intended to carry on the legislative history of the 1980 act. The report, at page 3, makes this very same point. This is an important point. It should be noted by anyone interested in the legislative history that guides the interpretation of the Paperwork Reduction Act. In closing, I wish to commend my colleagues, Senator Glenn and Senator Nunn, for their cooperation and patience in fashioning legislation on a very, very complex subject. This legislation, in my opinion, merits the full support of every Member. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, today I rise as a proud cosponsor of the constitutional balanced budget amendment, and I urge its adoption. I hope that today, we will be able to enlist the support of the 67 Senators necessary to pass this balanced budget amendment. The time has come to put an end to out of control Federal spending that has taken money from the private sector--the very sector that creates jobs and economic opportunity for all Americans. The President's recent budget proposals for next year offer clear evidence of the lack of political will to make the hard choices when it comes to cutting Government spending. I strongly disagree with President Clinton's decision not to fight for further deficit reduction this year. The American people are crying out for a smaller, more efficient Government. They are concerned about the trends that for too long has put the interests of big Government before the interests of our job- creating private sector. They are irritated by the double standard that exists between how our families are required to balance their checkbooks and how Government is allowed to continue spending despite its deficit accounts. It's clear, Mr. President. The time has come to heed the will of the people. It is our duty, not only to heed their will, but to act in their best interest. And this amendment is in their best interest. The President's budget maintains deficits of $200 billion over the next 5 years, and the deficits go up from there. His budget does not take seriously the need for spending restraint--restraint that would put us on a path toward a balanced budget by the year 2002. In fact, Bill Clinton proposes spending over $1.5 trillion in fiscal year 1995 to over $1.9 trillion in the year 2000. In other words, the only path that the president proposes is one that leads to higher Government spending and ever increasing deficits. Mr. President, my decision to cosponsor this legislation was not made lightly. The U.S. Constitution is our Nation's most sacred document. Dozens of countries have modeled their constitutions around the principles espoused in ours. Many of the emerging democracies around the world recognize the profound simplicity and timelessness contained in that hallowed document. Any amendments to the Constitution should be made with care, and with careful consideration of the intended outcome. I believe the outcome of a balanced budget for our Nation is one of the most important steps we can take to ensure the economic opportunities for prosperity for our children and for our children's children. As a nation--and as individuals--we are morally bound to pass opportunity and security to the next generation. This is what a balanced budget amendment will help us do. As Thomas Paine has written, no government or group of people has the right to shackle succeeding generations with its obligations. A balanced budget amendment will help us prevent the shackling of future generations. As chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee I have outlined a plan to reduce the Federal bureaucracy, eliminate out-dated and wasteful Government programs, and to strengthen Government's ability to better serve the taxpayers. In January I kicked off a series of hearings on ``Government Reform: Building a Structure for the 21st Century.'' It is my belief that as we move into the 21st century, so should our Government. Innovative technologies should allow us to cut out many layers of management bureaucracy, and reduce Federal employment. Programmatic changes should also occur. Last month, I released a report that I asked the GAO to examine the current structure of the Federal Government. The GAO examined all budget and Government functions and missions. They did not conduct in- depth analysis, but simply illustrated the complex web and conflicting missions under which agencies are currently operating. The GAO report confirms that our Federal behemoth must be reformed to meet the needs of all taxpayers for the 21st century. I am convinced that it is through a smaller, smarter Government we will be able to serve Americans into the next century. Deficit spending can not continue. We can no longer allow waste, inefficiency, and overbearing Government to consume the potential of America's future. I am committed to spending restraint as we move to balance the budget by the year 2002. And I ask my colleagues--and all Americans--to support our efforts. Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, today I rise as a proud cosponsor of the constitutional balanced budget amendment, and I urge its adoption. The time has come to put an end to out of control Federal spending that has taken money from the private sector--the very sector that creates jobs and economic opportunity for all Americans. The President's recent budget proposals for next year offer clear evidence for the lack of political will to make the hard choices when it comes to cutting Government spending. I strongly disagree with President Clinton's decision not to fight for further deficit reduction this year. The American people are crying out for a smaller, more efficient government. They are concerned about the trends that for too long has put the interests of big Government before the interests of our job- creating private sector. They are irritated by the double-standard that exists between how our families are required to balance their checkbooks and how Government is allowed to continue spending despite its deficit accounts. It is clear, Mr. President. The time has come to heed the will of the people. It is our duty, not only to heed their will, but to act in their best interest. And this amendment is in their best interest. The President's budget maintains deficits of $200 billion over the next 5 years, and the deficits go up from there. His budget does not take seriously the need for spending restraint--restraint that would put us on a path toward a balanced budget by the year 2002. In fact, Bill Clinton proposes spending over $1.5 trillion in fiscal year 1995 to over $1.9 trillion in the year 2000. In other words, the only path that the President proposes is one that leads to higher Government spending and ever increasing deficits. Mr. President, my decision to co-sponsor this legislation was not made lightly. The U.S. Constitution is our Nation's most sacred document. Dozens of countries have modeled their constitutions around the principles espoused in