<DOC> [107th Congress House Hearings] [From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access] [DOCID: f:73837.wais] SEVEN YEARS OF GPRA: HAS THE RESULTS ACT PROVIDED RESULTS? ======================================================================= HEARING before the SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, INFORMATION, AND TECHNOLOGY of the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ JULY 20, 2000 __________ Serial No. 106-245 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform ______ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 73-837 DTP WASHINGTON : 2001 For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone (202) 512ÿ091800 Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001 Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house http://www.house.gov/reform _______________________________________________________________________ For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001 COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York HENRY A. WAXMAN, California CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland TOM LANTOS, California CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virginia ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York STEPHEN HORN, California PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania JOHN L. MICA, Florida PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York DAVID M. McINTOSH, Indiana ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington, MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana DC JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio Carolina ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois BOB BARR, Georgia DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois DAN MILLER, Florida JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas JIM TURNER, Texas LEE TERRY, Nebraska THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee GREG WALDEN, Oregon JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois DOUG OSE, California ------ PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont HELEN CHENOWETH-HAGE, Idaho (Independent) DAVID VITTER, Louisiana Kevin Binger, Staff Director Daniel R. Moll, Deputy Staff Director James C. Wilson, Chief Counsel Robert A. Briggs, Clerk Phil Schiliro, Minority Staff Director ------ Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology STEPHEN HORN, California, Chairman JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois JIM TURNER, Texas THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania GREG WALDEN, Oregon MAJOR R. OWENS, New York DOUG OSE, California PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York Ex Officio DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California J. Russell George, Staff Director and Chief Counsel Robert Alloway, Professional Staff Member Bryan Sisk, Clerk Mark Stephenson, Minority Professional Staff Member C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Hearing held on July 20, 2000.................................... 1 Statement of: Armey, Hon. Richard K., a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and Majority Leader, U.S. House of Representatives; and Hon. Pete Sessions, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas and chairman, House Results Caucus............................................. 7 Gotbaum, Joshua, Executive Associate Director and Controller and Acting Deputy Director for Management, Office of Management and Budget; Christopher Mihm, Associate Director, Federal Management and Workforce Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office; Maurice McTigue, distinguished visiting scholar, Mercatus Institute, George Mason University; and Ellen Taylor, policy analyst, OMB Watch.... 22 Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by: Armey, Hon. Richard K., a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and Majority Leader, U.S. House of Representatives, prepared statement of..................... 10 Gotbaum, Joshua, Executive Associate Director and Controller and Acting Deputy Director for Management, Office of Management and Budget, prepared statement of............... 25 Horn, Hon. Stephen, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, prepared statement of................. 3 McTigue, Maurice, distinguished visiting scholar, Mercatus Institute, George Mason University, prepared statement of.. 51 Mihm, Christopher, Associate Director, Federal Management and Workforce Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office, prepared statement of............................................... 34 Sessions, Hon. Pete, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas and chairman, House Results Caucus, prepared statement of............................................... 17 Taylor, Ellen, policy analyst, OMB Watch, prepared statement of......................................................... 104 Turner, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, prepared statement of............................ 6 SEVEN YEARS OF GPRA: HAS THE RESULTS ACT PROVIDED RESULTS? ---------- THURSDAY, JULY 20, 2000 House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology, Committee on Government Reform, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Stephen Horn (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Horn, Turner, and Maloney. Staff present: J. Russell George, staff director and chief counsel; Earl Pierce, professional staff member; Bonnie Heald, director of communications; Bryan Sisk, clerk; Elizabeth Seong, staff assistant; Will Ackerly and Davidson Hulfish, interns; Trey Henderson, minority counsel; and Jean Gosa, minority clerk. Mr. Horn. We are here today to examine the implementation of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993. This is a very important process. The act was designed to evaluate whether Federal agencies and programs are accomplishing their missions. Once the law has been successfully implemented, the American people will be able to ask and receive an accurate answer to the question, what are we getting for our money? The Results Act encourages efficiency and accountability in government spending by requiring agencies to justify how they spend their portion of the Government's $1.8 trillion budget. The law requires agencies to set goals and use performance measures for their management and budgeting. In a 1997 hearing before this subcommittee, Christopher Mihm of the General Accounting Office testified that implementation of the act varied among executive branch agencies in quality, utility and responsiveness to the law. In 1999, the General Accounting Office found that only 14 of 35 agencies defined some type of relationship between the program activities on their proposed budgets and the performance goals cited in their plans. Yet, few of the 14 agencies explained how they would use their funding to achieve these goals. Clearly, agencies have made progress in linking program planning with their budget requests. Yet, much work remains before Congress can use this performance information as a significant tool in the budget allocation process. Nevertheless, once the Results Act has been successfully implemented, it will help us achieve a more efficient, effective and responsive government. [The prepared statement of Hon. Stephen Horn follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.002 Mr. Horn. We are honored to have as our lead witnesses, the Majority Leader of the House, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Armey, and the chairman of the House Results Caucus headed by the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Sessions. We welcome all of our witnesses today and we look forward to their testimony. You know the routine here, my friend, and the full statement goes into the record automatically when you are introduced, resume and all. In a minute, I am going to yield to another gentleman from Texas. This seems to be a Texas day here. I hope the Texas Society is out here somewhere. Mr. Sessions. Let us hope the rest of the year continues that way, Mr. Chairman. [Laughter.] Mr. Horn. I agree with you. That is how it works and in the meantime, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Turner, our ranking member, will have his opening statement. Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Being from California, you certainly defer to Texas. We appreciate it. This March, for the first time under the Results Act, agencies Governmentwide were required to report on their results in achieving their goals. I think we all agree that this bipartisan legislation we call the Results Act has been an effective tool for enhancing government performance and efficiency. Its intent is to fundamentally shift the focus of our Federal Government and to be sure that we move from a preoccupation with staffing and activity levels to a focus on outcomes in Federal programs. Outcomes are the results expressed in terms of real differences in Federal programs and the impact those programs make in peoples' lives such as increase in real wages earned by graduates of an unemployment training program, or a reduction in fatality and injury rates in workplaces or on our highways. Congress and its committees can and have been involved in the Results Act at all stages. Committees have a means to develop and amend the strategic plans as well as the annual performance plans. Agency officials have said that evidence of real involvement and interest on the part of congressional committees in using performance goals and information to help in congressional decisionmaking would help to build and sustain support for the Results Act within the agencies. As a result, as Members of Congress, we have an obligation to work with all of the executive branch's agencies to be sure GPRA is the tool that improves the efficiency of the Federal Government. I believe that a strong and sustained congressional attention to GPRA is needed to ensure the success of the act and I know that goal is shared by Chairman Horn. I commend the chairman as well as my colleagues from Texas for their strong support of this very critical effort on the part of this Congress. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [The prepared statement of Hon. Jim Turner follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.003 Mr. Horn. I thank the gentleman. Now we have the ``el tremendo'' gentleman from Texas. We are delighted to have the Majority Leader here. He has been a backer of the results-oriented approach from day 1. We are pleased to have him here. We will have a few questions for him but I know he has a busy day. The gentleman from Texas, the Majority Leader, Mr. Armey. STATEMENTS OF HON. RICHARD K. ARMEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS, AND MAJORITY LEADER, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES; AND HON. PETE SESSIONS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS AND CHAIRMAN, HOUSE RESULTS CAUCUS Mr. Armey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me first appreciate the work that your committee has done. I think as much as any committee in Congress, this subcommittee and this committee has led our efforts under the Results Act. The Results Act, as you know, was passed in 1993 and it was designed to bring accountability and performance in government agencies to the American people. Every one of us, as a Member of Congress, will get testimony from back home in that area of our work which we most often refer to as case work about the extent to which the agencies are providing the services in the lives of our constituents, the American people, who pay for these agencies, and by whose authority the agencies exist. All too often we find ourselves frustrated along with our constituents in the agency not performing. This has been, I think, a particularly heart warming experience for me to be able to be involved in the Results Act. The Results Act basically says to every agency, have a clear understanding of what you are doing, be able to express that to us, tell us what your mission is and give us some evidence of your ability to achieve the results you desire. We give the agency a great deal of latitude there. If we have a quarrel with what they believe and express to be their mission, we can take that up legislatively, but the fundamental question is, do you in fact have an ability to demonstrate that you are getting results, even as you define your mission? We have encouraged this. I have to tell you, to a large extent, what we did when we passed the Results Act was ask the agencies to conform to a new regime of accountability. I, for one, was more than willing to be patient and encouraging. I have always argued that for any of us in any occupation of our life, adaptation to change the adoption and the performance under new regimes are always something we must have some time and encouragement in doing, and we have done that. What you have seen happening simultaneously over the past couple of years is congressional oversight that has been designed to in fact encourage greater performance--your scorecards being very important in that regard--and at the same time, for us to give a very strong view of the results that are there. I think, quite frankly, this Congress has been encouraging and it has been diligent in oversight. You have seen the oversight extension go to other committees across Congress and more committees have taken up the understanding of the implementation of their role in oversight in this regard. I have to tell you, Mr. Chairman, despite all the time and effort that we have spent being encouraging in this manner, I have come to a moment of some disappointment. Our latest evaluations of performance are frankly disappointing to me. Every agency in the Federal Government has had a chance to travel that learning curve and frankly, should be doing better, each and every one of them. I think we need to appreciate the performance of the General Accounting Office. They worked very hard on this, they have taken it seriously and they have been very supportive again, both to the committee and to the agencies, but we have had independent reviews that have supported their own analysis from George Mason University and other reviewers across the country that it just isn't working well enough for the American people. I think what we need to do today perhaps is start to just step it up another level. My friend, Pete Sessions, came to me early on when we began talking about Results Act and said, I would like to form a Results Caucus. He and his caucus have been very active in that and we will hear from Pete in a moment. While I don't think we should ever be a singularly discouraging voice out there, I think while we continue our encouragement, we must at this point be a little demanding. Finally, let me say two final points. One, I have taken that initiative a little bit with something that perhaps you have seen the ``waste-o-meter.'' We try to keep a better track of this, try to publicize the results and try to arm our budgeteers and appropriators with real information should it become necessary as we try to implement an overall, rigorous budget process, fighting against demands for new, more spending, to document that spending is not necessarily justifiable given the levels of waste we have uncovered from the committees reporting today and the reports we have had, and the fine work of GAO, some $16 billion uncovered already this year, that we have talked about. Finally, if I might chafe a little under the bit, at or about the time we created the Results Act, the Vice President of the United States, Al Gore, was billed as the administration's leader in this effort in what he called the whole effort to reinvent government. I know there was a great deal of public relations there but the fact of the matter is that the Results Act and any efforts to reinvent government, enforce accountability in Government lay fallow until this congressional majority took over in 1995. Therefore, it irritates me a little bit when constituents come into my office with severe disappointments, sometimes heartbreaking disappointments about agencies that just aren't performing as they should be for them. People come to my office here, people sometimes with multibillion dollar private agreements that are being held up by some agency that just won't make a decision. We don't necessarily sit in Congress and say to the agency, you should make this or that decision but I think we have a responsibility to say, make a decision--a disservice to the people by virtue of agencies not performing. To have the Vice President criticize this Congress that has tried through all our oversight efforts in so many ways to encourage this better service, refer to us as a do nothing for the people Congress, I must say gets under my skin a little bit. I have to say, where were you, Mr. Vice President, after all the publicity waned over reinventing government; where were you when it came time to dig in as committee after committee has done here and implement the rigor, maintain the oversight and continue the encouragement and at times, if necessary, express some anger? We have done that. Your committee has done that. As I said, other committees have done that and the fact of the matter is, we are getting improvement, but it is not coming fast enough. You will hear further testimony today about that. I guess my parting word would be, let us not only continue but continue to expand our effort across the Congress to implement this because the goal is worthy. The objectives of the Results Act are laudable. We have said to the American people, we are determined to not only make it clear in every agency of this government, a shared understanding of what your mission is, what your duty is to the American people, but to give one another encouragement, prodding and at times, if necessary, criticism in seeing to it that the American people get the services they deserve from the agencies created by this Congress on their behalf. Let me again thank you for letting me be here this morning. Let me again encourage you to continue your fine work and I express my firm belief that as we continue in understanding and implementing GPRA, we will make this government a government that is a better service in the lives of its constituents and that is what this government has an obligation to be. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Hon. Dick Armey follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.007 Mr. Horn. We thank you. Those are very worthwhile bits of wisdom. By the way, when we did take over this committee in 1995, we did offer an invitation to the Vice President on several occasions and we told him it wasn't one where we were going to crab a lot about it, we just thought he was trying to do a good job and we will give you a forum. We wouldn't even get that. Let me ask you on this serious business. I have a feeling, and I did say it once either in the retreat or in the conference but nobody listens to humble subcommittee chairs but they will listen to you. I think under your leadership, if we can get the chairs of the full authorization committees, the chairs of the Subcommittees on Appropriations, and get their political counterparts--Presidential nominees, be it Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Assistant Secretary--in the same place around a table and say, we have read through what some of your goals are, show me where in the law this is based. I just think we have to get a dialog of principals, not just a dialog of staff. With all due respect to the wonderful staff around here, the fact is, they are not elected and the executive branch at least has the imprimatur of the President's nomination and the confirmation of the Senate. I think that closure has not been very good. Mr. Armey. I appreciate that point. I couldn't agree with you more. It has to be a full partnership. This is a big government. Any big enterprise like this, it is easy for people to lay down on the job and let it be overlooked or to have confusions about what their jobs are and let that not be clearly understood. It does take a partnership effort I think between the House, the Senate and the executive branch to make something that is frankly this bold and large--imagine this. If you went before any college class in America and said, my job is to make sure the Federal Government, as large as it is, never misses a beat in serving to the best of its ability, the needs of the American people, you would astound people with just how enormous that task is. No small group of people can do that. We must all work on it together. That is why I have tried to use the authorities of my office to encourage that and I think your point is well taken. We have to do a better job all the way around. Mr. Horn. I thank you and I know you have other things to do but if you want to stay and listen to Mr. Sessions, fine. We would welcome you. Does the gentleman from Texas have any questions for the Majority Leader? Mr. Turner. No. Mr. Sessions. Majority Leader, are you going to stay or stick around? Mr. Armey. I might stay a little bit because I am so proud of you. If I may, Mr. Chairman, my good colleague just got a clean bill of health from Baylor University and they said he was good looking too, so I am going to stay. Mr. Sessions. It is true, I went in for a little bit of day surgery and everything turned out all right. I thank my good friend, the Majority Leader. Mr. Sessions. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for asking me to be here today. I would also like to give the same accolades to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Turner. He and I have numerous conversations, as you and I do, Mr. Chairman, and I have found that Mr. Turner is not only focused on government efficiency, but that his answer to the problems is right in line with the things you and I are attempting to accomplish. I would like to applaud the gentleman for his leadership and work on that also. I thank Mr. Turner for that. As you know, the Results Caucus is interested in giving this government every single dollar it needs but not a penny more. Today, you are hearing testimony from Majority Leader Armey from Texas talk about his observations as the father and leader of the GPRA and other things that have come through this Congress that would empower and give stature to government agencies to be able to resolve their own problems. Mr. Armey and I have, for quite some time, decided that there is a time and a process that would allow this government the opportunity to see that a process that would encourage efficiency was important. We have also decided that we were not going to become frustrated, that we were going to work with agencies, work with GAO, work toward resolution of problems. The fact of the matter is that I believe the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Armey and I concur. It seems like the government has had time to work through these problems and they have not made as much progress as either one of us would have wanted. The Results Act, as you know, was a challenge for agency directors and those managers of the government to run their agencies more efficiently. It was created as a challenge, as an opportunity for them to focus on the near term needs of the government by them establishing those goals and directions they would like to go into. The fact of the matter is that as technology and time has played its course, many Federal programs are still dramatically underperforming, inefficient and have become functionally obsolete. This government and its managers have not even recognized those changes and taken hold of that. I believe that the Results Act, which was designed to address those problems as well as to functionally require that the Government managers would be attuned to those changes has not worked. I have not seen agencies using the Results Act as a helpful management tool. I will repeat, I have not seen the agencies use the Results Act as a helpful management tool which it was completely designed for. The performance plans the agencies produce are often still too broad, they are attempting to solve every agency problem with a large stroke of a brush rather than specifically focusing on a structured performance plan to focus or to move toward reform by addressing those immediate problems that face their agency. I continue to have, as Majority Leader Armey and both you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Turner, regular talks with agencies about their performance, regular talks with agencies about how they perform their job. I will tell you that the feedback I hear is that the managers of the government see the Results Act as cumbersome and yet just another hoop to jump through. I am disappointed. I am disappointed because I do not believe that the agencies have looked at what this is all about. I don't believe they have worked hard enough to make it work and I further do not believe that they view it as a value added process. We will continue to focus on the job of oversight. Mr. Armey and I will continue not to be frustrated, but I will tell you, Mr. Chairman, we will not yield back to believing that the Government, regardless of how big it is, should not be efficient. We believe a government or an organization, even the smallest in this Government, should become efficient and should do what its mandate is laid out to be. Last, I would say this. While I have said we are not going to be frustrated, you can anticipate and expect that the Majority Leader and the Results Caucus led by me will continue to speak out on the issues where we see problems. We do appreciate what this committee is doing as well as the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Burton, and the whole committee, and we want to continue working with you. Today, you are going to hear from people who have specific examples, ideas about how we can make it better, and I encourage this committee to address that in the way they choose. We will continue to be a value added partner. I thank you for the opportunity to be here. Last, I would say this, and ask unanimous consent to say this, I have a professor to my right, Dr. Armey; I also have a professor from my university, Dr. Weldon Crowley, who is here. Dr. Crowley was my history professor. So many times we talk about learning things in fifth grade, how government works and playing them out here. In this case, it was at Southwestern University as a young student where my professor, Dr. Weldon Crowley, a man who is very distinguished in what he does, to teach me the ways of government and here we are playing them out today with the Majority Leader and this esteemed committee. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. [The prepared statement of Hon. Pete Sessions follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.090 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.091 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.092 Mr. Horn. We thank you and we welcome you to the chamber here. I know it must have been tremendous to get all that knowledge in his head and maybe you should be a distinguished trustee professor for life as a result of that. [Laughter.] We thank the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Sessions. He has done a terrific job with the Results Caucus. We will be putting out our dear colleague bit which I hope will help you based on the General Accounting Office, as to where the waste is in a lot of agencies which we have done about every 6 months or so. Thank you both for coming. Unless Mr. Turner has some questions, you have heard mine and I thank you very much. We will have now panel two, the Honorable Joshua Gotbaum, Christopher Mihm, Maurice McTigue and Ellen Taylor. [Witnesses sworn.] Mr. Horn. The clerk will note the four witnesses have affirmed the oath. We will begin with the Honorable Joshua Gotbaum, Executive Associate Director and Controller, and Acting Deputy Director for Management, Office of Management and Budget. I think you have appeared three times or so this last month. We thank you. STATEMENTS OF JOSHUA GOTBAUM, EXECUTIVE ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR AND CONTROLLER AND ACTING DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR MANAGEMENT, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET; CHRISTOPHER MIHM, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, FEDERAL MANAGEMENT AND WORKFORCE ISSUES, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE; MAURICE MCTIGUE, DISTINGUISHED VISITING SCHOLAR, MERCATUS INSTITUTE, GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY; AND ELLEN TAYLOR, POLICY ANALYST, OMB WATCH Mr. Gotbaum. Yes, Mr. Chairman, but since each of them is something that is quite important to the business of government, I am actually grateful. Mr. Horn. You know the routine which is your paper is already in the hearing record. We would like a summary of it and you don't have to read it because we have read it. Mr. Gotbaum. I appreciate that. I would note that I am joined this morning by a number of folks from OMB staff, including Jimmy Charney, Texas A&M, 1996, who wanted me to make sure you knew that Mr. Turner's colleague was an alumnus of his. I don't want to spend a lot of time in this committee talking about the importance of GPRA because I think it is crystal clear that this committee recognizes it is important. I think it is important to affirm that the administration does too and that as this committee knows, each year we put out a set of priority management objectives. For the last several years, performance measurement has been PMO 2 because Y2K was PMO 1. This year performance management, using performance data, is PMO 1. The story of our implementing this law, which was passed with bipartisan support and which we strongly endorse, is I think a story of real effort and some real success and a long way to go. I think we should be honest about that. I have listed in my testimony the fact that 100 Federal agencies have turned out strategic plans and performance plans and performance reports and this year, for the first time, they all turned out performance reports and we think this is a very important milestone. What I would like to do is talk about the risks that we face--how we go from here--and what the challenges are. I am happy to talk in questioning about what individual agencies have done. We are still learning what the right measures are. This is a difficult task, something the Government hadn't done before, particularly systematically and certainly not with the force of law. GPRA is not a one size fits all business. What we find is that as agencies develop their measures, and try to implement them, there is a trial and error process. That necessarily involves error and it involves allowing people to learn from their mistakes. Let me list one of my personal favorites which is the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. OSHA wanted to implement the law, so they said, we are going to measure and keep track of the number of inspections we do. Then they realized that this was an intermediate measure, a measure of their effort but not a result. They said, we are really in the business of workplace safety, so maybe we should be tracking and measuring and sending our troops based on where the workplaces are safe or not safe. They reformed the way they did business. This had a couple of powerful effects. One, it enabled them to be more effective in their job, and two, it enabled the businesses they regulate to understand what the right goals were. I mention this because I think it is very important as we implement GPRA and as you provide oversight to both encourage these guys to do it and allow them to make mistakes and encourage them to correct and improve the results. We need both outcome and output measures. There are some who say that agencies should only be measured by how they are doing in reducing poverty or improving the quality of housing, or reducing unemployment rate. We agree that agencies should be measured by that but it would be a mistake to throw out all measures of output because it matters to the Government, it matters to the citizens, and I believe it matters to the Congress how efficiently agencies do things. So while I think it is very important that we keep track of measures of unemployment and how they change as a result of job training programs, if we can figure that, it is equally important that we tell the Social Security Administration that they ought to watch how long it takes for them to answer the telephone. The real challenge of GPRA is moving beyond report writing. It is in taking performance information and using it in program management and budgeting. There are people who argue that we should measure the success of our implementation of GPRA by the clarity of reports or the validity of the data used. I must strenuously disagree. They matter but those are output measures. Those are not outcome measures. The outcome that we are trying to get is to have performance information used routinely by agencies to measure how they manage their programs and by OMB and you in how you review their programs and their budgets. This is hard stuff because it means you have to pick the right measures, you have to put them out there and get agreement on them, you have to put them in your management systems and then you have to use them, but we are beginning. In budgeting, we have always used and looked for, performance information. What GPRA has done is added the force of law to that requirement and as a result, we are increasingly using performance information in budget decisions. I have listed some examples in my testimony. OMB strongly supports this. We are using it. We too are learning how to incorporate performance information into the budgeting process. We started by giving guidance on plans and then when we got the plans saying how do you incorporate this into budget decisions? We then said to the agencies, send us performance information with your budget plans. We started using it internally. This year we moved a step ahead: We said to the agencies, send us your performance plan as part of your budget submission. What we were trying to do was ask the agencies to integrate performance measures and budgeting so that we can do a better job. As a result, we hope you will agree they will do a better job. We have a very long way to go. We have a long way to go in improving the measures we use, a long way to go in integrating them into management and budget, and we have a long way to go in realigning budgets, programs and organizations as a result of those reviews, but we are, I hope the committee recognizes, beginning. This leads me to my last point, which is the role of Congress. We are enormously grateful for the attention that this committee and this Congress places on the Government Performance and Results Act. We think it is essential that you review progress and hold everybody's feet to the fire. I view this as an issue of combining patience and pressure. One of the things for which we are grateful is that the Congress has recognized this is a trial and error process. We have to keep working at it. I was enormously gratified at the statements by Congressman Sessions and Mr. Armey because they recognize this takes time. But you have to hold our feet to the fire. That is really my last request, which is that you continue to do so. Hearings like this one, every time you hold one, send a message. Your suggestion, Mr. Chairman, of combining forces with appropriations and authorizing committees would make the message even clearer. We hope it is something the Congress will take to heart. In closing, all I will say is, however you choose to do it, we are committed to working with you, to delivering on the promise of performance, and as a result, to deliver the quality of government the American people deserve. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Gotbaum follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.016 Mr. Horn. Thank you. That is a very optimistic view and I am glad to hear it. Now we go back to a regular also here and that is Christopher Mihm, Associate Director, Federal Management and Workforce Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office, part of the legislative branch. Mr. Mihm. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Turner. Once again, it is an honor and a pleasure to appear before you to discuss the Government Performance and Results Act. The issuance last spring of the first performance reports showing the degree to which agencies met their goals and the strategies and plans they have to meet unmet goals, along with their annual performance plans and strategic plans and the Governmentwide performance plans, represents a new and potentially more substantive phase of GPRA implementation. That is, we have now completed the first full cycle of the act in its planning and reporting requirements. For GPRA to be fully useful to Congress and the executive branch, however, agencies need to make continued progress in addressing a set of five enduring challenges that we have reported on fairly consistently: first, articulating the results orientation; second, coordinating cross-cutting programs; third, showing the performance consequences of budget decisions which you highlighted in your opening statement; fourth, showing how daily operations contribute to results--one of the issues that Mr. Gotbaum raised--and fifth, building the capacity to gather and use performance information. First, in regards to adopting a results orientation, the challenge confronting agencies is to develop a clear sense of the results to be achieved as opposed to the products and services the agency produces. The lack of a comprehensive set of goals that focused on results was one of the central weaknesses that we saw when we looked at the fiscal year 1999 annual performance plans. Important progress was made over the next year and all of the fiscal year 2000 plans we looked at, the plans the agencies are operating under now, contained at least some goals and measures that addressed program results. Still, detailed in my written statement, there are plenty of opportunities for continued progress in that area. Second, coordinating cross-cutting programs: we have found that unfocused and uncoordinated cross-cutting programs waste scarce resources, confuse and frustrate taxpayers and program beneficiaries--as the Majority Leader pointed out in the casework examples he discussed--and limit overall program effectiveness. Although the fiscal year 2000 plans indicate that agencies continue to make progress in coordinating these cross-cutting programs, we are still finding they need to complete the far more difficult and substantive task of establishing complementary performance goals, mutually reinforcing strategies and where appropriate, common performance measures. Third, a key objective of GPRA is to help Congress develop a clearer understanding of what is being achieved in relation to what is being spent. We are finding that agencies are making incremental progress in developing the useful linkages between their annual budget request and performance plans but that much additional work is needed in this area as well. The actions of many agencies during fiscal years 1999 and 2000 performance planning cycles constituted important first steps but, I would stress, just first steps in forging closer links between the plans and budgets and could be seen in essence as a baseline from which to assess future progress. Fourth, understanding and articulating how agencies' day- to-day operations contribute to results is a critical element of GPRA implementation. Mr. Gotbaum mentioned the excellent example of the experiences over at OSHA and I would underscore that. The point there is that as OSHA and other agencies begin to move beyond what they do on a day-to-day basis and consider the results they are designed to achieve, that often opens whole new avenues for them to explore in terms of strategies and program initiatives they should be undertaking that would lead them to more effectively achieve the results. Fifth, we found although the fiscal year 2000 plans contained valuable and informative information relating strategies and programs to goals, there was plenty of work that was still needed in that area. Let me mention two in particular. First, the virtual absence of discussions of human capital, which as you know from the Comptroller General earlier this week, is a major concern. The fiscal year 2000 plans suggested that one of the critical components of high performing organizations, the systematic integration of human capital and performance planning, is not being adequately addressed throughout the Federal Government. More broadly, any serious effort to fundamentally improve the performance of Federal agencies must address the management challenges and program risks including those elements on our high risk list. This obviously was the point that Mr. Sessions was making. Unfortunately, the fiscal year 2000 plan showed inconsistent attention to the need to resolve these issues. The fifth and final key challenge we found deals with the substantial and longstanding limitations in agency ability to produce credible performance information. In fact, these challenges and the lack of credible performance information is one of the greatest continuing weaknesses with GPRA implementation. In summary, GPRA has the potential and is already beginning to help Congress and the executive branch ensure that the Federal Government provides results the American people care about. We look forward to continuing to support the Congress in this regard and in any way we can to meet your needs. As you know from my prepared statement, one of the things we suggest is under House Rule 10, the oversight plans that the standing committees must send to this committee could be used as a vehicle for further drilling GPRA into congressional oversight plans. We look forward to helping you with that or in any other way. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Mihm follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.030 Mr. Horn. Thank you. We have two more witnesses and then we will open it to questions. I think it will be a very good dialog from all four of you. Our next witness is Maurice McTigue, distinguished visiting scholar, Mercatus Institute, George Mason University, and a fellow once parliamentarian. We were delighted to visit Australia and New Zealand in a trip last year to see if any of your fine work was still holding forth. In places, it is, so I would like to talk to you about that sometime. Go ahead. Mr. McTigue. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, and I would be delighted to talk to you about it. As you indicated, my experience is mainly as a politician and as a member of Cabinet, and at a time when my country was going through major changes, most of which were based upon the principle that is the founding principle of GPRA. I think for Congress one of the interesting factors involved in that process is that while it started 16 years ago, and there have been three changes of the party in power in governance in New Zealand, there has been no relaxation in the rigor with which the performance of government has been pursued. In the 3-years that I have been here in the United States and have worked closely with the agencies of government and also with Congress in terms of sharing some of our experiences, I think the thing that impresses me most about GPRA is that it does focus on changing the primacy of measures to a focus on outcomes. I have heard a number of people make comment this morning about efficiency. When I talk about the primacy of measures, it is that the primacy of the measure of effectiveness must outweigh considerations of efficiency. That is not something that legislatures have been good at doing in the past. I think if we were to look at the high spot of government performance over the past 3 years in the United States, it would be the success of the Y2K project. In my view, the success of that project was driven in no small part by people like yourself who actually asked the right questions. The question was the outcome question--will the computers work on January 1, 2000? It didn't focus so much on tell me what you have done, you kept focusing on ``will the computers work on January 1, 2000.'' That is outcome-based scrutiny. We want to know the result. Can you actually deliver for us what you have promised you would deliver for us? If we looked at the principle that I think is important to Congress in considering this whole area of activity, that principle would really be this--``that all future decisions by government would be taken in full knowledge of the consequences of that decision.'' In the past, I believe many decisions have been taken in full knowledge of what will be done but without full knowledge of the consequences of that decision. What GPRA does is shifts the focus of accountability to what were the public benefits from the expenditure of that money rather than what were the activities that were funded from the expenditure of that money? If we look at GPRA as a tool, then it breaks into four significant parts. The first part of the process is planning. Give to the public a fair expectation of what it is that you are going to achieve. The second part of it is implementation, putting in place and implementing those outputs that are meant to achieve that outcome. We have been through the first two stages of that with GPRA and I like to remind people that GPRA, while passed in 1993, only took effect for fiscal year 1999, so there is very little evidence at this stage of the success or otherwise of GPRA. As an ex-politician and working in a university at the moment, in my mind the most important part of GPRA is what occurs now. In March of this year, we saw the first round of disclosure of performance. What was in the reports of the agencies should disclose what was achieved and now we are at the fourth stage, what does Congress do in the process of oversight and scrutiny of those reports? To me that is the most important part. One of the things you need to do, in my view, is look at the quality of the reporting. Have you had placed in front of you sufficient knowledge and a high enough quality of information for you to be able to make decisions in the knowledge of the full consequences of those decisions? We at the Mercatus Center did a study on the quality of reporting and in many instances, the reports do not provide you with that capability. Some of them were good. Most of them lacked in a number of areas in terms of being able to identify for you what were the public benefits from these activities. In looking at those reports, I think you also need to look at not only are they open and transparent but is there full disclosure? For example, we found some organizations that describe their activity in terms of ``we fully met the goal'' when what they actually did was achieve 90 percent of the goal. Ninety percent might be a good measure in some cases but in some other areas, you might determine that was quite inadequate. In other cases, they described adequate performance as anything above 67 percent of goal. Those are very arbitrary and I think what you need to know is what was the percentage of each goal that was achieved rather than a broad-based measure like that. So that is full disclosure in my view and it is very important to the success of Congress's security of Government. What then might Congress do through committees like yourself? I believe what Congress has to do is to learn to conduct scrutiny based on outcomes rather than conduct, scrutiny based on process. What you need to be able to do is to look at a particular outcome: you are examining an agency, you pick a particular activity, look at that outcome. If you were to follow that outcome through, you would be able to say how much of the public good for this particular issue comes from this agency and how much from others. By following that outcome and looking at the effectiveness of each program, you can then make comparisons and finally get to a position of saying if we have optimal utilization of resources, here is the potential public benefit. The cost to the American public for suboptimal utilization of resources is the difference between optimal allocation and the status quo. We, the public could have had this quantity of benefit and we are shortchanged by the amount that was placed in ineffective programs. That is the end of my testimony and thank you for the opportunity. [The prepared statement of Mr. McTigue follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.032 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.053 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.059 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.060 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.061 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.062 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.063 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.064 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.065 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.066 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.067 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.068 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.069 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.070 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.071 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.072 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.073 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.074 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.075 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.076 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.077 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.078 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.079 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.080 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.081 Mr. Horn. Thank you. We have a vote on the floor now, so we are going to have to recess for 20 minutes. I think it is just one vote but why don't you all have a cup of coffee. Just go down to the basement and you can get plenty of coffee. We will be recess until at least 11:05 a.m. [Recess.] Mr. Horn. The committee will come to order. We will now continue with the last presenter, Ellen Taylor, policy analyst, OMB Watch. You might just tell us in a couple of sentences what OMB Watch is. This is your chance to plug it. Included that because I was afraid no one would know. Ms. Taylor. Thank you for this opportunity to testify. For those who don't know, OMB Watch is a nonprofit, research and advocacy organization that seeks to promote greater government accountability and citizen participation. For the past 3 years, we have actively sought to increase the participation of nonprofits as one kind of stakeholder under GPRA in the implementation of the act. I believe this work, including our lack of success in persuading nonprofits of the importance of GPRA, and our reflection on that, gives us a unique perspective from the others presented here. I hope it will be useful in these deliberations. This has already been said a number of times but it is very important that Congress and the executive agencies work together in a constructive way to accomplish GPRA. Second, Congress should mandate stakeholder involvement in the performance planning process, encouraging the active solicitation of comments on performance measures and ensuring that agencies have adequate resources to obtain outside comments. It is already part of the law that stakeholders must be involved during the strategic planning stage, but we would argue that the performance planning stage is the real meat and potatoes of GPRA and it needs outside involvement, and it needs involvement of State and local grantees who are involved in Federal programs. Third, Federal agencies must make greater use of the Internet to make data and performance measurement transparent and accessible to the public. I would suggest this kind of public exposure can actually help improve the quality of the data and mitigate some of the problems in data and in benchmarking. There is no