<DOC>
[108th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:90481.wais]
WHAT HAPPENED TO GPRA? A RETROSPECTIVE LOOK AT GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE
AND RESULTS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 18, 2003
__________
Serial No. 108-75
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house
http://www.house.gov/reform
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
90-481 WASHINGTON : 2003
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800, DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman
DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut TOM LANTOS, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
DOUG OSE, California DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
RON LEWIS, Kentucky DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
CHRIS CANNON, Utah DIANE E. WATSON, California
ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma C.A. ``DUTCH'' RUPPERSBERGER,
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia Maryland
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania Columbia
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio JIM COOPER, Tennessee
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas CHRIS BELL, Texas
WILLIAM J. JANKLOW, South Dakota ------
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
(Independent)
Peter Sirh, Staff Director
Melissa Wojciak, Deputy Staff Director
Rob Borden, Parliamentarian
Teresa Austin, Chief Clerk
Philip M. Schiliro, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on September 18, 2003............................... 1
Statement of:
Armey, Richard, former House Majority Leader; Clay Johnson,
Deputy Director for Management, Office of Management and
Budget; David Walker, Comptroller General, General
Accounting Office; and Patricia McGinnis, president and
chief executive officer, Council for Excellence in
Government................................................. 6
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Armey, Richard, former House Majority Leader, prepared
statement of............................................... 9
Davis, Chairman Tom, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Virginia, prepared statement of................... 4
Johnson, Clay, Deputy Director for Management, Office of
Management and Budget, prepared statement of............... 14
McGinnis, Patricia, president and chief executive officer,
Council for Excellence in Government, prepared statement of 51
Platts, Hon. Todd Russell, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Pennsylvania, prepared statement of........... 68
Walker, David, Comptroller General, General Accounting
Office, prepared statement of.............................. 29
Waxman, Hon. Henry A., a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, prepared statement of................. 80
WHAT HAPPENED TO GPRA? A RETROSPECTIVE LOOK AT GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE
AND RESULTS
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2003
House of Representatives,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:11 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Tom Davis
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Tom Davis and Platts.
Staff present: Peter Sirh, staff director; Melissa Wojciak,
deputy staff director; Keith Ausbrook, chief counsel; Ellen
Brown, legislative director and senior policy counsel; Robert
Borden, counsel/parliamentarian; David Marin, director of
communications; Teresa Austin, chief clerk; Brien Beattie,
deputy clerk; Shalley Kim, legislative assistant; Phil Barnett,
chief counsel; Karen Lightfoot, communications director/senior
policy advisor; Michelle Ash, counsel; David McMillen and Mark
Stephenson, minority professional staff members; and Earley
Green, minority chief clerk.
Chairman Tom Davis. The committee will come to order.
I want to thank everyone for coming this morning. The
government is closed down in Washington, but the Government
Reform Committee continues to meet here in the safety of the
Rayburn Building, which has stood up through rain, snow, sleet,
and hurricanes for over 40 years.
The purpose of today's hearing is to assess the overall
effectiveness of the Government Performance and Results Act of
1993 in shifting the focus of government from process to
results. The purpose of the Results Act, which was enacted into
law 10 years ago, was to promote greater efficiency,
effectiveness, and accountability in Federal operations and
spending by establishing a new framework for performance
management and budgeting in Federal agencies.
The Results Act was one of a number of laws enacted in the
early 1990's whose purpose was to improve government efficiency
and accountability. The Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990,
the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, the
Government Management Reform Act of 1994, the Federal
Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994, the Federal Financial
Management Improvement Act of 1996, and the Clinger-Cohen Act
of 1996 were all good government initiatives passed by the
Congress with the purpose of improving management practices in
the Federal Government.
Today we will focus on the Results Act. In future hearings,
I intend to revisit other management statutes to determine if
Congress's vision is being met.
Section 2(b) of the Results Act clearly lays out Congress's
purposes in enacting the legislation, and I would like to read
some of these purposes to you and then spend some time today
assessing whether these purposes have been realized.
No. 1, improve the confidence of the American people in the
capability of the Federal Government by systematically holding
Federal agencies accountable for achieving program results; No.
2, improving Federal program effectiveness and public
accountability by promoting a new focus on results; No. 3,
improving congressional decisionmaking by providing more
objective information on achieving statutory objectives; and
No. 4, improving internal management of the Federal Government.
If some or all of the act's goals are not being met, I
encourage the witnesses to provide the committee with their
comments and suggestions as to how we can accomplish these
goals.
Ultimately, I am convinced that the underlying objective of
the Results Act--focusing the government on accomplishing
results rather than concentrating its time and attention on
process--is not something that can be legislated. Instead,
there must be a longstanding commitment from the top levels of
the executive branch, a commitment that lasts long enough that
it begins to soak down through the bureaucracy and into
everyday operations of government. After all, government is the
only vessel that leaks from the top.
Along those lines, I believe that the President's
Management Agenda, which has put a public face on these
somewhat abstract management issues, has been a major step
forward in focusing the government's attention on improving
management and accountability. I look forward to hearing the
testimony today of Clay Johnson, the administration's point
person for governmentwide management issues, to hear his
assessment of the state of performance management and
accountability in the Federal Government.
In particular, I look forward to hearing more about the
administration's PART Initiative, or Program Assessment Rating
Tool. The PART was used this year to evaluate whether specific
Federal programs were accomplishing the goals they set out to
accomplish, with the intention of setting funding levels based
on whether or not the programs are accomplishing their goals. I
would like to pursue this notion of tying budget decisions
directly to program performance with the witnesses. While I
don't believe that you can legislate accountability in
government, I do think there is some merit in looking at ways
to legislatively tie performance criteria into the Federal
budget process.
I also want to welcome our former majority leader Dick
Armey. Perhaps more than any other Member of Congress Mr.
Armey's commitment to improving the management of the Federal
Government during his tenure as majority leader is well known,
and I look forward to getting his take on what kind of progress
he believes has been made over the past decade.
We have gathered together an outstanding group of witnesses
before us today who will provide members of this committee with
a broad range of perspectives on the success and failures of
the Results Act.
Before us today are Richard Armey--Dick Armey, our former
majority leader in the House, who was a Member from Texas for
many years; Clay Johnson, another Texan, but the Deputy
Director for Management at OMB; David Walker, who resides in my
district down in the Lorton area, the Comptroller General of
the GAO; and we are still looking for Patricia McGinnis of the
Council for Excellence in Government. I know she didn't have a
traffic problem coming in today with no cars on the road, but
given the fact that government is closed and the like, I don't
know if she will make it or not.
I look forward to all of your testimony, and I welcome all
the witnesses to today's hearing and look forward to your
testimony. Members will have 5 legislative days to submit
opening statements for the record, and I ask unanimous consent.
Hearing no objections, it is so ordered.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Tom Davis follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 90481.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 90481.002
Chairman Tom Davis. It is the policy of the committee that
all witnesses be sworn before they testify. So if you would
rise with me and raise your hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you.
I know all of you have been up here enough to know our
general rules. We will relax them a little bit today, given the
fact that we don't have a crowded dais of Members.
But what I would like to do is take about 5 minutes and
talk--your testimony that is written out will be in the record
as submitted--and take 5 minutes. You know how the lights read
here. Try to take about 5 minutes to summarize your thoughts on
this, and then we will go right into questions.
Mr. Armey, we will start with you as the former majority
leader of this body; and it's great to have you back.
STATEMENTS OF RICHARD ARMEY, FORMER HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER; CLAY
JOHNSON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR MANAGEMENT, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT
AND BUDGET; DAVID WALKER, COMPTROLLER GENERAL, GENERAL
ACCOUNTING OFFICE; AND PATRICIA MCGINNIS, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, COUNCIL FOR EXCELLENCE IN GOVERNMENT
Mr. Armey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me just say, first of all, it is a pleasure for me to
be back on the Hill and in the House and in this committee.
I might mention, Mr. Chairman, in 1984, when I was elected,
between that time of my election and the time I was actually
sworn in I was given the opportunity to elect which committees
on which I would like to serve, and this was a committee of
choice for me. My good fortune was that I was selected to serve
on this committee, which I thought was going to be a delightful
experience until I came to Washington and met the chairman, Mr.
Brooks, who I remember with grand fondness.
Jack Brooks was a tough fellow but a decent guy, and we
developed a good relationship over the years. He used the
committee oftentimes to discipline the various agencies of this
government and in a manner not always toward the objective of
improving their performance with respect to the enactment of a
law but perhaps with respect to the partisan difference between
the Democrat majority in the Congress at that time and the
Republican President. So that we saw all those years ago a
different role for the question relative to its oversight
responsibilities, a different set of philosophy.
