<DOC> [DOCID: f:45404.wais] THE RESULTS ACT: ARE WE GETTING RESULTS? ======================================================================= HEARING before the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ OCTOBER 30, 1997 __________ Serial No. 105-60 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 45-505 WASHINGTON : 1997 ___________________________________________________________________________ For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800 Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001 COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York HENRY A. WAXMAN, California J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois TOM LANTOS, California CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virginia CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut MAJOR R. OWENS, New York STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York CHRISTOPHER COX, California PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida GARY A. CONDIT, California JOHN M. McHUGH, New York CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York STEPHEN HORN, California THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin JOHN L. MICA, Florida ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington, THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia DC DAVID M. McINTOSH, Indiana CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts Carolina JIM TURNER, Texas JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine PETE SESSIONS, Texas HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee MICHAEL PAPPAS, New Jersey ------ VINCE SNOWBARGER, Kansas BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont BOB BARR, Georgia (Independent) ROB PORTMAN, Ohio Kevin Binger, Staff Director Daniel R. Moll, Deputy Staff Director William Moschella, Deputy Counsel and Parliamentarian Jane Cobb, Professional Staff Member Judith McCoy, Chief Clerk Phil Schiliro, Minority Staff Director C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Hearing held on October 30, 1997................................. 1 Statement of: Armey, Hon. Richard K., majority leader, U.S. House of Representatives............................................ 18 Raines, Franklin, Director, Office of Management and Budget.. 31 Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by: Armey, Hon. Richard K., majority leader, U.S. House of Representatives, prepared statement of..................... 23 Horn, Hon. Stephen, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, prepared statement of................. 4 Maloney, Hon. Carolyn B., a Representative in Congress from the State of New York, prepared statement of............... 10 Morella, Hon. Constance A., a Representative in Congress from the State of Maryland, prepared statement of............... 6 Raines, Franklin, Director, Office of Management and Budget, prepared statement of...................................... 35 Waxman, Hon. Henry A., a Representative in Congress from the State of California, prepared statement of................. 16 THE RESULTS ACT: ARE WE GETTING RESULTS? ---------- THURSDAY, OCTOBER 30, 1997 House of Representatives, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, Washington, DC. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dan Burton (chairman of the committee) presiding. Present: Representatives Burton, Hastert, Morella, Horn, Mica, Davis of Virginia, Sessions, Pappas, Snowbarger, Portman, Waxman, Maloney, Barrett, Norton, Cummings, Kucinich, and Ford. Staff present: Kevin Binger, staff director; Daniel R. Moll, deputy staff director; Judith McCoy, chief clerk; Jane Cobb, professional staff member; William Moschella, deputy counsel and parliamentarian; Teresa Austin, assistant clerk/ calendar clerk; Will Dwyer, director of communications; Ashley Williams, deputy director of communications; Phil Schiliro, minority staff director; Phil Barnett, minority chief counsel; Agnieszka Fryszman, minority counsel; Mark Stephenson, minority professional staff member, and Ellen Rayner, minority chief clerk. Mr. Burton. The Committee on Government Reform and Oversight will come to order. I have called this hearing today to continue the important oversight that I and the committee started in February, when we held the first full committee hearing of this year on the Government Performance and Results Act. While the press may know me for my efforts to ferret out fundraising abuses in the last Presidential election cycle, what they may not know so well is that I also take very seriously this committee's duty to root out waste, fraud, and abuse in the rest of our Federal Government. In our fight against waste and mismanagement, this committee has held over 100 oversight hearings, this year. The Results Act is the key tool being used in these efforts. We all know that the traditional way of doing business in Washington has been to create another program or spend more money when we want to solve a problem. Our lives, our property, our health are increasingly being dominated by Washington rules and regulations that give more and more power to beltway bureaucrats. The old Washington way of doing business has resulted in a bloated Federal Government. We have gone from spending $590 billion per year in 1980, to nearly triple that amount to more than $1.6 trillion this past year. We have also added a million new pages--a million new pages--of Federal regulations since 1980, and we have gone blindly about this without knowing the answers to some very fundamental questions, common-sense questions like: ``What is the purpose of this program? Is it appropriate that the Federal Government do it, or should it be done at the State or local level, or even by the private sector? Are there similar programs already in existence, and, if so, are they not achieving the desired results?'' Taxpayers do not invest their hard-earned money in stock unless they think the company produces a good product in a most efficient and effective manner. Why should the public pay taxes to fund Federal programs that are not achieving good results? They should not, and they are counting on us to make sure that they do not. At our Results Act hearing last February, we learned that agencies had barely begun to think about their strategic plans that were due in September, even though they had known since 1993, when the law was passed, to start preparing their plans. As a result, the agencies' draft plans were abysmal. You have seen from our September report that all but 2 of the 24 major Federal agencies received a failing grade in their draft plans. The Labor Department's score was the lowest, at 6.5 percent. Now, that is intolerable. The Departments of Energy, Commerce, HUD, and Agriculture all had scores below 20 percent. The average grade for these draft plans was 29.9 percent. When I was in school, 70 percent or below was failing, and we have grades at about one-third that level. We are finding the final strategic plans to be somewhat better than the draft versions, and we will come out with a second report next week with the latest strategic plan's scores. Frankly, I think any improvements in the plans have more to do with where Congress, and not the administration, has placed the bar. In fact, some committee members, including myself, are concerned that the Results Act is not a high enough priority for OMB, thus the slipping deadlines and the low quality of the agency plans. Our majority leader, who is here with us today--and I thank you for being here, Dick--has played a key role in engaging Congress in this important effort. I am pleased to have him back before the committee to give us his perspective on where we are, and how far we have to go. After Mr. Armey, we will hear from the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Franklin Raines, who has the chief role in coordinating and ensuring all Federal agencies comply with the Results Act. The General Accounting Office has also been involved in helping Congress access the agencies' strategic plans. The Acting Comptroller General, Mr. James Hinchman, is here to testify on behalf of their efforts. For our final panel, I am pleased to welcome the Honorable Maurice McTigue, a visiting scholar at George Mason University from New Zealand. Mr. McTigue, formerly a Member of Parliament and Cabinet Minister in the Government of New Zealand, was a major force in seeing Results Act-type reforms implemented in his country. I also want to commend our subcommittee chairmen, several of whom have held hearings this year to examine the draft strategic plans of the agencies in their purview. Chairman Horn and Chairman Shays, in particular, have done an outstanding job. Also, congratulations to Congressman Pete Sessions, who started the ``Results Caucus'' to get Members focused in the areas in Government at high risk for waste, fraud, or abuse. I also want to thank Chairman Denny Hastert for his leadership in putting specific performance requirements into the reauthorization bill for the drug czar's office; this is what the Results Act is all about. I want to welcome all of our witnesses here today, as we assess where we are in taking on the challenges of the Results Act. With that, Mr. Horn, do you have any opening statements? Mr. Horn. Well, just briefly, Mr. Chairman, we thank you for holding this hearing, and we thank you for the support of Jane Cobb of your staff and others who have been immensely helpful. I want to commend the majority leader for really doing what we all said he would do when he first testified before us on establishing a ``war room'' where they really keep track of what's going on in the various executive departments. We thank particularly Ginni Thomas of his staff for the very great help she has provided all of us, and we appreciate your continued commitment on this. I would simply say this: We have held five hearings on the Results Act this year at the subcommittee level. The first three were conducted while agencies were still working on their strategic plans, and I think a lot of lessons were learned, mutually, by the executive branch and the legislative branch. Our two most recent hearings concentrated on the Office of Management and Budget and the General Services Administration. I guess I would say that the strategic plans are in minimal compliance with the requirements of the Results Act, so we would hope that this hearing will try to get at some of the things that the executive branch could do, which would assure that these plans comply with the law, after the 5 years that, as the chairman said, we have given the executive branch to begin in this area. So, without objection Mr. Chairman, I would like to have the statement put in the record as if read. Mr. Burton. Without objection. [The prepared statements of Hon. Stephen Horn and Hon. Constance A. Morella follow:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45404.