doubt that GPRA is an important tool and yet we remain skeptical about whether it can achieve the purposes for which it was made into law. These three changes may help GPRA to strengthen government accountability and enhance public trust. I would like to look more closely at our recommendations. First, GPRA's success depends on government's commitment to it. Otherwise, it will simply become another kind of exercise in a long series. Government agencies we have seen are taking GPRA very seriously and they are taking it not as just another paperwork exercise, but as a real potential to do things differently, and to do things better. This can only happen with a concerted and constructive involvement of Congress, not as an antagonist but as a partner. In this regard, we encourage congressional committees to exercise their oversight authority but we would caution if that oversight is done in the context of partisanship or as a way to wage ideological battles, it will be detrimental. We should always remember that GPRA is about improving government and performance, not about downsizing or not about privatizing, or not about bean counting. While we recognize one of the distinguishing features of GPRA is its linkage to the budget, we also think it is important to realize that it is not a panacea for difficult budget decisions. Performance measurement may be a helpful tool in determining resource allocations but quantifiable measures of performance will never be enough. Finally, we think Congress has a golden opportunity here not only to emphasize the problems in government but to highlight those government programs that do work, that are effective and accomplish goals for citizens. Recent studies have shown that citizens rate government almost on a par with private services. Yet, mistrust of government as a whole is still a problem. We think one way of overcoming that is to start focusing on the successes of GPRA and not just on the failures. Our second recommendation is stakeholder involvement in performance planning. While we know the public can't become privy to Federal budget decisions, the performance plans are too important to disallow public engagement on the selection of benchmarks and performance measures. Performance information can be pulled out of the budget submissions and made available to stakeholders without impinging on the privileged nature of the budget. Finally, agencies need to use the Internet to make their GPRA plans and reports available but also to provide the public with the underlying data and the information used in their plans to measure performance. We believe that public exposure and input can positively affect the quality of that data. For example, even though the EPA never identifies specific amounts of reduction in emission of toxic chemicals, the public accessibility of their toxics release inventory helped to create an amazing 45 percent reduction in toxic emissions it was easy to find, easy to access. To conclude, frankly, we don't know whether the Results Act has achieved results during the past 7 years. We have doubts but we remain hopeful. GPRA was not meant to be perfect in the first go around and this really has been the first go around. We think it may succeed in its purposes if there is meaningful stakeholder involvement in the performance plans, including that of Federal grantees, if underlying data as well as plans and reports are publicly accessible and open and transparent, and if Congress will work in a constructive partnership with agencies to achieve GPRA's potential. Thank you for allowing me to speak. [The prepared statement of Ms. Taylor follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.082 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.083 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.084 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.085 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.086 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.087 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.088 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.089 Mr. Horn. We appreciate your presentation and we are now going to go to questions. It will be 5 minutes for each and we will alternate between myself and Mr. Turner. Let me start with you, Ms. Taylor. I would be interested, based on your analysis, in what are the three top Federal departments and agencies that have successfully implemented the Results Act, if you were asked that question, which you just have been, what would you say? Ms. Taylor. I think I would hedge. I think maybe that is the wrong way to go about it, trying to identify the agencies that have done the best. Mr. Horn. We need some role models in this work. Ms. Taylor. Right. I think we should pick out parts of each agency's plans that meet the mark and use those as examples so other agencies with similar programs or for whom that information could be transferred. Mr. Horn. Give me an agency where they have something that has really made a difference in terms of using the Results Act. Ms. Taylor. I haven't read the results reports carefully so I am really at a loss to try to specifically give an agency. I think my example of the EPA and the toxics release inventory is an example of an agency who made information available and accessible and through that, allows the public to start urging accountability which aids the agency ultimately in their performance. I am sorry to be vague. Mr. Horn. Do you have any evidence that they have used measurements that would apply to other types of environmental problems? Ms. Taylor. I think that approach would be transferrable to other agencies, to other kinds of problems government is trying to solve. I think we all agree that sometimes the data is lacking and the agencies are struggling to come up with the right benchmarking and starting measures to show they have measured performance, so I think the openness of the data so the public can see it and can know what they are starting from and where they are trying to go is really important. Mr. Horn. Mr. McTigue, what is your answer to that question? Mr. McTigue. This is an opportunity to make myself very unpopular with a lot of people. The three I would pick I would pick for different reasons. I would pick the Department of Transportation because in my view they are using comprehensively the principles of the Results Act to influence their decisionmaking. One of the things that impressed me most about the Department of Transportation is that in their internal budget negotiation round, what they do is identify 10 priority areas and other areas of activity and if necessary they have to concede resources to those 10 priorities. Those priorities are set very much on the basis of the outcomes we need to achieve. So I think there is a good example of making comprehensive use of the principles of GPRA. If I looked at who has been most successful in changing their outcomes, I would say Veterans Health because Veterans Health starting about 5 years ago, moved the emphasis of that entire organization to the imperative of improving the wellness of veterans, and they direct their resources to that particular end goal. They have some wonderful information that looks at the efficacy of different health procedures inside veterans hospitals and other facilities and how the efficacy of those procedures has significantly improved over time to the point now where they are equal to or better than those procedures in public and private hospitals. That is a dramatic outcome improvement. If I was to look for the organization where Congress and the American public are getting the greatest benefit in terms of their tax dollars, I would say it is FEMA because today FEMA is doing about 20 percent more for about 25 percent less money in its administrative budget while managing more disasters. In addition to that, it has also moved to a new and very important focus on mitigation. How can they continually reduce the consequences of a disaster on individuals and communities so that at the same time they are dealing with their base cause, which is helping people get their lives together, after a disaster they are also looking at how they can minimize the impact. Those would be my three choices but for three very different reasons. Mr. Horn. What is your suggestion, Mr. Mihm? Mr. Mihm. One of the advantages of being third is that it gives me to time to think. The disadvantage is when someone steals some of the best ideas, so I am going to agree in large measure with what has been said. I think the Department of Transportation as a department is clearly one of the leaders. That is, when you look across their various modal administrations, you see a lot of leadership from the Coast