That changed through the time--through the years, and I
think it's important for us to note that the Government
Performance and Results Act of 1993 was passed into law by a
Democrat-controlled Congress at a time when a Democrat was in
the White House. So clearly there was no purpose of Congress at
that time to enact legislation that would allow them to
exercise a political leverage over the administration. I think
we can all recognize the intent of Congress at that time was to
give this committee in particular but the Congress in general a
set of tools and a set of standards by which they could
encourage each and every agency of this government to implement
the law of the land and to do so in a manner that reflects the
will of Congress as the law was written. This is the effort
that we have taken--this committee has taken.
Let me also mention, if I might digress for a quick moment,
I do have a formal statement, and I would like to have it in
the record.
Chairman Tom Davis. It's all in the record. It's already
done.
Mr. Armey. To my good fortune, in 1994, the majority status
of the Congress changed, and I had the privilege of becoming
majority leader, and within that context of my duties as
majority leader I accepted the role of coordinating oversight
activities. It was a role that I took with a great deal of
enthusiasm. I had said then and I will say now that Congress
can every year do more to affect the well-being of its children
and their future with effective oversight than they can by
passing new legislation.
Oversight is a tough business. It is a business that is
often met with resistance, but it is the necessary business of
taking that legislation and making it work for the people
through the agencies that are charged with the responsibility
of the enforcement.
I think GPRA, the Government Performance and Results Act,
focused on a cultural problem that affected many of our
agencies where they had an emphasis on process. One must
understand that when legislation is written, it is oftentimes
written in a manner that is lax enough to give the agencies a
great latitude in finding their own direction; and, to some
extent, the agency will act as if it were water and take the
path of least resistance. That's not necessarily oftentimes
what the law asks; it may ask us to do what is in fact a more
difficult job with a greater degree of rigor, discipline and
looking for different results.
So to pass a piece of legislation that gives Congress a
sense of oversight authority and duty to--what should I say--
encourage the agencies to focus on results, to measure their
performance by results rather than to stay enmeshed in the
comforts of a focus on process is an important piece of
legislation. I have to say, from my experience, the U.S. House
of Representatives since 1993 has taken GPRA seriously, this
committee in particular.
I would like to take a moment to pay my respects to former
Congressman Steve Horn, who served on this committee and I
think may have set a standard in diligence and commitment in
his personal subcommittee chairmanship with respect to his
pursuit of this committee. I know from my many conversations
with Steve and my own experience, if I may, that the GAO has
always been an agency of this government that's understood
GPRA, worked hard and provided good information and support to
the efforts of the House.
After 10 years, we want to assess what progress is made.
Ten years is not a great deal of time to effect a change in
culture, and I think within that context I should say I believe
we are making progress. Agencies who have many times been
comfortable consoling themselves by measuring their past years'
activities by process notations are learning that they can no
longer do that and must juxtapose their activities against the
results that were designed and hoped for in the legislation.
The reports are painfully made and often resisted but this
committee I believe, if it stays committed to the full and
comprehensive enactment of GPRA as I believe it has, can do a
great deal to cause each and every agency of the government to
exercise their responsibility to enact the enforcement of the
law as enacted by Congress in a manner that gets better results
for the American people.
So let me just summarize by saying I'm pleased we passed
the law. I'm pleased with the efforts that have been made,
particularly in the House of Representatives and even more
particularly in this committee supported by the GAO. I'm
encouraged by the responsiveness of agencies. You are actually
asking agencies to change their behavior in a manner that takes
them from less comfortable--or from more comfortable to more
rigorous patterns of activity and success measurement.
The agencies are doing exactly what one would predict: They
are dragging their feet; they are hoping it will go away. But,
in the end, with constant encouragement, they will learn these
new skill sets and we will serve our Nation's children better,
as I said, through good oversight than we could have done by
making a new law.
So thank you for letting me be here.
Chairman Tom Davis. Mr. Leader, thank you very much for
being here. It's great to have you. We'll have a lively
discussion in the question and answer period. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Armey follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 90481.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 90481.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 90481.005
Chairman Tom Davis. Mr. Johnson, thank you for being here.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, the 1993 Results Act introduced the concept
of performance management to government. This important law
required strategic and performance planning. It required
agencies to set annual goals and then report annually on the
extent to which they were achieving their goals. The promise of
the Results Act was a government that managed for results. That
was the promise. I think, though, that the reality of the
Results Act today is a government that rarely uses performance
information to manage programs or make decisions on how to
improve performance.
In response to this state of affairs, agencies and OMB
together have set out to ask how individual programs--more
targeted than asking a question about overall agencies--but
asking how individual programs are performing. Are they
effective? Are they well managed? If not, how might we work
with Congress to improve program performance?
The administration created the Program Assessment Rating
Tool [PART], which is a consistent, objective and transparent
method of evaluating a program's purpose and design, its
management and its results. It assesses the extent to which an
agency is managing for results and maximizing the program's
performance, which are key requirements of the Results Act.
We're analyzing 20 percent of the government's programs
each year. We will ``PART'' these programs--at this rate, we
will ``PART''--we have turned this into a verb--we will
``PART'' all the programs in the Federal Government in a 5-year
period of time. We thought it wise to allow this much time to
properly assess and reassess all the Federal programs and,
maybe more importantly, to allow this much time to change the
way the executive and congressional branches address the issue
of performance.
As Congressman Armey talked about, we have to change the
culture of this place. I believe that 5 years from now the
Federal Government will be managing for results; we can make
this happen. The executive branch leadership will be routinely
asking whether the programs it administers are effective and
efficient and doing what they are intended to do. If they
aren't, the executive branch will be looking for ways to
improve, working closely with Congress to do so. The executive
branch will also be able to assess the programs administered
throughout the government, find out which ones work best, and
share and supply best practices among them. We will also have a
better picture of overall agency performance based on the sum
of PART evaluations.
I also believe that Congress will use performance
information--program performance information as part of their
oversight considerations, insisting that program performance
improve throughout government. I expect agencies will be asked
why the programs haven't improved. Congress will be working
with the executive branch to develop and implement remedies to
address poor program performance. I expect this committee in
particular will be looking across government at what's working
and what's not, and appropriators will be focusing resources on
what is working.
We are all working to earn the trust of the American people
every day. One way to do this is to focus constantly on whether
we are doing what we set out to do. We are going to have to
work at this. Managing for results is still a new way of
thinking for the Federal Government. We are working with
Congress and agencies as we speak to determine the best way to
show what performance we achieved for the money we spent last
year and the performance we can expect for the money we are
requesting for next year. This is what managing for results is
all about. It is not easy, but it is doable. And because we are
managing in times of continued budgetary restraint, it is
necessary. This will happen; we will bring about this historic
change in government management together, the executive branch
and Congress, and in doing so I believe realize the full
promise of the Results Act.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 90481.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 90481.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 90481.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 90481.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 90481.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 90481.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 90481.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 90481.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 90481.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 90481.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 90481.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 90481.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 90481.018
Chairman Tom Davis. Mr. Walker, thank you for being here.
Mr. Walker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and thank you very
much for continuing to hold this hearing today. I think this is
a very important topic and appreciate your willingness to
continue to hold it even though others aren't here today.
Also, let me say at the outset it is a privilege to be here
with former majority leader Dick Armey; he was the champion of
GPRA, there is absolutely no question about it. And I totally
acknowledge as well that Steve Horn--former Congressman Steve
Horn was the champion of oversight with regard to this area.
I'm also pleased to be here with Clay Johnson and with Pat
McGinnis. Clay clearly has responsibility for the President's
Management Agenda as well as the PART, and this administration
is taking GPRA very seriously and real progress is being made
and I would like to commend them for that. But, if I can, Mr.
Chairman, since you put the entire statement in the record, a
few highlights.
As has been noted, this is the 10-year anniversary. It is
also, interestingly, the 20th anniversary of the IG Act and the
25th anniversary of the last Civil Service Reform Act; and
those are two areas separate and distinct today that hopefully
will get some attention during this Congress.
I think it is important to note that GPRA was about
strategic planning but also annual performance planning and
reporting. Candidly, initially people didn't take it very
seriously in the executive branch. Initially, it was an annual
paperwork exercise that people went through, and it did not
have very outcome-based measures for performance. But that has
changed considerably over the last several years, not only
because of congressional interest, in particular this
committee, in particular Steve Horn's subcommittee, but also
there are other good government groups, such as the Council of
Excellence in Government.