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45404.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45404.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45404.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45404.005 Mr. Burton. Are there further opening statements? Mrs. Maloney. Mrs. Maloney Mr. Chairman, I would like to request that Mr. Waxman's opening statement be put in the record, and in the interest of time, since we have an important leader here, I would like my statement also to be put in the record. I won't read it. I would just like to say that the Government Performance and Results Act enjoyed wide bipartisan support. Since its passage in 1993, it was the first bill that I managed on the floor of Congress, so I have a particular affinity for it. It was signed by a Democratic President; yet, I am told it was drafted and supported by members of President Bush's Office of Management and Budget, and that President Bush himself, likewise, supported the concept and the GPRA bill. I don't think anything better exemplifies the genuine desire of both sides of the aisle for a good effective and efficient Federal Government. I must say that one of the prime focuses of it is one of the focuses really of Mr. Armey himself, to eliminate waste and duplication in our Government, not only in Congress, but throughout Government. And I look forward to your testimony, and I request that my opening statement and Mr. Waxman be put in the record in full. Mr. Burton. Without objection. [The prepared statements of Hon. Carolyn B. Maloney and Hon. Henry A. Waxman follow:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45404.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45404.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45404.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45404.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45404.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45404.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45404.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45404.013 Mrs. Maloney. Thank you. Mr. Burton. Are there further opening statements? If not, Mr. Armey, welcome. I am glad to have you with us again. Since you were last here, your hair has gotten a little grayer. [Laughter.] Other than that, you look great. STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD K. ARMEY, HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER Mr. Armey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to make it very clear, of course, that my hair has certainly not gotten more gray because of any of the work done on this one. It is a pleasure to be back here. I think you have a very good lineup of people to come before you, and I am sure that when the day is over, you'll look back and you will say the least of them was the majority leader, so I need to move on so you can get to those folks who will give more. I want to, if I may, though, take just a moment to join you in thanking Mr. McTigue from New Zealand. It is always great to have insight from people across the waters and around the globe, who have had success, and they have had success with the Results Act-type legislation in New Zealand, which is a nation that is presenting itself to be to the world a nation of good ideas. I would remind you, Mr. Chairman, they are also a nation that has the flat tax, so obviously their successes are emulated on as many fronts as possible, and I hope you will forgive me that moment of self-indulgence. But, I think Mrs. Maloney made a very important point: the Results Act was in fact born in bipartisanship. It has been enthusiastically embraced by both parties, and the administration from both parties, and legislators from both parties. And, I really think we all ought to always understand that we have a community effort here, and that we are all trying to learn new skills and to implement new process and new procedures for the very purpose of making this Government perform more effectively and achieve more satisfying and more verifiable results for the American people. This is very likely to be the best example of good government practices put in practice in the government, then anything any of us have seen for a long time. Certainly, that is not unrelated to the efforts of this committee. This is the committee of jurisdiction, and it is the committee that I think maintains the effort. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you personally for the efforts of this committee, and if I may, in particular, single out Subcommittee Chairman Horn for his devotion to this and other legislative efforts that do, in fact, lead us in the direction of a more effective government, achieving better results for the American people. I'd like to just take a quote from Tom Schatz of Citizens Against Government Waste, an organization that has been diligent in its review of the practices of government for years. Mr. Schatz said: ``While the Results Act is not a name that generates immediate excitement, it will, if properly administered and enforced by Congress, deliver the most significant level of accountability of the use of tax dollars in American history.'' I think we ought to focus on what he said there for just a moment: if properly administered through the executive branch and through the agencies of Government, and of course enforced by Congress. This should not be seen as an adversarial relationship, and, indeed, I do not perceive that it is being worked out as an adversarial relationship. It is a cooperative relationship. We are all in it together, and I think we are working well together. I think Mr. Schatz is also right in that he understands that knowledge is power, and the power to do good comes from a clear understanding of what it is we are trying to accomplish, and how well we are doing along the way. Now, as we look at that, I am going to focus today on what I believe to be the status of our progress to date, and where I think we may need to make additional improvements. And, as I make that focus, I think you will find that I make that focus in equal parts as I look at the agencies; as I look at the executive branch; and, as I look at the Congress as well. If we are going to regain the public's trust and confidence, we must reform bloated, unresponsive, and inefficient programs and agencies, and we must achieve a smaller, smarter, more common-sense government. Before we can intelligently evaluate whether any given policy is wise or misguided, whether an agency's budgetary needs justify taking more from low-income Americans, mothers, and children, we must have reliable, detailed, information about how that money is spent. We must demand tangible, measurable goals, and then followup to ensure that these targets are reached. In a democratic society there will always be disagreements, both ideological and otherwise, about the desirability of many policies and programs. We will always seek common ground and principled compromise, but there is one thing on which we cannot compromise: Before the true policy debate can begin, we must have reliable, honest information about where our tax dollars are going and what they are accomplishing. We can no longer afford to give Federal agencies cart blanc. The purpose of the Results Act is to make the Federal Government accountable. We finally have a tool that allows us to discover what the Federal Government is doing, and how it is getting it done. With the implementation of another law, the Chief Financial Officers Act, we could also discover: How much does it cost? Isn't it refreshing to think that we are now stopping to ask the inane question, whether or not programs are spending all their money, and instead we are asking: Is the program producing results, as judged by honest, objective performance measures? We are witnessing more and more congressional attention to using the Results Act as a tool of enhancing accountability. We have counted 23 congressional hearings on the Results Act since February, and including today, where Jim Talent's Small Business Committee is having one, as well as Tom Ewing's Agriculture subcommittee having one. Today, more and more Members are seeing the value of building performance standards into their authorizing efforts. I was particularly surprised by Denny Hastert and Rob Portman's leadership in this regard, as they moved the drug czar reauthorization legislation recently, with six specific targets and goals. In that instance, we not only legislated policy, we insisted on a measuring stick to the achievement of result. This is how we can all use the Results Act principles as we do our legislative work, clarifying what Congress expects each program to achieve to the American people. A perfect example of how the act complements and enhances congressional oversight is the Results Caucus. The Results Caucus is bipartisan, and it is headed by Pete Sessions. It