<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