Of course, GAO has been and will remain on the case. But,
furthermore, they have the Association of Government
Accountants, who give annual awards for excellence in
reporting, and the Mercatus Center, which is part of George
Mason University, ranks performance and accountability reports
every year and what kind of progress that's being made. So,
based upon our work and based upon the work of these other
entities, I think it's clear to say that progress is being
made, that the executive branch is taking this seriously.
I might note that probably two of the three top agencies in
this area are the Transportation Department, the Social
Security Administration, the Labor Department, the executive
branch. Three of the laggards in this area, based upon our work
and the work of others, the Defense Department, Health and
Human Services and the Energy Department.
I might also say that GAO, as you know, Mr. Chairman, is
leading by example in many areas. I might note that we were
ranked No. 1 in the Federal Government by the Mercatus Center.
We received an ``excellent'' from AGA. But, more importantly,
it's not just your reporting and your planning, it's what
results you actually achieve; and I think we have to focus on
that. It's not just the paperwork. It's not just the processes.
It's what results are actually being achieved.
I think it's important that more steps be taken to link
resources to results, to reward people who are doing a good job
and to have consequences for people who are not. The PART is a
positive step in this regard. I think it's important to link
institutional performance measures with individual performance
measurement reward systems. In most Federal agencies, that has
not been done. It is important to have a governmentwide
performance plan, which we don't have right now. It's also
important to focus on the horizontal dimension of government,
rather than just the vertical dimension, because there are many
programs. Policies are executed by many different departments
and agencies and we need to be able to minimize duplication,
overlap, inconsistency, if you will.
I note in my testimony the need for a set of key national
indicators that could help frame the overall governmentwide
performance plan and cascade down to departments and agencies,
the need to consider chief operating officers or chief
management officials and selected departments and agencies to
really make this come alive and to deal with the transformation
effort that majority leader Armey talked about.
And candidly, Mr. Chairman, I would say that the executive
branch right now in the Steve Horn--who gave grades. In respect
for him, I would say the executive branch is a B or better in
taking this seriously and making progress. They are good. There
are differences. Some are better than others, but they are
taking it seriously.
Candidly, other than this committee, Mr. Chairman, the
Congress has a long way to go. I think one of the things that
has to happen is Congress has to use this information more for
oversight, for authorization, and for appropriations. We see
very little evidence--other than this committee, we see very
little evidence that Congress is using this information in a
meaningful way. People that are doing a good job should be
rewarded. People that aren't should be held accountable. If
they can't improve after a period of time, there have to be
consequences; and, to date, frankly, there haven't been. I
mean, some of the agencies that are doing the poorest in this
area get the most resources and the most flexibility, and
something is wrong with that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you. Thank you very much. It's
going to generate some questions. I appreciate that.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walker follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 90481.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 90481.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 90481.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 90481.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 90481.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 90481.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 90481.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 90481.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 90481.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 90481.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 90481.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 90481.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 90481.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 90481.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 90481.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 90481.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 90481.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 90481.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 90481.037
Chairman Tom Davis. Pat McGinnis is here. Thanks. You made
it through the heavy traffic. I'm just kidding.
Ms. McGinnis. Thank you. Yeah, the heavy traffic.
Chairman Tom Davis. Will you rise with me and raise your
right hand.
[Witness sworn.]
Chairman Tom Davis. Thanks for being with us this morning.
We appreciate all that your organization has done and look
forward to your perspective on this.
Ms. McGinnis. Thank you very much, and I also want to thank
Congressman Armey for his leadership on this issue. When you
talk about the Congress's lack of interest, your leadership
really stands out over the years, and I hope that will be a
legacy that will come alive even more. And thank you, Chairman
Davis, for focusing on how we are doing with the Government
Performance and Results Act and stepping back to think about
how it might be improved.
As you know, and everyone here who we've worked with, the
Council for Excellence in Government is a nonprofit,
nonpartisan organization, and we have two goals: improving the
performance of government and improving the public's trust and
participation in government. Those two goals are intimately
related, and both are quite connected to the Government
Performance and Results Act.
I do not think that the potential, the intent of this act
has yet been fully realized, although a lot of progress has
been made. And when you read the statute, this--actually, this
probably should get an award for one of the most readable
statutes ever enacted, because it makes so much sense. I mean,
it really lays out a commonsense way of approaching goal
setting, management and accountability. If it does realize its
potential, it's not only a tool for managers and funders but
also a tool for the American people to hold their government
accountable. So the stakes are high here, and making it work is
very important.
The law was enacted, there was a very much--a phased
approach to implementing it, and that made a lot of sense in
terms of changing the culture, changing the practice. But,
unfortunately, I don't think it has been accompanied by strong
enough leadership either in the executive branch or outside
this committee and the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs
in the Congress, especially in the authorizing, appropriation
and tax-writing committees. We just have not seen this embraced
as a valuable tool to make decisions about program design and
funding. So on a governmentwide basis--and the Comptroller
General has noted some of the agencies that have done a
terrific job with their strategic planning, but if you look at
it governmentwide, we have not achieved the potential by any
means.
I want to say a word about the President's Management
Agenda and the PART, because I think that this reflects a real
seriousness by this administration about not only setting goals
but measuring performance and, even more importantly,
connecting that measurement of performance to budget decisions.
I mean, that's where you see the seriousness of this, in the
fact that budget and performance integration is at the center
of the President's Management Agenda. Then when you look at the
PART, which came along a year later, you see again seriousness
and commitment to looking at how these programs are doing, what
is measurable, where there are gaps in the data--and that's
actually a pretty big problem with making this work in the long
run and that needs to be attended to. So we do see a
seriousness in the executive branch, but I think in the
Congress we have not yet seen that except in a few very
selected areas. If you ask me what the biggest challenge is
now, I would probably point in that direction in terms of
leadership and taking this seriously.
This year, for the first time, the Reports Consolidation
Act requires agencies to combine their financial reports with
performance reports; and this is an amazing opportunity to
begin to present to the Congress and the public a meaningful
picture of what their tax dollars are being spent for and to
explain performance and results in an accessible way. So that
is an opportunity that we need to take advantage of through
this GPRA framework. As the owners of government, the American
people deserve to receive an understandable accounting, and
they are not receiving that at this point in an understandable,
accessible way.
Let me make some suggestions about improving the statutes.
Some of the suggestions I'm going to make will require
statutory change. There are other suggestions that could be
done without statutory change, but they do require a change in
culture, a commitment that is impossible to legislate. But I
think, working together, the executive branch, the Congress and
many of the other organizations that David Walker mentioned
could make this a reality.
One suggestion is that you consider shifting the strategic
plan cycle from every 3 years to every 4 years to conform to
the Presidential terms. The plan should be required at the same
time the first full budget is released in February of the year
following inauguration. All agencies should have to produce new
strategic plans that are consistent with the new President's
policies and budget. Also, we suggest requiring the program
goals, measures and performance data reported in the plans and
performance reports to be consistent with those in the
President's budget.
Then addressing the Congress--and this requires I believe
rule changes or at least changes in practice--we would suggest
that each appropriation act specify the goals, measures and
performance data it's based on and identify the gaps and the
need for additional information. This would create a
constructive conversation on these key issues in the funding
process. Similarly, we would suggest that every significant
program authorization tax expenditure provision and mandatory
spending provision specify the goals and performance measures
expected to be used to judge whether statutory purposes are
being achieved.
Also, we would--and this is a really important point in our
view--the absence of sufficient rigorous evaluation of what
approaches in government programs are actually working to
produce results. The Government Performance and Results Act
does mention evaluation and requires a listing in the plans and
reports of evaluations that are scheduled or under way, but I
think it might make sense to go a little further than that and
in fact require every large-scale authorization, tax
expenditure and mandatory spending provision to include funding
for long-term, rigorous evaluation of results.
In many cases where programs are not working well in the
Federal Government, it's not because they aren't intended for
the right purposes or for the right audiences; it's because we
simply don't know what approach works better than another
approach because we haven't evaluated it rigorously. And you
all are familiar with an example of that in the DARE Program,
which has been one of the most popular drug abuse education
programs across the country for years. Once it was rigorously
evaluated, guess what? We found out that it didn't really make
any difference. So that program is being redesigned and
changed. It's not that you wouldn't fund that effort, it's that
you would want to fund an approach that would actually work.