is dedicated to resolving specific management problems targeted by GAO's high-risk list. Pete Sessions, and many of our colleagues, are tackling specific problems of waste, fraud, and error through this caucus, and I am proud, as a Texan, to watch Pete's work through this caucus. Committees have invested much time and effort in congressional consultations on strategic plans, and I commend the fine work of all who participated. This effort involved virtually every House committee, including authorizers, appropriators, and budgeteers. Your committee, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Horn's subcommittee, played a particularly important role. Your committee work focuses on solving problems, improving Government management, exerting focused congressional pressure, and just plain old ``rolling up the sleeves and doing hard work.'' We have conducted this effort on a bipartisan and a bicameral basis, and we are pleased that so many of our colleagues are joining in the effort. We have received excellent support from GAO, and from the Congressional Research Service. We have worked closely with Frank Raines and his staff at OMB. Judging from the quality of the strategic plans we have now seen, we intend to work even more closely with them from now on. I am convinced that these efforts are worthwhile. Progress is being made, and we must continue. Last time I testified before you, Mr. Chairman, was in February. We talked about the promise of the Results Act and our expectations for making it work. Department by department, program by program, we found that the first round of strategic plans demonstrates how challenging it is to implement the Results Act, and how far we have to go. It also underscores the importance of sticking to the task. To invoke a cliche, the act really does involve fundamental ``cultural change.'' And, Mr. Chairman, I talked about that the last time I was here. We should all have, one, a modicum of patience, understanding it is hard for many of us. In many of our roles in our lives, as my daddy told me when I was a boy, it is tough to teach an old dog new tricks. And, there will be resistance; there will be foot-dragging; there will be disbelief. But, frankly, I think the agencies have done a great deal to demonstrate in themselves that you can overcome all of these factions of inertia. Should we be satisfied? No. But, we should also be appreciative that a great many people in this town have already demonstrated that they have a great deal of willingness to learn new and better ways of doing things against the grain of all their experience. By the same token, I think we should be impatient. It seems almost insane to say we should be both patient and impatient. We should also recognize that the purposes to which we can put this legislation's full implementation are important enough that we must always be prodding, poaching, even nagging, to get everybody further down the line. There is good news. Nearly all congressional committees have become involved in consultations about agencies strategic plans. Congress received nearly 100 strategic plans. The principles of the Results Act were shown to work--you get what you measure--by Congress telling OMB and agencies how we could score their plans using 10 criteria; we did see improvement in these 10 areas. Some plans were closer than others to meeting the mark. Transportation's and Education's plans were the most impressive, although they still showed some gaps. Agencies had great difficulty developing their strategic plans. They are much more used to dealing with process than results. They are very important to us. They are much more comfortable measuring how many inspections they conduct, how many regulations they issue, and how quickly they spend our money, than they are at trying to access what all this accomplishes for the real benefit of the American people. The bad news is: We still have a long, as I said, have a long way to go. Next week Chairman Burton and I, along with some of our House and Senate colleagues, will issue a report that gives out final grades on 24 of the nearly 100 final strategic plans that were submitted on September 30 to the Congress, in accordance with the Results Act. This report will give credit where credit is due, and show examples of the problems we have found. We will also suggest next steps as we approach the February submission of President Clinton's first-ever governmentwide performance plan and the agency performance plans that will accompany their budget submission and link to them. As I have said, making sure that we get the maximum results from the Results Act will not be easy. The first round of strategic plans was quite disappointing, for the most part. This makes it all the more important that the administration, OMB, and the agencies have a concerted effort to produce much higher quality performance plans next February. Agencies are going to be watching for the President's governmentwide performance plan, due in Congress in February. Most agencies also face massive data capacity problems that threaten their ability to produce and provide decisionmakers with reliable performance information. Even the best strategic or performance plan will be only a paper exercise unless the agency can back it up with good data. I was surprised to learn yesterday that Frank Raines does not think this is an immediate problem, and that our scoring of strategic plans should not include any discussion of data credibility right now. I can't be more strongly in disagreement with Frank on that point. I believe that the administration, the OMB, and we, together, need to tackle this problem head-on, and solve it expeditiously, or the act will risk being a failure. More Members must get involved. If I had my way, I'd like to see every congressional committee with jurisdiction over departments, agencies, or function review the policy implications that are in the new strategic plan. Although our review to date had to focus on compliance, not policy, the time is right for Congress to tell the Government whether they are headed in the right or wrong direction. We need to ask fundamental questions such as: Is it clear where the agency is headed for the next 5 years? Is it going in the right direction? Are its goals and measures credible and results oriented, and do they make sense? Do they fulfill important Federal responsibilities, or are they more appropriate for other levels of government, or for the private sector? We need to integrate Results Act information into our basic legislative responsibility. When Congress considers program reauthorization, we need to ask what concrete results has the program achieved? Are they worthwhile and cost-effective? Is there a better way to provide this service? When Congress considers appropriations, we need to ask whether the agencies' budget requests are proficiently tied to the results of its program, and what funding levels these results merit? When considering proposals to create new programs, we need to ask how these proposals relate to existing programs and resources dedicated to the same or similar goals, and why existing programs can't be restructured or improved to produce the new desired outcome, without layering new programs on the old programs? Finally, we need to integrate Results Act information into our oversight activity, as we hold agencies accountable. While we can't legislate good management, we can provide the right incentive. In summary, every dollar spent by the Government is a dollar earned by someone else. Taxpayers deserve a Government that doesn't waste their hard-earned dollars. You and I have within our capability a chance to ensure honest data for smarter decisions. In closing, Mr. Chairman, let me observe an Armey axiom: Nobody spends somebody else's money as wisely as they spend their own. The Federal Government is an example of that. With proper implementation of the Results Act, we may actually be able to be the first best example of a reversal of an Armey's Axiom, and I thank you, Mr. Chairman. [The prepared statement of Hon. Richard K. Armey follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45404.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45404.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45404.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45404.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45404.018 Mr. Burton. You did not plagiarize that axiom, did you? Mr. Armey Did I? Mr. Burton. I don't think you did; I just thought I would throw that in. Before we go to questions---- Mr. Armey. It is very hard, Mr. Speaker--or Mr. Chairman-- -- Mr. Burton. Oh, you promoted me there. Mr. Armey. Let's don't get started with that again. [Laughter.] I was just going to say, a person of my vast experience and attentiveness is never sure for sure whether, indeed, I created the line myself or did get it from somebody else. Mr. Burton. I got you. Before we go to questioning of the majority leader, Mr. Hastert? Mr. Hastert. I thank the chairman, and certainly thank the chairman for holding this hearing today. I would first like to thank our majority leader also for appearing before us; this is an important issue. Mr. Leader, you have led this Congress in many ways, and scored many important successes for the American taxpayer, but that said, I think one of the most important contributions has been legislating the iron-clad assurances that Federal agencies become accountable. Your leadership and certainly tireless insistence on results are an example, and your role as the champion of the Results Act is an enduring victory for the average American taxpayer. At minimum, the Results Act requires each Federal agency to submit to Congress an initial strategic plan outlining in black and white their mission, goals, and objectives, in addition to stating a plan to achieve those goals, and most importantly, a