ours. Many of the emerging democracies around the world recognize the profound simplicity and timelessness contained in that hallowed document. Any amendments to the Constitution should be made with care, and with careful consideration of the intended outcome. I believe the outcome of a balanced budget for our Nation is one of the most important steps we can take to ensure the economic opportunities for prosperity for our children and for our children's children. As a Nation--and as individuals--we are morally bound to pass opportunity and security to the next generation. This is what a balanced budget amendment will help us do. As Thomas Paine has written, no government or group of people has the right to shackle seceding generations with its obligations. A balanced budget amendment will help us prevent the shackling of future generations. As chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee I have outlined a plan to reduce the Federal bureaucracy, eliminate out-dated and wasteful Government programs, and to strengthen Government's ability to better serve the taxpayers. In January I kicked off a series of hearings on Government Reform: Building a Structure for the 21st Century. It is my belief that as we move into the 21st Century, so should our Government. Innovative technologies should allow us to cut out many layers of management bureaucracy, and reduce Federal employment. Programmatic changes should also occur. Just this week I released a report that I asked the GAO to examine the current structure of the Federal Government. The GAO examined all budget and Government functions and missions. They did not conduct in depth analysis, but simply illustrated the complex web and conflicting missions under which agencies are currently operating. The GAO report confirms that our Federal behemoth must be reformed to meet the needs of all taxpayers for the 21st century. I am convinced that it is through a smaller, smarter government we will be able to serve Americans into the next century. Deficit spending cannot continue. We can no longer allow waste, inefficiency, and overbearing Government to consume the potential of America's future. I am committed to spending restraint as we move to balance the budget by the year 2002. And I ask my colleagues--and all Americans--to support our efforts. this is the vote that counts; do we trust the people?

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I herewith submit a copy of Rules of Procedure adopted by the Committee on Governmental Affairs pursuant to rule XXVI, section 2, Standing Rules of the Senate, and ask that they be printed in the Record at this point. The Rules of Procedure follow:

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I read recently that ``the best thing we have learned from nearly 500 years of contact with the American wilderness is restraint,'' the need to stay our hand and preserve our precious environment momentary gain. With this in mind, I offer legislation today that designates the coastal plain of Alaska as wilderness area. At the moment this area is a national wildlife refuge, one of our beautiful and last frontiers. By changing its designation, Mr. President, we can protect it forever. And I can't stress how important this is. The Alaskan wilderness area is not only a critical part of our earth's ecosystem--the last remaining region where the complete spectrum of arctic and subarctic ecosystems comes together--but it is a vital part of our national consciousness. It is a place we can cherish and visit for our soul's good. It offers us a sense of well-being and promises that not all dreams have been dreamt. The Alaskan wilderness is a place of outstanding wildlife, wilderness and recreation, a land dotted by beautiful forests, dramatic peaks and glaciers, gentle foothills, and undulating tundra. It is untamed--rich with caribou, polar bear, grizzly, wolves, musk oxen, Dall sheep, moose, and hundreds of thousands of birds--snow geese, tundra swans, black brant, and more. In all, about 165 species use the coastal plain. It is an area of intense wildlife activity. Animals give birth, nurse and feed their young, and set about the critical business of fueling up for winters of unspeakable severity. The fact is, Mr. President, there are parts of this Earth where it is good that man can come only as a visitor. These are the pristine lands that belong to all of us. And perhaps most importantly, these are the lands that belong to our future. Considering the many reasons why this bill is so important, I came across the words of the great western writer, Wallace Stegner. Referring to the land we are trying to protect with this legislation, he wrote that it is ``the most splendid part of the American habitat; it is also the most fragile.'' And we cannot enter ``it carrying habits that [are] inappropriate and expectations that [are] surely excessive.'' The expectations for oil exploration in this pristine region are excessive. There is only a one-in-five chance of finding any economically recoverable oil in the refuge. And if oil is found, the daily production of 400,000 barrels per day is less than .7 percent of world production--far too small to meet American's energy needs for more than a few months. In other words, Mr. President, there is much more to lose than might ever be gained by tearing this frontier apart. Already, some 90 percent of Alaska's entire North Slope is open to oil and gas leasing and development. Let's keep this area as the jewel amid the stones. What this bill offers--and what we need--is a brand of pragmatic environmentalism, an environmental stewardship that protects our important wilderness areas and precious resources, while carefully and judiciously weighing the short-term desires or our country against its long-term needs. together, we need to embrace environmental policies that are workable and pragmatic, policies based on the desire to make the world a better place for us and for future generations. I believe a strong economy, liberty, and progress are possible only when we have a healthy planet-- only when resources are managed through wise stewardship--only when an environmental ethic thrives among nations and only when people have frontiers that are untrammeled and able to host their fondest dreams.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I would like to announce the third in a series of hearings on regulatory reform before the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs. This hearing, to be held various witnesses to discuss cost/benefit analysis, regulatory accounting, and risk analysis. The hearing will be held in the Senate Dirksen Office Building, SD- 342, from 9:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. For further information, please call Paul Noe at (202) 224-4751. committee on energy and natural resources, subcommittee on energy research and development, and committee on appropriations, subcommittee on energy and water development