So investing in evaluation and holding the program
designers and funders accountable for that is really for
important. Every appropriation act should have to provide an
annual amount for such an evaluation consistent with the
assessment of what the particular program needs are. These
studies are expensive, they are complicated, and they are time
consuming; and, as you know, they are often resisted by program
advocates because sometimes it's tough to find out that the
approach that you've been advocating doesn't really work. But
this is a serious issue, and it really is at the heart of trust
in government. The people around the country are seeing huge
amounts of money spent on programs for purposes that they agree
with, but I think we are not seeing the results, the return on
that investment, and we need to understand that better. Also,
we would suggest requiring the annual integrated performance
and financial reports again not only to list the evaluations
but to report the status of the evaluations for each goal and
how those findings are used to assess programs in meeting the
goals and how program direction has changed as a result of
that.
Another suggestion we would make relates to something that
David Walker said, and that is taking a cross-cutting look at
how programs together that are intended--that have similar
purposes--are performing. So we would suggest requiring that
strategic and annual plans and performance reports that address
similar programs and multiple agencies be developed
collaboratively by those agencies, identifying cumulative
effect and spotlighting the overlap and unproductive
duplication. And, where appropriate, it would make sense to
also require the plans and reports to specify how related State
and local government and private and nonprofit sector activity
are taken into account by these programs.
Again, it's hard to legislate changes in thinking and many
changes in commitment and behavior, but GPRA is an essential
and important framework for effective planning and management,
and it's also essential for the public to figure out what
government's doing and how well it's doing. So we appreciate
your leadership and look forward to working with you to make
this more robust and powerful.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. McGinnis follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 90481.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 90481.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 90481.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 90481.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 90481.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 90481.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 90481.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 90481.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 90481.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 90481.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 90481.048
Chairman Tom Davis. We have been joined by Representative
Platts who chairs the subcommittee with jurisdiction over GPRA.
I just want to thank his staff for helping us set this hearing
up today, and I know he wants you to come before him again.
I don't think we can talk about these issues too much, and,
judging from the testimony, we need a greater awareness in
Congress and among the public about what valuable tools they
can be if employed properly. I think John F. Kennedy said that
we campaign in poetry and we govern in prose; and we are today
talking about the prose of governance, the footnotes, the
details, the decimal points that can make or break programs.
You know, if good intentions and good will and dollars
could solve our problems, we would have solved them a long time
ago, but public policy is very tough. But like the DARE program
and all the T-shirts and hats and everything that were handed
out--I was there at a lot of the rallies--if they are not
working, it's up to us sometimes to have an honest evaluation,
even to stand up to interest groups who have vested interests
in programs and take an honest appraisal of what works.
We had this problem with the District of Columbia schools
last week. Mr. Armey, you for years have championed the voucher
program, and I've been a reluctant supporter. We passed it
again in the House this year and have received surprising
support from people like Senator Lieberman and Senator
Feinstein who said, ``Look, we believe in public schools first,
but if the programs aren't working we need to look at new
things.'' It's hard sometimes getting through interest groups
and everything else to have an honest appraisal, but that's
what GPRA is designed to do.
I'm touched by the fact that I think everyone touched on in
their testimony, the difficulty between the ``awareness'' of
accountability and the ability to transform results in the
Appropriations Committee and other committees in Congress where
we can probably have the most effect. I think one of the
difficulties of that is the role that interest groups and local
constituencies play in terms of getting government's largess
and help on their programs and the difficulty we have sometimes
in sorting through that for the taxpayers' benefits. So we've
got a lot of questions I want to move through.
Just one other quick anecdote is, when Rudy Guiliani was
elected mayor of New York, he'd hold these town meetings
throughout the city, and the No. 1 request he'd get at these
town meetings is for stop signs through neighborhoods, people
running traffic and what this did to the old people, the
elderly and the kids and everybody else. He'd go back to Gracie
Mansion and he'd dictate a memo and they'd come out and they'd
do the engineering studies to see if it met the international
traffic warrants for signage. And of course they never got a
stop sign. He'd go back the next year and they'd say, where is
the stop sign, Rudy? So he finally got the joke and he would go
out there and he would load his trunk up with stop signs in his
car. They'd talk about a stop sign and the need for it in
detail and he'd pull the stop sign out there and give it to
them. It's the difference sometimes between a process-oriented
government, in which it's very difficult to get anything done,
and a results-oriented government; the difference between
getting a thoroughbred and getting a camel.
There's, of course, a need for process in government, for
openness, for transparency. These are the things we rely on
government to do. By its nature, we're probably less efficient
than the private sector. But, at the same time, sometimes just
the process drives the outcome, and the result is negative for
taxpayers and for the people we are trying to help.
Let me start with the former majority leader. Mr. Armey,
what do you think? Mr. Armey also has a Ph.D. in economics. He
actually had a career before he got into politics and a lot of
knowledge on these issues. How do we translate the promise of
GPRA to the appropriations and the tax-writing committees where
it can really have clout? That's where the big dollars are, it
seems to me. And, politically, how do you get through this maze
of interest groups and local constituencies and so on that
weigh the other way in the process? Any idea?
Mr. Armey. I appreciate you asking me that, Mr. Chairman.
And I want to appreciate what Ms. McGinnis and Mr. Walker said
regarding our committees, because it was a terrible frustration
with me.
And if I can again take a moment to take a--remember with
fondness Virginia Thomas, bless her heart. Virginia Thomas was
a member of my staff who I dedicated to this task. And,
basically, Virginia and I, what we tried to do is create a
symbiosis between the authorizers and the appropriators with
this committee and its jurisdiction, sort of a foundation on
the whole question of oversight.
I look back on the now 10 years--almost 10 years of the
Republican majority, and if there is a skill set that this
Republican majority has not yet attained well, it's oversight.
I have to say, by the time I got here the Democrats were in
their 30th year of their majority, uninterrupted majority. And,
as I said earlier, Jack Brooks was my first observed, and they
had developed an oversight skill set. I would say that between
Jack Brooks and John Dingell it was perfected, perfected to the
terror of agency heads that were called before the committees.
Oversight doesn't have to be a terrifying process, but it
should be a rigorous process. The appropriators seem to have
fairly good skills on oversight, but they target the oversight
more or less at the money and at appropriators--what should I
say--focused attention sometimes parochially. But when they--
when the appropriators do oversight, they achieve a level of
rigor and thoroughness. I just don't think they have ever
really got in the spirit of seeing how they could coordinate
their oversight leverage, which is, of course, the power of the
purse, to our efforts to implement the Results Act; and I think
that can be encouraged. We tried to encourage that.
The authorizing committees for the most part I believe in
this body have never achieved a very high level of skill in
oversight, nor do I think they devoted much attention or
interest in it as a general rule. When we tried to encourage
greater interest, it was the authorizers. Basically, the effort
that I got----
I remember one very sensational meeting with somebody
singing the song Devil With A Blue Dress On to Virginia Thomas,
who I believe never wore a blue dress to a meeting again after
that. Because, quite frankly, she was a woman of fairly
assertive personality, as well she should have been in that
instance, and it was met with some unkind resistance.
Chairman Tom Davis. Well, let me ask a question.
Mr. Armey. If I may continue.
Chairman Tom Davis. Sure. You bet.
Mr. Armey. The appropriators' attitude was, we know how to
do oversight and we do it better than anybody else around here,
so we need no encouragement or any instruction. The authorizers
basically said, that's not our business, we don't do that. And
that has been the problem we have fought.
Now--I'm sorry.
Chairman Tom Davis. No. I think one of the difficulties has
been that you get a popular program up, and Ms. McGinnis talked
about the DARE program, but it's everything from student loans
to lunches and everything else, and there are studies that show
maybe it's not the most efficient way to deliver it. Members
are asked to look at--we just had a big vote on Head Start, and
I don't want to get into the politics of that in terms of maybe
doing it a little more efficiently, and all of a sudden Members
end up getting targeted by groups with interest in the program
even though there may be a more efficient way to deliver it,
and it becomes political hot potatoes. I mean, on Members this
puts a lot of pressure to change things, because every program
once it's passed gets a constituency, and that's why there's
nothing closer to eternal life than a government program once
it's created constituencies. And you start changes, and I saw
it in my first reelection: ``Congressman Davis voted against
this and against that''--I just voted for a different way to do
it based on some studies. But there is a huge reluctance, a big
inertia factor.
I see Mr. Walker with his hand up.
Mr. Walker. Mr. Chairman, several of us talked about the
issue of cultural transformation. That's really what we are
talking about here. I mean, we are talking about a cultural
transformation on Capitol Hill. The executive branch
realistically is going to be ahead of the legislative branch on
cultural transformations because it has one chief executive.
You now have the President's Management Agenda, you now have
the Program Assessment Rating Tool and things that are focused
on this. There needs to be a cultural transformation in the
legislative branch.