performance measurement system to ensure objective progress toward meeting those goals. This is not only good business practice, it represents a concrete way for Congress to ensure that hard-earned taxpayer dollars are not frittered away on bureaucracy or wasted on fruitless projects. Your efforts will take us a long way toward eliminating duplicative and ineffective programs, and properly supporting proven success. The Federal Government currently employs almost 3 million people and spends approximately $1.6 trillion annually. With such a large and unaccountable bureaucracy, fraud and abuse are bound to flourish. And, as you stated in your interim report, taxpayers pay more than five times what the private sector pays to build for example, houses. This kind of waste cannot continue, and I am happy to say that such spendthrift days are now over, since we have had the Results Act. As you know, I have taken privileges and principles of the Results Act and applied them specifically to the war on drugs. We have just passed a bill reauthorizing the drug czar's office that includes setting hard targets and specific goals for that office to achieve. It requires the Office of National Drug Control Policy to report to Congress frequently regarding progress toward the goals of genuinely winning the drug war, and moreover, as required by the Results Act, that agency must justify each and every taxpayer dollar appropriated for the counter-drug effort. We are asking the same thing of that agency, that we are asking of the rest of the Federal Government--in a word ``accountability.'' Again, I commend you, Mr. Armey, our majority leader, for taking hold of the reins. When agencies were less than enthusiastic about the Results Act, you motivated them to comply, and when the draft strategic plans proved deficient, you pushed the demand better. When other issues took the attention of Congress, you persisted, and kept this act at the forefront. I would like to thank you for your perseverance, your ingenuity, and your principal leadership, and to borrow a phrase, ``your results.'' Thank you very much. Mr. Burton. Thank you, Mr. Hastert. Mr. Waxman. Mr. Waxman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Leader, we are pleased to have you here, and we appreciate your presentation. The Results Act was passed with broad bipartisan support because we want to make Government more efficient. That is a goal that we all share. I was struck by how Congress would rate if the same criteria were applied to us. One of the goals of the Results Act is to eliminate waste and duplication. In your report, Mr. Armey, you noted that, and I am going to quote: ``The Federal Government is plagued by duplication and program overlap. We cannot afford to have multiple agencies doing essentially the same thing, or working at cross-purposes with one another. Departments seem rarely to coordinate within their own walls, much less coordinate with other agencies. As a result, duplication of program overlap in the Federal Government are widespread.'' That is a distressing reality, but I want to draw your attention to the Congress, because our committee is doing a campaign finance investigation, and Senator Thompson is doing a campaign finance investigation; the Justice Department is doing one; we have the independent counsel, Kenneth Starr, conducting similar inquiries. As Representative Condit has repeatedly pointed out, this duplication wastes millions of taxpayer dollars; but, this isn't the only example. Last week, Chairman Burton issued subpoenas to the International Brotherhood of Teamsters in the Ron Carey campaign. Now, it is, of course, important for Congress to investigate this, but we have Senator Thompson investigating it; we also have in the House, Representative Hoekstra, who is the chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee's Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee. He is conducting an investigation, and he has already held two hearings on this issue. There are more examples of duplication. Now, both the House and the Senate are investigating why the White House did not discover the Clinton videotapes any sooner, and Chairman Burton said he intends to depose as many as 60 witnesses. It is appropriate to investigate, but Chairman Thompson's investigation is virtually identical; he is deposing the same witnesses, with the same questions, and reviewing the same documents. One of the frustrations for many Members of the minority is this double standard that the Republicans seem to be following, and I want you to comment, because we have a lot of concern about duplication in the agencies, but we seem to ignore duplication activities under our own roof. I, for example, sent a letter to the Speaker saying, ``Why don't we have one committee, House/Senate, to do the campaign and finance investigation?'' I never even got a response to that letter. The majority spent $40,000 in this committee to create a data base, and rather than share it, the minority had to go spend $40,000 to recreate the data base. Recently, our committee had staff go out to get computer disks. They took 2 days to do it; spent hundreds of taxpayer dollars. In fact, it was a total of six working days, and staff time was wasted, because they could have easily had this mailed to our committee. Now, you supported the Congressional Accountability Act, as did I, that forced Congress to live under the same laws we impose on the private sector; it is just as easy to waste taxpayers' money if it is somebody else's money, whether it is at the administrative branch or the legislative branch, it appears. I am wondering if you think the American people would benefit if the Results Act were applied to Congress, as well, so Congress was held accountable for achieving results efficiently, in the same way we are trying to hold agencies accountable--a goal I think we would want for both institutions. Mr. Armey. I appreciate your observation. I might first make this point: The entire House and one-third of the Senate is held accountable every 2 years to the American people at the polling place. We have divisions of authorities and responsibilities, and it is a fascination to watch it. It all began with the Founding Fathers having created a bicameral legislator along with an executive branch. I have looked at that, and I generally applaud the wisdom of the Founding Fathers. On occasions, when I look at the Senate, I wonder if perhaps maybe a unicameral legislature might have been a better idea, but there is a House; there is a Senate; they will do that. Within our respective bodies we do have divisions of authorities and responsibilities, and it is often contested. I am just sitting here looking at Jack Brooks' portrait. Only last night we watched Jack Brooks and John Dingell musing about their many lively battles over jurisdiction over the years. Certainly, the sense of multiple jurisdictional rights and obligations among the different committees of the House is not a new game; it has been going on since long before I was here, and I suspect it will go on long after I was here. The last election cycle, I believe, probably did, in fact, generate enough oversight and investigation opportunities to keep just about everybody you have cited fully employed for a long time. So, it just seems to me that what we have found is the House with its apparatus, the Senate with its apparatus, and the Justice Department with its apparatus. I've said, if we all swing full-time, full into gear, we might be able to cover all the ground that is out there for us to look at. Mr. Waxman. Mr. Armey, you advised us that we should be patient and impatient, but I think you are being too patient when we are wasting the taxpayers' dollars in the Congress, while you are impatient with the executive branch. I think we ought to be impatient wherever we see taxpayers' dollars wasted. I appreciate your answer. Mr. Armey. I appreciate that, and also I should acknowledge that I have been very patient with the tone of your question, too; so it was evened up. Mr. Waxman. Well, I think that's appropriate, because you are making a presentation to the committee and each of us can ask questions, and I think it is a legitimate question I raised with you. Mr. Armey. I do. Mr. Burton. We thank the gentleman. We have a vote on the floor; it is going to be followed, I understand, by final passage, I believe--I can't read your writing, but anyhow it's going to--[laughter]--we have to teach these young people how to write. Did they take penmanship in your school? Oh, you wrote that, OK. [Laughter.] That's a college professor. The House--the House, see, you've got me thinking as the Speaker. The committee will stand in recess for about the next 10 to 15 minutes. [Recess.] Mr. Burton. The committee will come back to order. I want to apologize for the apparent confusion. There is going to be another vote on the floor in just a few minutes, and as a result, some of the Members are staying over there for the vote. What I think we will do is go ahead and start with Mr. Raines. If you don't mind, Mr. Raines, we will get you sworn in and start receiving your testimony, and then as the vote takes place, I will go over and vote and have Mr. Horn take the Chair, while I am gone, or Mrs. Morella, one of the two. So, while you are standing, let me swear you in. [Witnesses sworn.] Mr. Burton. Thank you. Do you have an opening statement, Mr. Raines? STATEMENT OF FRANKLIN RAINES, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET Mr. Raines. Yes, Mr. Chairman, with your permission I would like to make a few brief remarks, and I have a written statement that I would like to have placed in the record. Mr. Burton. Without objection. Mr. Raines. Thank you. Mr. Burton. Can you pull the microphone a little bit closer to you, Mr. Raines, please? Mr. Raines. Sure. I am pleased to be here this afternoon to