approved without reducing burden on the public. I believe that the American people deserve better results from their Vice President and OMB.

The Subcommittee's investigations reveal a disturbing pattern of contempt for Congressional oversight that goes beyond OMB's disregard of its paperwork reduction responsibilities. From March 1998 to March 2000, the Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources, and Regulatory Affairs sent 14 oversight letters to OMB on paperwork reduction, six oversight letters to OMB on its government-wide guidance to the agencies to comply with the Congressional Review Act (CRA), and 14 oversight letters and a subpoena to OMB to understand the President's request for a $6.3 billion increase in funding for climate change programs and activities. Here's what we found:

First, OMB has refused to provide basic accountability information so that the Subcommittee can determine OMB's role in paperwork reduction. Absent such information, it is difficult, if not impossible, to justify full funding for OIRA's 50-plus authorized staff.

Second, OMB has refused to issue complete CRA guidance, even after Congress in the 1998 Appropriations Act provided OMB an additional $200,000 to do so, and even after Congress in the 1999 Appropriations Act directed OMB to issue additional CRA guidance to ensure that agencies would fully comply with the new law.

Third, OMB did not make a complete search in response to our June 26, 1998 subpoena for information on proposed funding for global climate change programs and activities. On July 2, 1999 -- over a year later and after Senator Mike Enzi held up an OMB official's nomination to be Deputy Secretary for Energy -- OMB finally admitted that it conducted an incomplete search in response to our subpoena. OMB did not include documents sent to OMB, only documents originated by OMB or with handwritten comments made by OMB. Incredibly, in its response to our subpoena, OMB did not contact all OMB staff or issue written directions to staff, which is standard OMB practice for responding to subpoenas.

As a consequence of this pattern, I have asked an expert in the Congressional Research Service (CRS) to present options available to Congress when faced with agency nonresponsiveness to Congressional oversight, including subpoena requests for documents and letter requests for specific information.

I want to welcome back IRS Commissioner Charles Rossotti, who testified at last year's hearing. The Clinton Administration will also be represented by John Spotila, who is OMB's OIRA Administrator. I asked Mr. Spotila to discuss substantive changes in paperwork made by OMB staff. I also want to welcome Nancy Kingsbury, Acting Assistant Comptroller General for the General Government Division, GAO and Morton Rosenberg, Specialist in American Law, CRS. Lastly, I want to welcome Cindy Noe, owner of IHM Facility Services in Fishers, Indiana and Nick Runnebohm, owner of Runnebohm Construction Company in Shelbyville, Indiana. They will address paperwork issues of concern to American small business taxpayers.

Chart 1 - Paperwork Reduction “Accomplishments"

By The Clinton Administration

Not adjusted to reflect violation of the Paperwork Reduction Act Incorrectly counted as program reductions.

Prepared for Congressman David M. McIntosh

Chart 2 - Agency Reports of OMB's Initiatives in Paperwork Reduction: 7/1/99 - 12/31/99

Mr. MCINTOSH. Let me now turn to the gentleman who is a very active and helpful partner in this committee, our minority leader, Mr. Dennis Kucinich.

Mr. KUCINICH. Good morning. Mr. Chairman, it's good to be with you this morning. I want to welcome our guests and our visitors who will be testifying. For those who are here from Indiana I want to give you a special greeting and let you know you would be very proud of Mr. McIntosh. He serves this Congress well. I'm glad to have the chance to work with him here today. I want to thank him for holding this hearing on paperwork reduction.

I am especially pleased that Commissioner Rossotti could join us here today. As we know, about 80 percent of the paperwork burden which Americans have to deal with is related to the business of the Internal Revenue Service. And with tax day just around the corner it's a good time to reflect on the job that the IRS is doing and whether or not it's limiting the paperwork burden that it places on the American taxpayer.

Mr. Chairman, I share your concern that we're not meeting the Paperwork Reduction Act goal of reducing the paperwork burden by 30 percent over the last 4 years and I'm concerned that the paperwork burden actually increased by about 3 percent over that period of time.

From what I understand, much of that increase is due to our actions here in Congress. For instance, when Congress passed the Taxpayer Relief Act in 1997, which cut capital gains, estate and gift taxes. The IRS, the information I have, estimated that these changes increased the paperwork burden-they actually increased paperwork burden by about 64 million hours.

Much of the remaining increase is apparently due to the increased economic activity in our booming national economy. Furthermore, the methodology for estimating the paperwork burden may not be giving enough credit for the time saved by the increase in the use of electronic and telephone filing. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses who can provide further insight into the underlying causes of the increased burden and as to your ideas as to what we might be able to do.

Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to belittle the importance of the information we collect. Without taxes our government would not be able to provide the protections, benefits, and services Americans depend on and often take for granted. It's imperative that the IRS successfully fulfills its mission to collect the right amount of tax. Similarly, other agencies need the data they collect in order to fulfill their important missions.

It may be that in this Information Age that reduction of paperwork will prove to be most challenging, and it would appear that improvements in data base and electronic information gathering would enable us to reduce paperwork. On the other hand, in a free society with the proliferation of more information, there may be more paperwork created as we become more efficient at implementing laws. And it is a paradox. But then again we often have a way of legislating paradoxes.

You know, I also think it's important to keep in mind that there's a sense in which paperwork can reduce the overall burden that government would otherwise need to place it on the American pub