Candidly, my experience in both the public sector, having
run two executive branch agencies and now GAO, and having run
several lines of business in the private sector, is, before you
can have a cultural transformation, you have to have the
affected parties recognize that we are on a burning platform--
not literally, but figuratively--that the status quo is
unacceptable, that the status quo is unsustainable.
In that regard, I gave a speech to the National Press Club
talking about changes and challenges. We are on a burning
platform. We have to make tough choices. I will provide a copy
for your information, and if you think it's worthwhile to put
it in the record for this hearing. But the fact of the matter
is, these various parties have to be convinced that the status
quo is unacceptable, and that we are on an unsustainable path.
If that can be done, believe me, this is a very valuable tool
that can be used to try to help make informed judgments in this
regard.
Chairman Tom Davis. Let me make a comment and get a
reaction from all of you. A lot of the innovation we see in
State and local governments, these are your laboratories of
democracy. But they run on balanced budgets and so they are
forced to make changes sometimes in the way they deliver
programs, because they have to balance it and they have to
either cut a service out altogether or figure out a new, more
efficient way to do it. Sometimes we don't face the same
pressure here. We just print more money and keep going on. Is
that probably one of the differences we see? And how do you
instill that discipline?
Mr. Walker. Well, it is--I mean, the fact of the matter is
we don't have a balanced budget requirement. Whether we should
or not reasonable people can differ on. We don't have a rating
on our debt. We don't have a stock price. So this is a valuable
mechanism to be able to demonstrate what kind of resources
people are getting, and what kind of results they are
generating. But we have a big gap that we have got to close,
and we need to use every tool that we can get to help make
informed judgments on how to close it.
Mr. Armey. And may I also just add a very big component is
courage. The fact of the matter is, Congress has in the past
created things that have become political sacred cows. I can
remember sitting in the Education Committee years ago and
marvelling at then Congressman Tom Tauke's courage in saying we
ought to measure what real results we're getting from Head
Start, and I really expected to see the ceiling come down on
the poor man. But the fact that he dared to say we ought to
have an objective measure of the real results of a sacred cow
was a source of quite a bit of encouragement. I was fully aware
that Tom Tauke, being from the more moderate wing of our party,
had more license to say that than I did. Had I said it, the
roof would have come down. But Tom at least was able to pose
the question.
Now, once the question is posed, then people must step
forward and say, you can't expect the agency to take that
initiative. They don't have the responsibility to the public
interest that the elected official has. Until we can obtain the
courage out of Members of Congress, we will not get objective
measures, programs, perhaps some longstanding, and large costs
that really do not indeed deliver the results. Does Head Start
do that? I don't know. I know that one time I heard Tom Tauke
ask the question. I am not sure I've ever heard it asked since.
But I doubt that the measurement has ever taken place.
Chairman Tom Davis. Well, I assure you, we had a huge vote
on revamping that Mike Castle led the way on, that was very
close. And as you say, a lot of issues, and we could stand here
today--I'm sure there are different perspectives on the
committee, but it has continued to be looked at, not in terms
of cutting help to the people we're trying to help, but the
best way to deliver it.
Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. I was going to say, one of the things the
executive branch and also Congress needs to understand is that
performance is not to be feared. I know when we first started
talking about the PART, there was concern in the agencies that,
``Oh, a low PART score means funding gets cut and a high PART
score means funding gets increased.''
A bad performance score for a program, Head Start or adult
literacy or a defense program, whatever, should not mean that
funding automatically gets dropped, gets lowered, or the
program gets dropped. It should mean that we should stop and
ask ourselves what was planned, what was intended, what's the
definition of success, how successful are we? If we aren't as
successful as we intended when we passed the law, what can we
do differently? How can we restructure it?
Maybe we're spending too much money, maybe we're spending
not enough money. Maybe we need to combine it with this or
that, but asking the question, ``Is Head Start working?'' ``Are
adult literacy programs working?'' It is not to be feared.
Adult literacy programs do not work. I think we like the
notion of literate adults. I think that's the business we want
to be in. They don't work, so the goal is not to get out of
that business; we need to figure out how to better structure
programs to help illiterate adults become literate, and it
starts with the understanding and belief that performance
information, there's nothing automatic about observing and
America ensuring and concluding that something does or does not
work. The key is, what's the so-what of it, what's the next
step that takes place as a result of knowing that.
Chairman Tom Davis. Let me ask one other question before I
turn the questioning over to Mr. Platts.
It's been suggested by a couple other speakers that maybe
instead of 3-year or 5-year performance, we do 4-year so it
coincides with each of these administrations. But you were head
of Presidential personnel. My experience is, it usually takes
the administration a year to get things up and running. As we
said, we campaign in poetry, but translating this into prose,
it takes a year to get your people in place, to get the
programs in place.
The administration is really now up and running on these
issues, but for the first couple of years, you're coming in,
trying to understand everything to get people in place.
I was wondering if you and Ms. McGinnis could talk about
that, because that's one of the concerns I have with trying to
coincide with 4 years. We have the same problem with our
Governors in Virginia on the budget, so----
Ms. McGinnis. What I could just say to start is we are
suggesting a 4-year cycle that would begin the year after.
Chairman Tom Davis. So you'd give them a year to get up.
Ms. McGinnis. You would give that full year, so this would
begin with the first full budget that the administration
proposed, not 1 month after taking off.
Mr. Johnson. Right. But again, those strategic plans are
agency wide, and to ask the question, ``How is the Interior
Department performing, how is housing or HUD performing?''
That's almost akin to asking, ``How long is a piece of
string?'' Well, what part of HUD or what part of Interior? And
that's one of the things that we're suggesting, that the bulk
of the conversation be about individual programs or like
programs or types of programs, because you're talking about
something with a much more specific ideal, much more specific
target measure performance, and the conversation would be much
more targeted and much more focused on the ``so-what'' of it,
what might we do if it's working well, or not working well.
Chairman Tom Davis. And even a department could be
implementing a program well.
Mr. Johnson. Right.
Chairman Tom Davis. And the audits look great, but the
results are----
Mr. Johnson. Right.
Chairman Tom Davis. I understand. And then I'm going to
turn to Mr. Platts.
Go ahead.
Mr. Walker. As you probably recall, Mr. Chairman, the GAO
does a strategic plan in consultation with Congress; and what
we do is similar to what the recommendation is of Ms. McGinnis:
We end up updating our plan and publishing it a year after
there's a new Congress, the reason being there may or may not
be a change of control, but even if there isn't a change of
control, now you have term limits on committee chairs and, as a
result, there can be some changes in key players even if there
isn't a change in control.
So I think the concept of saying, give the Congress, give
the administration, the new players, a year has a lot of merit;
and I think--every 4 years, I think, has merit as well for the
executive branch.
Mr. Armey. May I make one final point, Mr. Chairman? There
is what I have always thought to be a companion piece to GPRA
called the Congressional Review Act, and I think perhaps you
might take a leave to encourage to the leadership that the
authorizing committees avail themselves of that oversight
instrument. This gives them a real stake in the claim, and as I
understand it, it goes like this: We wrote the law, it got
signed by the President, it got put within the responsibility
of your agency, and now we have a duty and an interest in
seeing that your implementation of the law is consistent with
our intent of the law. This is a very important oversight
activity.
My guess is as you can encourage the authorizers to be more
involved in the business of oversight, they'll be more willing
to complement your activities, and the best way to encourage
them to be more involved in the business of oversight is to
encourage them to be involved in their own interest, reviewing
the implementation of the laws that they themselves created.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
Mr. Platts.
Mr. Platts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And first I'd like to
thank you for holding the hearing with Mother Nature,
unfortunately, not cooperating with us to allow a broader
membership here.
Chairman Tom Davis. That's great for you and me, because we
get as many questions as we want.
Mr. Platts. Right, we get more time. But I do have an
opening statement I'll submit for the record.
Chairman Tom Davis. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Todd Russell Platts
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 90481.049
Mr. Platts. I apologize for my late arrival. I'd also like
to thank all of the panelists for being here today and for your
work, past and present, on behalf of our fellow citizens.
I guess where I'd like to start is maybe with a question
for each of our witnesses. The GPRA kind of set the big
picture, and very importantly, that we start looking at
performance, and to its great credit--and it goes to the issue
that, Mr. Walker, you addressed, the cultural transformation--
this administration, President Bush, is trying to have a
cultural transformation, in my opinion, in taking GPRA and its
big-picture outlook and how to take that to the next level down
and the program evaluations with PART.