testify on the implementation of the Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]. If I may, let me start by first acknowledging the strong support we received in implementing this act from this committee, and particularly the Subcommittee on Government Management, chaired by Mr. Horn. As you may know, Mr. Chairman, the majority leader and I have become regular correspondents on the Results Act. And I know this is his second appearance this year before your committee, which is evidence, I believe, of his commitment and interest in making this act work for the Federal Government and the American people. We appreciate and welcome his interest, because, frankly, neither OMB nor the agencies collectively can make this act work if Congress is not engaged. Let me also acknowledge Jim Hinchman's leadership and his staff at GAO, who have worked extensively on GPRA for many months with both Congress and ourselves on GPRA. This afternoon I am pleased to report that we are on schedule with the implementation of the Results Act across the Government. The first real products of the law are at hand, and this is an opportune time to assess where we are, and what lies ahead. Let me briefly review what the Results Act requires of agencies at this point. The deadline for agencies to send their strategic plans to Congress and OMB was exactly 1 month ago. These strategic plans describe what an agency will do and how it will do it. A strategic plan charts both a course of action and a level of accomplishment for each agency through the first years of the next century. Taken together, the strategic plans describe what our National Government intends to do and accomplish over this period. They are also the foundation for the annual performance plans, which set out specific goals that an agency will achieve in a fiscal year. Strategic plans from every major Cabinet agency, 95 in all, were sent to Congress and OMB 4 weeks ago. We made a commitment earlier this year to deliver agencies' strategic plans that were both timely and compliant with the statute, and we have delivered on that commitment. Getting these plans done and delivered on time was no minor achievement. These plans are the product of a lot of hard work in the agencies, and they also reflect a significant effort of the staff at OMB, and many staff here on Capitol Hill during agency consultations. The first set of agency annual performance plans have been received by OMB. These plans are for fiscal year 1999, and we are currently reviewing and using them as we prepare the President's budget for the next fiscal year. The annual plans contain measurable goals of what will be accomplished in a particular fiscal year. To a large extent, the goals will describe the progress, often incremental, the agency is making in achieving the long-term goals and objectives that are set out in its strategic plan. And as part of our review of these plans, we are analyzing the agencies' capacity to collect data to support goals. Annual plans define what we will get for the money we will spend, not only in terms of Government products, services, and benefits, but how well these are sustained, produced, and delivered. In these annual plans, the performance goals and the target levels for those goals are matched to the budget request of the agency. Agencies will make any necessary changes to the performance goals later this year to reflect the President's decisions on their budget request. Next February, after the President transmits his budget to Congress, the agency annual performance plans will be sent to you. The strategic planning required by the Results Act is simple in concept, but difficult to do well. OMB's own experience spans 2 years, and involved, in some manner, nearly all of OMB's staff. When we committed to the delivery of timely and compliant strategic plans from the agencies, we also predicted that all the plans would not be of uniformly high quality. Some are better than others, and that is to be expected. For every agency, the development of these plans has been an iterative process. The initial drafts were usually incomplete; various plan elements often were mismatched; and goals were poorly described. But with each successive version, the plans improved. Perseverance and hard work paid off. Each plan became better in different ways, so it is very difficult to make any universal characterizations about where changes occurred or why. Certainly, improvements in the style and clarity of presentation were widespread. Perhaps the most prevalent problem was the difficulty agencies had in describing the linkage between their annual performance goals and their long-term goals. Over this past summer, as agencies prepared their fiscal year 1999 performance plans containing their annual goals, this led to a marked improvement in the descriptions of this linkage. As I noted earlier, we believe that all the plans now address the required elements for a strategic plan. GPRA requires that strategic plans be revised and updated at least every 3 years. OMB's guidance allows agencies to make minor adjustments to a strategic plan in interim years and to use the annual performance plan to identify and describe the minor adjustments. A strategic plan should be a dynamic document, not set in stone, so that it fails to reflect significant changes that have occurred or are emerging, and not ever-changing in its revisions so that it is useless as a means of managing or directing any program. This first set of strategic plans is not the only set of strategic plans that agencies will produce under the Results Act. We should expect that these plans will be refined, enhanced, and be a better product in the future. GPRA does not intend that strategic plans be hollow instruments. For the first time, agency strategic plans are translated, on a yearly basis through the annual performance plans, into a program of action and accomplishment funded by the budget. The best test for the quality of these strategic plans will be found in the annual performance plans you receive next February, and how well these annual plans move the agency toward achieving its long-range goals and objectives, and, ultimately, its mission. The Results Act requires agencies to consult with Congress when developing a strategic plan. It also allows stakeholders, customers, or other agencies, to provide the agency with their views on the plan. This GPRA provision made development of strategic plans a very open, public process. OMB required each agency to summarize its consultation and outreach in its letter transmitting the strategic plan to Congress. And this letter was also to include a summary of any substantive and germane views that disagreed with the programmatic, policy, or management course of action presented in the submitted plan. These requirements helped underscore the importance of the consultation process in the course of plan development. For most agencies, the congressional consultation was quite extensive, especially with the House committees and the various intercommittee teams that were established to facilitate consultation. Agencies generally have reported that this consultation was constructive and helpful, and has led to improvements in their plans. With GPRA, we have the opportunity to change the nature of the conversation from one which now focuses on how much money we are providing, or inputs, to one oriented more toward what the money will buy, or outcomes. Examples of such an outcome is: lowering the number of highway traffic deaths. Results from GPRA performance measurement pilot projects also show how this can work. Budgeting under the regimen of the long-term Balanced Budget Agreement is essentially a zero-sum game. Within the discretionary spending cap, choices about which programs receive funding increases, remain level-funded, or shrink, should increasingly be governed by performance. While performance will never be the only element in the process, analysis of performance should become a major factor in decisionmaking. We are mindful that in our use of performance information when making budget decisions, that that will never be the only relevant factor. Policy judgments will continue to be a factor, and in some cases, the prevailing factor. We must avoid using GPRA only as a budgetary cleaver. One response to poorly performing programs may be to cut or eliminate resources, but perhaps with more money allocated differently, or new managers, or a different management approach, performance of these programs would improve. When faced with poor performance, we must first understand the reasons for it, and then apply the appropriate remedy. If the automatic consequence of poor performance is to end the program, then soon the only performance reported will be good performance--not that every program will, indeed, be effective and efficient, only that the reports will indicate such. So, it will be important for us to be discerning and critical in our assessment of program performance, and prudent in the courses that we take. Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement, and I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you or other members of the committee might have. [The prepared statement of Mr. Raines follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45404.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45404.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45404.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45404.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45404.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45404.