One of the challenges was going to be--for PART to have any
meaningful impact long-term, is that we build every year on
basic knowledge; and, you know, this year's appropriations and
the 20 percent that are evaluated, we have that, and next
we're--we see what happened in response to those evaluations
being done.
Apart from the measuring agenda is executive action. How do
we make that level of GPRA now become permanent, and is it
necessary that we look at codifying PART as an extension of
GPRA so we get into that program permanently, not simply
because we have an administration today that's making it a
priority to look at actual performances of programs.
And, Mr. Armey, maybe we'll start with you.
Mr. Armey. Well, it's very difficult. We've talked about
that a great deal.
What I had always hoped for during the 8 years that I was
privileged to be majority leader was that we would have a
unified leadership position. Now, ideally, if you could have
that unit through the major leadership offices of Speaker on
one side with all of the leadership offices of his caucus and
the minority leader with all the leadership offices of their
caucus--I'm thinking that Steny Hoyer might do very well to do
so with so many agency people in his district. If you could get
a unified leadership commitment to effective and thorough
oversight, which, I'm sorry to say, I never was able to muster
in my 8 years, then I think to a large extent you're trying to
effect a cultural change with the committees and the chairmen.
And the only instrument I know by which that can be done would
be effective--this kind of a unit, I think. You're chairman of
this committee, a very popular person. It's very possible, Mr.
Davis, that perhaps you could broker that kind of unified
commitment. You being a man of far more considerable tact and
charm than I exhibited in my efforts, I would expect you might
have better luck.
I might also say, though, cultural change does take place
when there is a symbiosis of ideas; and just as a thought of
encouragement, Mr. Platts, I was sitting here, thinking about
your tenure here in Congress. You very likely have very rarely
heard the expression ``continuing services baseline budget.''
For the first 10 years I was in Congress, all budgets started
on that basis, and the tacit implication was, ``We want to make
sure we can do next year exactly what we did last year;'' and
that message just sort of permeated people's attitudes.
Well, what GPRA's about is, ``Let's see if we can do
something different and better than we did last year;'' and
now, frankly, we don't budget with that language anymore, and
I'm not sure we budget with that spirit anymore. There's
probably a continuing, spirited baseline hangover in the
process, but there is not the governing conceptual framework,
so change does take place.
The more people that represent the advocacy, are the
cheerleaders for it, especially people in high places, the
quicker it'll happen, but I do believe this committee can
encourage the other committees. I mean, I know this, even
during the 8 years that I was here, this committee, I think,
kind of got off the oversight track onto a more sensational
track, and generally speaking, Republicans got a bloody nose in
every effort they ever made. But it became a sense that
oversight is not fun, and it is dangerous, and other people
developed an aversion to it.
I think Steve demonstrated to a lot of members that you can
be recognized and you can be appreciated and you can have
success in oversight, and it can be fun. Steve Horn, I think,
is a good example for all of us, but this committee can be that
good example for the other committees.
Mr. Platts. And before we move on, Mr. Leader, I appreciate
and share that perspective, and as one who's been given the
privilege of succeeding Mr. Horn in his chair of the Government
Efficiency Subcommittee, when we've had our oversight hearings
and--you know, with various agencies that had a very good
dialog between agencies and GAO and personnel there, our
committee--one of the things I tried to emphasize is, this
isn't a ``gotcha'' committee approach. We're not looking to
generate headlines. We're looking just to have good
communications.
So let's say the executive branch is important; GAO
officials are there and help us to work as a team. At the end
of the day, we really are not spending money because that's the
way we spent it for the last 20 years, but we're spending it
because it's really benefiting the people of the Nation as it
should, and we should be responsible.
Mr. Johnson, if----
Mr. Johnson. Is your question things we might do to----
Mr. Platts. Well, specifically, it's to take, you know,
what the administration is currently doing. And I have some
other questions to get into, how that's working in specific--
but as one who believes PART is a very positive step, how do we
make sure it's a permanently positive step as opposed to just
this administration? So should we legislate it as an extension
of GPRA, or are there other things we should look at?
Mr. Johnson. I think we do need to look for ways to
institutionalize results orientation, and I don't know whether
it requires legislation or Executive orders or what it takes in
terms of the process. I think we can make--the executive branch
can make demands on themselves and the things we look at and
the things we provide to you, or you could take action, things
you require of us.
I know one of the things we have to do. Robert Shea and I
used to work with the House and Senate on Governmental Affairs
and talked about how we can work with Members of Congress to
think through how performance information can be used. And
perhaps what we need to be more aggressive about is, let's take
some real programs or some sample programs and a variety of
different scenarios: We don't know how it works. We do know how
it works, and it's great. We do know how it works, and it's
bad. High-profile programs. Low-profile programs.
Maybe it ought to be hypothetical to remove some particular
sensitivities to it; sit down with some staffs initially and
talk through, ``OK, in this situation, what would Congress'
approach be? What kind of openness to attacks do they face?
What things should the executive branch be doing? What kind of
performance changes should we be considering, what type of
budgetary, appropriations things should we be considering to
develop an understanding of, if and when we had a lot of
performance information, how should it be used? And where do we
run into political problems, where do we run into getting-it-
done problems? Where do we run into labor problems?''
And then, get a larger audience, go to elected Members,
work it through with them, so we think through, as opposed to,
``here's performance, live with it;'' because I'm not sure we
know how to do that. I'm not quite sure we know in the
executive branch--if we have detailed performance information
on every program, I'm not sure we're equipped and have the
process in place to really effectively react to that kind of
information. And I'll bet the same thing is true of Congress,
so maybe we game it out and practice it and think through what
the implications are on a small scale before we decide to look
broadly.
I think that's why Mitch Daniels and Sean O'Keefe, who
originally developed the PART and conceived of doing this over
5 years, were very wise. This is not something you need to rush
into, and sometimes the first evaluation of a program is not
the best evaluation and you have to think through, ``How do you
really measure success on some of these hard programs and what
are the implications you get back in the answers to these
questions,'' and then take those and try to work out with
Congress what the implications are in terms of how we ought to
work independently of each other and also together.
Mr. Walker. Mr. Platts, I would say the first things you
ought to do when you're looking at new legislation--what are
you trying to accomplish, why do you need it, does it already
exist in government, how do you measure success--and try to
define those types of things in considering whether or not
legislation should be passed and as a critical element of
anything that is passed.
And second, I think what you have to do is, you have to
recognize, in my opinion, that the Federal Government today is
on an absolute, unsustainable path and debate is not OK. We
have an amalgamation of programs, policies, functions, and
activities over decades, much of which may have made sense when
they were created, some of which may still make sense today;
others don't, and others may not make sense tomorrow, but
because the world has changed dramatically, our position in the
world has changed, our fiscal situation is very different. We
face a demographic tidal wave. It's not going to go away; it's
right on the horizon. Tough choices are going to have to get
made.
Now, intellectually, I would say that, understanding that,
the primary responsibility ought to be on the executive branch
agencies after the law is enacted. They need to be given more
guidance of what Congress expects, but the primary
responsibility has been the executive agency. OMB has an
important role to play to second-guess whether or not the
agencies are doing what they should have been doing in linking
resources because the President has to hold them accountable
and has to propose budgets.
Congress has to do a lot more in this area because
candidly, right now there is little evidence that Congress has
any meaningful way to link resources to results--you know, to
date. But, intellectually, it's a non-partisan issue to be able
to say ``We have spent a lot of money on this, we've given a
lot of authorities. How are they doing?'' I mean, is it
working? Is it not working?
And to get the facts, reasonable people can differ on those
facts, but you got have have the facts before you can have an
honest intellectual argument. But tough choices are going to
have to be made by this Congress and by more than just this
committee. And this can be a valuable tool, a valuable
mechanism, to make it on a more timely and on a more informed
basis.
Mr. Platts. Ms. McGinnis.
Ms. McGinnis. Congressman, I do think that there should be
a more explicit and permanent connection between the use of
performance information, not only performance information, but
the results of rigorous evaluation of program approaches; a
more explicit connection between that and program design, which
is done largely through the authorization process in Congress,
the funding of programs by the appropriators and the management
of programs in the executive branch. Changing the GPRA statute
could contribute to that, but as I suggested in my testimony, I
think it may require some rule changes in the Congress, in the
way the appropriations and authorizations legislation are
developed.
Let me just add that there is a difference between
performance information and the results of rigorous evaluation,
and let me see if I can give an example of that, because I
think the PART is very effective in putting the focus on the
generation of information about performance and using it in
budgeting. But if you're looking at a program--adult literacy
is the one that Clay Johnson mentioned--if you look at the
performance information, you'll see that this program is not
producing the intended results.