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45404.025 Mr. Burton. Thank you, I want to ask you a couple of questions, Mr. Raines, before I have to run and vote. The first one is, you eluded to the prospect that there might be some budget cuts for agencies that do not perform well, or do not report in accordance with the Results Act in a timely fashion. That is one of the things that's a possibility because the leadership of the House, and I think in the Senate both, are very concerned that the Results Act be followed in a really fair and timely manner. Now, one of the things that I was going to ask you is this act was passed in 1993, and I was looking at the comparisons between the first time we issued a report and now, and while there has been some improvement, there has not been any really marked improvement, except possibly in the Department of Transportation, Department of Education, NASA, and maybe the National Science Foundation. Other than that, there has been marginal cooperation from these agencies. Have you talked to them and really pushed them to comply with the Results Act? Mr. Raines. Mr. Chairman, from the beginning of my tenure in this job, this has been a continuing theme of mine when I talk to agency heads. I have talked to the Cabinet about this. I have talked to the CFO Council about it. I am somewhat of a broken record on the subject that performance in not only performing--performance on the GPRA requirements, but performance itself will be very important factors in any recommendations that we make comparing funding. Mr. Burton. Well, that being the case, if they are not listening to you, and you're the fellow they ought to be listening to, what do we have to do to get their attention? I mean, do we have to use the budgetary bludgeon to get their attention? Do we have to cut spending in some of these programs because we are simply not getting compliance in the Results Act? Mr. Raines. Well, Mr. Chairman, I actually think you are getting their attention. It's a big government, and it has many masters, and getting the attention of the Government in a way that changes behavior is not easy. And I would say that if you compare the implementation of the Results Act to prior efforts to guide Government decisionmaking--ranging from program budgeting, program planning and budgeting systems back in the 1960's, to zero-based budgeting in the 1970's, to management by objectives in both the 1970's and the 1980's--I believe that the GPRA process will stack up well against those, if you look at the real effect on the permanent Government, not simply the things that might be said by appointed officials. If you look at how much it is beginning to seep into the permanent Government, to the folks who will be here no matter what administration is in power---- Mr. Burton. Career employees. Mr. Raines. I think it is beginning to make a difference, and that is---- Mr. Burton. Well, I hope that you'll convey, at least from the Chair of this committee, that we are very serious about that, and the leadership in the House and I believe the Senate are very serious about that. And if some of the Cabinet officers are not able to convey to their subordinates in these various agencies regarding compliance, they are very likely to see some attempts to make some adjustments in their budgets, so that we will get their attention. With that, Mr. Horn, would you take over the Chair? Thank you very much. Mr. Raines. Thank you. Mr. Horn [presiding]. We appreciate your coming, Director. Let me just go through a few questions with you. Given the discussion that you heard following the questions to the majority leader and given some of the majority leader's comments, what's your thinking on requiring revised strategic plans next year, or every year? How do you feel about it? We have heard of 5-year plans in the Soviet Union, and 5-year plans in the People's Republic of China. They were rather rigid plans, and the question would be, what's your reading now, as you have looked over a number of these plans? Mr. Raines. Well, my view is that strategic plans should not change dramatically over short periods of time; otherwise, they cease to be strategic plans, and they simply become tactical documents that are being changed to meet the pressures of the day. I would put far more emphasis on the annual performance plans. This is where an agency is committing to actual performance within a relevant period that managers on the ground can effect. Those plans can be crafted to meet changing conditions as they may appear. Now, of course, there will be a need to update strategic plans. The President, no doubt, will establish priorities that may not have been thought as being priorities earlier by an agency. Congress may pass a major piece of legislation establishing a brand-new priority. So there will have to be an evolution. Just an example: In the Balanced Budget Act, the Congress created a new program for children's health that will reduce the number of kids who do not have health care coverage. It was a major priority to the President, it was included in the budget negotiations, a brand-new program. If we had had a strategic plan outstanding, of course, that plan would have to be modified to take that into account. But I would discourage effort going into annual modifications of the plan, because I think that it does detract from the plan, and for another reason. I have set as my highest goal in this job not getting our planning right, or our budgeting right, but getting our execution right. I think that we have an imbalance in the attention by top-level officials between execution, planning, and budgeting. So I would like to try to move their attention more toward execution and implementation, and I would hate to see a planning process consume all their time, and prevent them from focusing on execution. Mr. Horn. As you have reviewed these plans, did any particular form of measurement as to the progress the agencies and Congress and you and the President would see--how much progress has been made? Did there seem to be any standard that made some sense to you that might be applicable across a number of agencies? Mr. Raines. Well, I think the plans, they were different, and I think, quite frankly, the test that we applied to them varied. For example, the scorecard the House used included some categories for which the agencies did not know were going to be categories they would be judged by. But on the other hand, a number of agencies responded to those categories and they produced a plan; their final plan encompassed some of the items that those categories covered, and therefore, was responsive to an interest that the House, in particular, had in those matters. And, so, I think it varies generally. We even tried to encourage the agencies to look at other agencies' plans to compare them to see when people say one plan is a good plan and theirs isn't quite as good, what does that mean? In fact, just a couple of weeks ago I met with the budget officers from the major agencies, and went through with them our impressions of their plans, as well as our impressions of the budget submittals they just made. The obvious purpose of that is that we would like to see a little competition going on among the agencies to see who gets recognized for having a sound and solid plan, because, I think those kinds of things will help have continuous improvement in the agencies responsiveness. Mr. Horn. Should agencies have satisfaction surveys that go to their clientele, as to how they have been treated, how their satisfactions are? That would be normal practice in many organizations. What do you feel about applying that to the executive branch? Mr. Raines. Oh, I think that measuring customer satisfaction is an important management tool, and particularly where the customer is the general public. I think it is a very valuable tool and a necessary tool. Indeed, a number of agencies already try to measure customer satisfaction. It has been a major part of the National Performance Review in the effort to improve customer service, is to ensure that they actually ask the customer how they are perceiving the service, and not simply measuring against the agency's own internal process. Mr. Horn. When I was in the California State University system as a president, I worked for 5 years to get our trustees to adopt almost what New Zealand is doing. That was to have your executives on a campus, say 110 in the management class, 4 or so different classes, get rid of the civil service positions we had inherited from the Federal Government, because they made the mistake of hiring people from the Civil Service Commission when they were founding that establishment. And we went to employment contracts, and we went to a broad salary scale between $20,000 and $100,000 with overlaps in broad categories, and in the contracts we spelled out: What are you going to accomplish this year in terms of either regular initiatives, and how do we know, and other additional initiatives? Do you think that would be a useful way to go in the Federal Government, with either the Senior Executive Service, or everybody down through the lowest management level, which could be a 9, 12, 14 even, given the situation and how they are organized? What do you feel about that? Mr. Raines. Well, I think there ought to be a close connection between the performance plan and the annual assessment of employee performance. We need to establish, at the beginning of the year, what the expectations are, have those tied to the performance plan, and then when we measure how the agency did, to see whether or not that individual manager was making the kind of contribution that was required. It is too frequent, in both Government and business organizations, as well as in nonprofit organizations, that the organization doesn't do well, but everybody gets very high ratings. And, so I am a believer of tying these together. Indeed, within OMB we have made it very clear that with our own strategic plan and performance plan that will be tied to our rating process and to our annual awards and bonus process, and we will be looking at that through our entire process, because I strongly believe you have to--if these incentives are to work, you have to run them through your entire performance review system. Mr. Horn. When Mr. Koskinen was up here for his last appearance, I asked him, how many people within OMB are concerned with management or involved in management advice? He said, ``Oh, 540.'' I assume that is your full personnel strength. I thought that answer--and I told John that--was nonsense. And the question is, how many people in OMB are directly concerned with management issues and can advise Cabinet officers and departments and agencies on management processes? Mr. Raines. Well, I think other than overestimating the number of people we have at OMB, I think John was not far from the mark, and let me tell you why. We have taken to heart the integration that OMB 2000 caused in bringing together our management resources and our budget resources into our resource management offices. This was a reorganization that I inherited, but if I hadn't inherited it, I would have done it myself, having been in OMB before, when we had a fairly strict separation between management and budget. And we have some examples now of how this can be effective. The thing I have learned in management in the public sector and the private sector is that command and control is not sufficient to induce change in management practices. You need a number of levers to operate, and OMB doesn't have all the levers I would like, but we do have a few. But they take many forms. In resource management offices, what we are able to do is to use budgets, FTE allowances, determinations on space, regulatory approval process, clearance process on legislation, a variety of tools to ensure that agencies are beginning to turn their attention to what we consider to be the most important management issues. We've begun our Director's review process, which happens every fall, leading up to our recommendations to the President regarding his budget. I can tell you every one of these reviews is suffused with management issues, and in a way that was never the case when I was in OMB before. So, it is a matter that I think everybody in OMB understands, that in order to be successful, you have to be adept, not simply in analytical methodologies and tools, but you have to know something about management. I have encouraged those who do not feel that they have sufficient grounding in management to seek additional training to work with our specialists in management, who work under the Deputy Director for Management, and indeed to get out of OMB and let's go visit some places that we think know something about what we are working on. In fact, I led a field trip like that just a couple of weeks ago to a private firm that was working on a similar problem, and we brought people from the budgetary side, from the regulatory side, from the management side, all of us there trying to learn about different techniques that can be applied to management problems. Mr. Horn. This committee has spent a lot of time on the year 2000 situation. Who is your person in charge of that to coordinate efforts within the executive branch? Mr. Raines. Sally Katzen, who is the Administrator of OIRA, has been ably leading that effort, and has been providing real guidance and leadership throughout the executive branch and throughout OMB to ensure that we get greater and greater attention to solving that pressing problem. I might even point that as another example in answer to your earlier question. We are attempting to use as many levers as we have in OMB to ensure that agencies pay attention to this problem in a way that not only this committee would like to see us do it, but as the President as well. And those will include ways that we can influence agency behavior regarding their budget resources, as well as influences through our various management counsels. Mr. Horn. Mr. Davis, 10 minutes on questions for the witness. Mr. Barrett. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman? Mr. Horn. Oh, I am sorry, I am sorry. Mr. Barrett. Mr. Barrett. I would hate to have us measure our efficiency of results here. Thank you, Mr. Horn, I appreciate that. Mr. Raines, welcome. Mr. Raines. Thank you. Mr. Barrett. We have had a lot of discussion this afternoon about the Results Act, and I am a supporter of the Results Act. I think that it does make sense to set goals and to have expectations that can be met. I think, though, we have gotten a little off-track in our discussion and I am sorry Mr. Armey isn't here, because I would, frankly, rather address some of these concerns to Mr. Armey when he lauded the reauthorization of the ONDCP, an issue that I was involved with quite intimately as a ranking member of that subcommittee, and I would have to say that that is a better example of how the Results Act is misused rather than used. Because I think one of the worst things that we can do is to set standards or set measures or goals that we know we are not going to reach. This committee reported a bill that said that we would reduce teenage drug use by 90 percent by the year 2002. Frankly, I think that if we are talking about goals, I think that goal is understated. I would love to reduce teenage drug use by 100 percent in the year 2002, but in terms of real reality, I think that we would take a different view if the person whose head was on a chopping block was the chairman of this committee or the majority leader rather than General McCaffrey. I think that the Republican leadership in Congress is more than happy to put General McCaffrey's head on a chopping block, saying that if you don't reach a 90 percent reduction in teenage drug use by the year 2002, you are out of here, but we can wash our hands of it. I don't think that that is leadership; I think that it is political posturing. Fine. If we are going to play political games, we are going to play political games, but I think when you have a situation where the ONDCP calls the targets in the bill arbitrary and unachievable, and then we somehow say this is responsive government, I think is ludicrous. So, I just think somebody has got to say that, that, yes, it's fine to play these games, and to say we should have these measures--and I think we should--but I think when the agency itself says it's arbitrary and unachievable, that all we are doing is setting up for a political fight, and if that is what we want to do, that's politics in Washington, I can live with that. But, let's not pose for the holy pictures and say somehow this is good government, when it is basically a dress rehearsal for the 1998 or 2000 elections. And, I would again daresay that there is no one on this committee who would put their career on the line to say that we will achieve a 90 percent reduction in teenage drug use by the year 2002. I'd love to see it happen, but I think we have to be realistic. The Department of Defense represents roughly half of all discretionary budget money expended by Congress. Its compliance with the GPRA is therefore very important. Mr. Raines, do you believe that DOD's issued plan adequately addresses the suggested improvements that GAO made in its August 1997 report on its draft plan? Mr. Raines. Well, we have concluded that all of the agencies that have sent in plans have met the requirements of the act, but I would say that you would find with all of the plans as well, including the DOD, that there is some variation as against comments the GAO or other commentators may have made. DOD actually has had a strategic plan in process for many years, through its quadrennial review process that has established the goals and objectives for the Armed Forces and through their future years defense plan applied budgetary resources against those goals and objectives, and they have been attempting to drive that down through their organization over the last several years. So, I would--in direct answer to your question, I think that there--and Jim Hinchman can probably give a better answer to this--I am sure that there are differences between the suggestions that were made and the final effort that the Department put in the quadrennial plan, but I think that the Department has in that plan established the basics necessary for an effective strategic plan for the Department. Mr. Barrett. How would you compare the quality of their plan, top third, middle third, bottom third? Mr. Raines. Well, we haven't really done a quantitative analysis as the House staff has done, so I don't think I could give you a careful one. I would say that in terms of strict compliance with the GPRA, they are not likely to rate in the highest category, simply because they have such an entrenched system, that getting them to modify that to meet the GPRA's specific requirements is going to take some work. And, I don't think that's all bad. I think that they have been ahead of the rest of the Government in this, and for them to modify their own system to meet the GPRA requirements is going to take some time for them to make that adjustment. Mr. Barrett. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Horn. You're quite welcome. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Portman, and you are presiding. Mr. Portman [presiding]. Why, thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know it's interesting, I'm the lowest person on the totem pole---- Mr. Horn. Get as close to the bell as you want, but we have some votes beyond that, so we'll be in recess for about 20 minutes. Mr. Portman. I was going to say that normally when you are the lowest person on the totem pole, you have plenty of time to prepare your questions; in fact, normally you don't get questions. [Laughter.] This is quite an honor. I'm shocked. [Laughter.] I am not going to know quite what to do, but, Mr. Director, thank you for being here. I wish my friend Mr. Barrett was going to stay around; maybe he will. OK, thanks. [Laughter.] Thank you for your time, and I will just ask you a couple of brief questions related really to what Tom Barrett was talking about, and how the standards that might be set for the Office of National Drug Control Policy might mesh with the Performance Act, with GPRA and its requirements. I am supportive of setting goals; I think it makes sense. What those goals are is sort of a matter of some debate, as Mr. Barrett has indicated. Some people believe these goals are overly ambitious, unattainable, and therefore could be used politically. In my view, our challenge is to find goals that are attainable. Certainly, we've had a 75 percent reduction in drug abuse from about 1979 to 1991. If you look back to the 1960's, we have had about a twentyfold increase since then, but we had about 2 percent of the population that was experimenting with drugs. So, there are some standards you can look back to historically where we have made some progress. I, frankly, believe that we are beginning to make some progress now, slow but sure, and it tends to be among the older teenagers. But, as you have looked at this, and I know you have got 14 Cabinet agencies and a lot of other plans to review, and I do not expect you to be an expert on ONDCP's, but do you think that it does make sense to establish some standards, some goals, and if so, how would you assess the goals that are being proposed by the House at this point? Mr. Raines. Well, we clearly believe that establishing goals for the reduction in drug use are important. And, indeed, General McCaffrey, in his performance plan, does establish goals that he believes, and I believe, are aggressive goals that will require an enormous effort, not just by the Federal Government, but by all of American society to achieve. So that we do believe that those goals are important. We had a concern, and continue to have a concern, with the House bill passed as to whether the goals that are contained in that bill are realistic, and there is a real danger in establishing unrealistic goals, and that is that the people who are expected to achieve them will simply throw up their hands and say, ``Well since that can't be done, I'm not going to try to do anything, because I will be judged a failure, no matter what I do.'' This is something that we are all going to have to pay attention to, whether it's goals that are established by departments in their performance plans or goals established by Congress. It is one thing to set a high aspirational goal; it is another to set a goal that is so far beyond capability or resources or level of commitment that it becomes simply rhetoric. And, I think that is the thing that we have to watch, and all of us would aspire to have problems completely eliminated, but making dramatic progress on the elimination is the first step. We are not going to make them go away tomorrow, but if we can have serious progress over the next several years, that's moving us in the right direction. And, as we achieve on the goals, we ought to keep raising the bar, so that we aren't simply aspiring to achieve something we know we can reach; we ought to be reaching a little bit beyond our grasp. But, there is a serious danger that if you have a goal that says you are virtually going to eliminate a problem that has never been eliminated in the history of mankind, that people aren't going to take that seriously, and therefore, they will begin to fall back into old behavior, which is simply to go through the motions, and spend the money, and report how they spent the money, as opposed to how they have actually achieved something. Mr. Portman. I would not disagree with your overall approach. I think it's actually quite positive that the legislation uses the Results Act--in this case, in a way to set goals on drug abuse, but I think it's inappropriate use of the Results Act, and I assume you would agree with that? Mr. Raines. Well, Congress always has the right to set goals. I just am simply saying that we should understand the consequences if the setting of goals is outside of any range of performance we are likely to see. What I would rather see is a good interaction between Congress and the agencies, where Congress may set an aspirational goal and then call upon the agency to specify, how much can you achieve in the next 3 years, 4 years, 5 years? That is the interaction that I would anticipate should happen with the Results Act. And then in the performance plan you find out, well, how much can you achieve this year, and so you would have a 1-year, a multi-year, and then our aspiration as to where we would like to be, ultimately, as established in the statute. Mr. Portman. I think if you look at the goals we have set out in this particular area, which is the ONDCP goals, they do not call for elimination or even virtual elimination of drug use. They do call for fairly ambitious goals. Again, I think if you look from 1979 to 1991, 75 percent reduction in teenage drug use, to assume that by 2001 we could have a 60 percent reduction, I think it's about 65 percent reduction from current levels; that may be doable. I just encourage you--I'm sure you already have taken a look at it, but take a careful look as you are reviewing all of these performance goals, and I think you will find that they are not as unrealistic as perhaps you indicated earlier. The second point that I would make is that I do think that our strategy here is a little bit different than it might be with other agencies, because we really want to give General McCaffrey and ONDCP the tools to do something they have not been able to do previously, and I know that is something that you would be intimately involved with, along with the other agencies, the 50-odd agencies and departments that have some role to play in the drug war. It is not just setting goals given the current parameters, it's setting goals that are relatively ambitious, I would agree, but then giving General McCaffrey and his office, more discretion, more tools at their disposal to try to meet those goals. Certainly, that would mean your working very closely with him to referee all those disputes that would emerge from that. So thank you for your time. I have got to go run and vote. There are a few other Members who have requested to ask you questions, and the Chair has asked me to ask you whether you could accommodate that request. We will have a series of votes that may go 20 minutes. That is the goal we will set; it will probably be more like 25 minutes. Would that be possible for you to await their return? Mr. Raines. Yes, I do have to get back downtown, but I could be here as late as 4:30 p.m. Mr. Portman. OK, that has been communicated, I am sure, and we will now stand in recess until such time as the votes are completed. Thank you, Mr. Director. [Recess.] Mr. Horn [presiding]. We have problems on the floor this afternoon. There are 16 votes underway, and that will take us 2 hours. So, what I would like to do is have staff, before you leave the room, work out with you a convenient time we can recess this hearing to, so we aren't wasting your time, and not having Members who, frankly, want to be here to ask questions. So, we would appreciate your indulgence on this, and if staff could go down now and try to work out a mutually convenient time that does not conflict with the full committee's investigations next week, and does not conflict with my schedule--so, if you would, bear with us. And with that, we will recess to a time to be announced by the Chair in the usual manners we have to release when committees are meeting. So, with that, we are in recess. [Whereupon, at 3:57 p.m., the committee adjourned subject to the call of the Chair.] [Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45404.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45404.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45404.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45404.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45404.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45404.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45404.032 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45404.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45404.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45404.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45404.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45404.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45404.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45404.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45404.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45404.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45404.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45404.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45404.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45404.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45404.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45404.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45404.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45404.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45404.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45404.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45404.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45404.053 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45404.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45404.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45404.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45404.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45404.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45404.059 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45404.060 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45404.061 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45404.062 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45404.063