If you also invest in some long-term evaluation of
different approaches with a control group you can begin to see
what approaches under the label of ``adult literacy'' actually
work. So we need both, and the fact of the matter is, in
addition to making that connection more permanent and more
explicit, we need a larger investment in evaluation. I mean,
even in the PART process, if you look at it closely, you'll see
that the data doesn't exist in a lot of cases where you can't
assess performance, given what we have now. So that's another
issue that needs to be taken up.
Mr. Platts. It certainly sounds like, with agreement on
PART and the benefit and the direction you're heading--but
perhaps we're premature--as to whether we should codify PART in
GPRA; and the sense of this being, first, 20 percent and how
we're actually going to use PART because of the--maybe the
concern that GPRA is a paperwork exercise. But we're not really
using GPRA as effectively, you know, today as we could be, and
perhaps our focus should be really about getting more into
where GPRA allows us to go and not necessarily move forward
with just creating a new law that makes it look like we're
creating a new law, but really not using the tools we have.
Mr. Walker, do you have a thought?
Mr. Walker. You may not have been here when I spoke before.
Other than this committee and Senate Governmental Affairs,
there is not much activity in using the information that's
already there. The executive branch is on the case. Some
agencies are doing better than others. The administration is
taking this very seriously.
The real work that needs to be done, quite frankly, is the
Congress has to come up the curve. The Congress has a long way
to go in coming up on this issue, and this is a nonpartisan
issue. It really doesn't make a difference what party's in
charge.
Chairman Tom Davis. If you'll yield just 1 second, that's a
pretty brave statement for a man who reports to Congress and
not the administration, but----
Mr. Armey. And if I may, I'd like to second that, and I'd
like to again----
Chairman Tom Davis. Since you don't have to run for leader
anymore, you can say whatever you want.
Mr. Armey. I can.
But if I may go back, this legislation was created in 1993
with a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President. There is
no partisan purpose here, and it is something--we ought to be
able to put partisanship aside. If the goals and objectives of
legislation are heartfelt and precious, like Head Start, all
the more reason Congress would take on the responsibilities of
seeing to it that we get every bit of value for our dollar
commitment to that program and all the more remiss we are if we
do not do the appropriate oversight.
Mr. Platts. But I think you captured what Mr. Walker was
talking about when we created a new program, and I think it
goes hand in hand with reauthorizing existing programs. And I
forget the gentleman from New Zealand, Mr. McKee, that we had
before our subcommittee and he talked from his own experience,
you know, in legislative work in New Zealand, and he asked
those questions. He has a list of questions that he goes
through and whether you should even begin a program.
And I think so often what our focus is, whether it's Head
Start and preschool or early ed issues, whether it's literacy,
our focus here in Congress becomes the program instead of the
service we're trying to provide, and that gets to his comments
and, Mr. Walker, yours today, that the focus is--we can agree
with what we want to do, using Head Start, needy children who
are not getting the benefits; that we're going to make sure
they're the best citizens they can be, whether it be reading,
whether it be other social service needs.
But our focus is on that preliminary existence as opposed
to, ``Is there a better way.'' Maybe there isn't, but we need
to focus on how to make that program better.
You're right. I think Congress is, in my short time here,
coming on 3 years, our focus is on the existing programs, not
is there a better way, but what to do with this program.
I do have a followup, Ms. McGinnis, on your suggestion
regarding, perhaps, rule changes in Congress. Is one that you
envision--and my appropriating friends will cringe when I make
this suggestion, if this is what you meant by that was the
example of unauthorized appropriations, so that something
that's not worked its way through the authorizing committee and
through the process just gets right into the appropriations
bill and is funding something that's really not had the
additional scrutiny. Is that the type of rule change you
envision?
Ms. McGinnis. Actually, that's not one I addressed,
although that's an important issue.
What I had suggested was that every appropriation act have
to set out the specific use of goals and performance data in
coming up with the funding, and identify gaps in that data, so
that you basically are changing the practice of using
performance information in making funding decisions and
explaining how it's been used.
Same thing with authorizers in the design of programs, but
having this process be more connected to actual results and the
promise of results is really, I think, a theme that we're all
hitting on, and it really gets to the accountability and lack
of trust of the American people in their government
fundamentally.
Mr. Platts. I have some followup, Mr. Chairman, but I yield
back.
Chairman Tom Davis. Go ahead, Mr. Johnson. You can go
ahead.
Mr. Platts. Sure.
Mr. Johnson. Just one comment. Do we need a bill or do we
need something to codify? I don't think we need any bills or
legislation to institutionalize any of this yet. We're in only
the second year of evaluating specific programs, so we're in
the first year of following up on the ``so-what'' of it. If
this program doesn't work, what do we do about it.
It strikes me that the responsibility should be in the
executive branch to take performance information we have now
from the 40 percent of the programs that have been evaluated
and use that information to inform our recommendations to
Congress, budget recommendations.
The responsibility should be ours to make that and to base
as many of our decisions, as many of our recommendations as
possible, based on whether the program works or not; and there
are other political considerations and opportunities and so
forth, but make sure we are referencing performance information
at every turn. It would then pass to Congress to actually pay
attention to it.
A lot of what we hear now is, don't even bother to send us
that performance information or send it to us in a separate
document if you want, if you need to.
Somehow, again, Congress or the executive branch--very
brave of David to make these comments about Congress, better he
than I, but Congress has to, one, be willing to pay attention
to that; and there's no automatic if this is the performance,
this is the assessment we automatically do that. There is no
automatic anything; it is an indicator that they have to be
open to at least consider the potential relevance of
performance information, and they are not now so, if we do our
part, then Congress needs to be challenged to do their part.
Mr. Platts. Mr. Johnson, that kind of leads me to my next
question, which is the relationship and how the interactions
occur between OMB and the agencies regarding the program
evaluations and taking the first 20 percent where we had just--
over 50 percent saying the result's not demonstrated. I mean,
it wasn't a good picture. So with those 100 and/or, I guess,
234 programs specifically, what is the OMB doing in response to
that information now, going into the next year, and how is that
refining perhaps your next 20 percent at each stage?
Mr. Johnson. For the programs for which there are--it's not
clear. Some of these things are very hard to measure, and it
never dawned on anybody when these programs were created
whether they would work or not, so--how you measure things
like, ``are we doing a good job of managing the drug situation
in the United States or adult literacy''--so we're looking for
spending more time paying attention to how do you measure
performance, how do you measure success. And then we're paying
attention to the quality and aggressiveness on followup, on the
recommended next steps that came out of that. So we're in the
first year of that followup, and we're working with agencies to
make sure there is a process in place with these agencies.
We've invested the time to assess whether the program works
or not. We decided that the recommended course of action and a
lot of our assessment is to change this, to combine it with
that, to drop this, to more funding, less funding, to look for
better performance measures. All right, that was 12 months ago.
Where are we? What is the quality and the aggressiveness of the
followup? Who is responsible for it, and so forth? And we're in
the process now of trying to establish those processes with the
agencies.
We also have learned more about the quality of the
assessment. We've gone back and analyzed past PART ratings and
determined that there is some inconsistency with some of the
ratings, and so we're trying to make OMB examiners and the
people in the agencies better at more uniformly and
consistently evaluating these programs. So we're trying to make
sure the quality assessment is better, and we're trying to make
sure the quality and the aggressiveness of the followup is
there, because if there is no ``so-what,'' if there is no
aggressive and high-quality followup by Congress and by us,
this is a waste of time.
Mr. Platts. Absolutely, and that's certainly what we don't
want, that we spend even more money and more time and don't get
any results from that oversight responsibility; and it's a
problem that we're trying to prevent in the first place.
What with the each stage coming, you know, the next round,
the 20 percent over 5 years, are the agencies--and I may have
asked this in one of our previous subcommittee hearings; I
don't remember if I did, and I don't believe it was a clear
answer, the ones that were in the last round, 5th year or 4th
year--are they being told today, you know, you're 3 years out
or 4 years out?
Mr. Johnson. Why wait?
Mr. Platts. Right, why wait. And so we don't have 50
percent so that you can't really assess the results, so they do
have, you know, more time to be ready for that assessment, so
we shouldn't have 50.4 percent in that fifth round.
Where is that process?
Mr. Johnson. It's a very good point. I don't think we are
formally suggesting that agencies do that. I have met with the
leadership of governmental agencies, and I have heard
individual agencies say, ``We're not waiting. We know that our
program is in that fifth prong, and we're not waiting. We're
going through sort of an informal PART assessment to see where
we are, and when we finally do go through this formally, we'll
be better prepared for that.'' But I think that's a good idea,
and I think we need to be working more formally with agencies.
Some of these, when we see 40 percent evaluating the programs,
that's not a uniform 40 percent. One agency has evaluated
programs that account for 80 percent of their spending and
others for 60 percent.
One thing we've given serious thought to is taking that
program, that agency, and completing the PART assessment of all
members in the program, so we have one or two or three agencies
that are 100 percent PARTed. All right. How do you run an
agency where you have appropriate performance information on
everything they do? How does that agency function differently?
What kind of conversations do they have, different
conversations with themselves on a weekly or a monthly basis?
What's their interaction with the Congress?
Right now, it's a little bit in between, because we've got
20 percent of the programs or 40 percent of the programs or
whatever, and so there's no one consistent approach to that. So
let's get them all across the finish line and see how they
operate so they can report, and this is what we're heading
toward.
Mr. Platts. Comprehensive cultural change?
Mr. Johnson. Right.
Mr. Platts. So that agency is operating in a better fashion
with more scrutiny on results?
Mr. Johnson. Right.
Mr. Platts. Mr. Walker is there a need for an enhanced GAO
role in evaluating the process in the actual evaluations that
are completed in a more formal fashion?
Mr. Walker. I think it's important that OMB continue to do
what it's doing, and as I said before, I think the agencies
have the primary responsibility, frankly, to make sure they are
delivering results with the resources and authorities that
they're getting. Not only the Congress should demand it, but
the taxpayers should demand it.
I do think we have to realize there is a separation of
policy issues, and while the OMB is doing it--and I commend
them for it, and they should continue to do it--I think it's
important that the legislative branch be able to use GAO to
evaluate what they're doing; and also periodically to look at
particular programs or departments or agencies, or to look at
particular functional activities that cross agencies as a
supplement, not a substitute for what the executive branch is
doing.
Mr. Platts. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
Let me just throw a final query to the panel. I think
everybody agrees it's a great concept. I think the executive
branch is probably doing a better job than the legislative
branch right now.
Are there any teeth legislatively that we could put in this
that would help the legislative branch improve our job. Or is
it just a question of leadership?
Mr. Armey. If I may?
Chairman Tom Davis. Sure, please, Mr. Armey.
Mr. Armey. I think--you know, I walk around the country and
something happens. First thing you hear is, there ought to be a
law. That's the first thing the Congressman hears, too, so he
gets busy writing a new law.
I wish somebody would stand on Main Street and say, ``There
ought to be better oversight;'' and Steve Horn is one of the
few people who actually made a place in the sun for himself. He
got recognized and appreciated for his oversight work. It's
hard work and it's not well-recognized. You're not going to see
the Washington Post down here covering oversight hearings.
I spent the first couple of years as majority leader
frustrated because even this committee could get all the press
in the world if it was wallowing around here in a scandal;
everybody was down here with their note pads and their cameras.
Well, that wasn't really, quite frankly, very productive toward
the better performance of our agencies of government in
implementing the law for the future safety and security of our
children. It was probably better theater and more entertaining,
but it was a diversion even of this committee.
Now, this committee with the current circumstances and the
current leadership has an opportunity to demonstrate to other
Members of Congress there are rewards and recognitions in
effective oversight. The fact of the matter is, as they see
that, they will be. I think virtually every authorizing
committee has an oversight subcommittee. I believe for the most
part they lie fallow because, again, we're not getting the kind
of recognition that Congressmen want to have for their
activities.
I think, you know--again, I said before--I can do my
children more good through effective oversight than I can
through writing another law, but I'm not going to get any
personal recognition for the oversight, so I go right to law.
And it may be, Mr. Chairman----
Chairman Tom Davis. Like I say, we campaign in poetry and
we govern in prose.
Mr. Armey. If I might, oversight, the business of oversight
to me needs its rock star.
Mr. Chairman, I think you can be that rock star. I think
you should do your best Bono imitation and demonstrate to the
Members of Congress that you can be successful. And I hope--I
would hope that somebody in the media would understand the
critical importance of this business, how hard the work is, and
help set an example for others that's what good government's
about, the hard rigor of oversight.
The agencies, perhaps if you take an agency and pull it all
the way through the gauntlet, it can come out on the other end
and say, hey, I ran the gauntlet and I'm a better agency for
it. It can be an encouragement to agencies. Maybe that is the
approach that should be taken. Focus on one agency and say,
we're going to give you the opportunity of a lifetime. You're
going to be the first, best example of success to shine in
front of the other agencies.
Chairman Tom Davis. We need a volunteer. I saw them running
for corners.
Mr. Armey. May I say what may be my final words? Thank you
for this, the work of this committee. Those of you who govern
this committee, stay on this committee, assume positions of
leadership for this committee and do the work seriously, I
think, can be an example before your colleagues.
Each and every committee of Congress can perform an
important oversight process and all should be encouraged to do
so. I can think of no quicker, more effective source of that
encouragement than your committee's success, so I wish you all
the success in the world.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
Anyone else? Mr. Walker.
Mr. Walker. A few quick comments: First, to reinforce,
we're on a burning platform, figuratively not literally. The
status quo's unacceptable, unsustainable.
Tough choices are going to have to be made. To make those
tough choices, one of the things that's going to have to happen
is, Congress is going to have to be more engaged through
oversight, authorization and appropriations activities.
Like anything, you need a few champions. You don't need
many; you need a few. You will now--even if you have a couple
on each side of the aisle, if it's important enough, that can
get the job done. In fact, I was assistant secretary of labor
for--during the Reagan administration and early Bush for the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act. There were two
Democrats and two Republicans; you know, one Republican, one
Democrat in the House, one Republican, one Democrat in the
Senate, who labored for several years to get that passed.
It got done. It had a tremendous impact on tens of millions
of Americans, our economy, etc.
This committee and Senate Governmental Affairs are the ones
to get it done. I think the fact of the matter is that this
committee and Senate Governmental Affairs also have a strategic
ally on this important nonpartisan issue, and that's GAO. We
are a strategic asset to this committee, to the Congress and
the country and we look forward to doing our part.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
Ms. McGinnis. I have a suggestion. Clearly, you can't
legislate leadership and you can't legislate culture change,
but it occurs to me that the potential champions--and some of
them, right now, might be resistors in the leadership of the
Appropriations Committee. And some of the major authorization
and tax committees should come together, perhaps in a very
bipartisan way, House and Senate--there are some key people in
the executive branch--and really have this conversation about
performance and results and accountability to the public for a
return on the tax investment. Because, you know, the Council
for Excellence in Government, among many other things,
organizes the bipartisan House retreat; and it strikes me,
bringing together a much smaller group around an issue as
significant as this in that kind of an honest conversation
could be very constructive to build some interest in ownership
that might lead to both changes in practice, changes in rules
and changes in legislation.
Chairman Tom Davis. OK. Thank you.
Ms. McGinnis. And we would be delighted to work with you on
that----
Chairman Tom Davis. OK.
Ms. McGinnis [continuing]. If you're interested.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
Well, let me thank this panel. I think we had a great
discussion today.
I'd say we have some great ideas for legislation, but I
think, Mr. Armey, you know, we have great opportunities for
oversight, so I will emphasize that, take this back. Actually,
we may have a couple pieces of legislation come out of this.
This has been very, very helpful to us, and although we had a
small panel, members who have fled the jurisdiction with the
coming hurricane, I think it allowed for a sustained
discussion, something we don't often get in these hearings.
This will obviously be shared with other members, and Mr.
Platts' subcommittee will hold further hearings on this; and
basically he's employed to further any additional legislative
changes and recommendations, so we'll see some of you there.
Mr. Walker.
Mr. Walker. Real quickly for the record, Mr. Chairman: As
you know, this committee and, I believe, it's Senate
Governmental Affairs, have asked us to do a comprehensive
assessment of GPRA on the 10-year anniversary.
We're going to be issuing a report next month----
Chairman Tom Davis. Excellent.
Mr. Walker [continuing]. On this and it will have a number
of recommendations.
We look forward to following up on that.
Chairman Tom Davis. Excellent.
Mr. Johnson. I'd encourage you to tone down some of that
talk about Congress.
Mr. Walker. Well, I'll do that.
Chairman Tom Davis. Well, I saw Mr. Walker gave the
executive branch a B or better. I didn't ask him to rate the
legislative branch.
I understand where his job comes from and where he's
reporting from, but we get the message, and we appreciate very
much everyone's comments today. I think they've added greatly
to the discussion.
And we'll adjourn the hearing. Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 11:44 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[The prepared statement of Hon. Henry A. Waxman follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 90481.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 90481.051
-