Guard, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is certainly one of the leaders in this; FAA, despite a lot of other high risk problems, is beginning to come along as well. Social Security Administration, I would put as one of the leaders. I think that is a function of two things, one, their experience in doing accountability reports under the Government Management Reform Act led them early to be thinking about how they pull together and talk about what they are doing and accomplishing. I also think it is a function in SSA that a lot of their outcomes are more outputs, making sure the right check gets to the right bank account on the right day. Nevertheless, they have done a fairly sophisticated job in thinking about their goals and presenting them in that regard. I would also agree with Veterans Health Administration. The chronic disease prevention index that they have has become quite sophisticated looking across a variety of diseases such as: diabetes, obesity, heart disease. It is a quite sophisticated index that they are able to evaluate the performance of VHA generally as well as each of their integrated service centers, and to talk about how they are doing. We are doing a review at the request of Mr. Burton that is looking at how the performance goals are being drilled into the contracts of senior managers at VHA and elsewhere. So I would put them among the leaders as well. Mr. Horn. Mr. Gotbaum, I want you to answer the question last because you have the overall view from the executive branch. Then I will give 10 minutes to Mr. Turner for his questioning because we are obviously going over 5. Mr. Gotbaum. I am sure you have run into this dilemma; what do you say when everything has been said but not everyone has said it. I don't disagree with these particular analyses, so what I would like to do is elaborate on a couple of points. One, Veterans Affairs. The work that was done in Veterans Health has been very impressive. I would note the Department of Veterans Affairs is now taking the next step we talked about, which is that they are trying to both realign their budget accounts so they follow program lines and to modernize their financial systems to take them into account. I mentioned moving from output measures and asking how good the reports are, to outcome measures, how much is incorporated into management. The Department of Veterans Affairs is really trying to go this next step, for which I personally commend them. Social Security and NASA are interesting cases because these agencies really were concerned with accountability and were a little slow to develop the skill on the performance side but have clearly gotten it, and gotten it very well. The nice thing is, because they were so concerned with accountability in the first place, each has produced reports that cover both financial accountability and performance. That achieves the goal that you mentioned which we agree is quite important: people want to know what they get and what they pay for with their money. The last one I want to mention is Education. I want to mention it because of two things. One, the task is hard. A large part of the Department of Education budget is programs in which they send checks to States and local governments who implement their programs. So one of the real tasks and real difficulties for Education is: what is it I measure? What is it I am accountable for? Am I accountable for merely how quickly I send the check or how carefully I review the State agency's plan, or should I be accountable for literacy levels in local jurisdictions? In my view, one of the impressive and honest things in the Department of Education's accountability report is how clear they are that they are keeping track of both but they haven't yet figured out what is the best tie between their activities and final results. I commend them, partly because they have improved dramatically over the last year, and partly because they are honest about the linkage question which is, for those of us in the Federal Government, really very important. Mr. Horn. Thank you very much. Ten minutes of questioning to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Turner. Mr. Turner. One of the areas I want to spend a little time with each is discussing the role of the Congress and the committees in successful implementation of the Results Act. I want to do that because I think when we look honestly at the origin of this legislation, it did begin as a bipartisan effort. As I recall, Mr. Conyers and Mr. Clinger were the co- sponsors in the House and Senator Roth was the sponsor in the Senate. I frankly believe the success of GPRA not only will lie with the ability of the agency managers to put GPRA and the performance measures in place and to properly evaluate them, but it is going to depend on the ability of Congress to carry out its role in GPRA. I think we need to jealously guard the bipartisan nature of this legislation. Frankly, I really think it is not only important to jealously guard it to ensure its success, I think it is probably poor politics to do otherwise because if you make an effort to make efficiency and effectiveness of government a partisan issue, it is like trying to make motherhood a partisan issue. I don't think the public is going to buy into it. I think they understand both sides of aisle believe in efficiency and effectiveness in government. I think if we can ensure the Congress approaches this legislation in that manner, I think we have the hope of its ultimate success. If we fail to do that, I think we sow the seeds of its destruction. In keeping with those thoughts, I want to first ask a question perhaps of any of you who would like to respond. I think I might want to start with Mr. Mihm. One of the key things we all know ultimately GPRA is all about, as I think Mr. McTigue expressed in his testimony, is that Congress should be able not just to see government agencies manage activities and then hope for results, but as you said in your testimony, GPRA makes it possible for Congress to choose to do only those programs that will produce results. With that concept, we will change the way the Congress conducts oversight and review of our agencies. So what I would like to do even though I acknowledge GPRA is in its infancy and this is only the first year, even though passed in 1993, of full implementation, I would like you all to give me an example, if you have one, of where the Congress has made a decision, based on your observations of the work of the committees, to either fund or not fund a program based upon the Results Act and the information flowing from a given agency produced by the Results Act. Mr. Mihm. I think we would be hard pressed to point out here is where a budget was increased or decreased because the appropriators saw and said we are doing this because of GPRA. However, one of the things we need to guard against is setting the bar so high that if someone doesn't say they are doing something because of GPRA, we call the law a failure. In other words, when you take a look at the appropriations committee reports--we have examined committee reports that have come out of the appropriators--there is plenty of language in there that talks about how performance information was being used in their decisions, that talks about the goals and the actual performance of a program. GPRA is not often mentioned. However, it is very clear where that information that is being used is coming from. It is coming from GPRA plans and products. The point I am making is that while I would be hard pressed to say here is something that happened only because of GPRA, we are seeing the conversation change, more attention to performance information. GPRA is contributing to that environment and so in that sense, we are seeing appropriations decisions are beginning to be influenced or at least colored by a greater attention to performance and performance information. Mr. Turner. Mr. Gotbaum, have you seen examples where GPRA results have affected the funding decisions of the Congress? Mr. Gotbaum. I believe so. I meant what I said in my testimony. I believe that we have always--we at OMB and the Congress in its deliberations--looked for information about programs. What is it doing? What is it actually accomplishing? GPRA provided the force of law and the process and the language that enhanced that. I agree and accept Chris' point which is I am not sure I can hand you a case in which I can tell you the chairman of an appropriations subcommittee said, based on the Social Security Administration's performance report, I change their level. I don't think that is the right test. I think there are lots of cases in which the fact the discussion is based on performance and not on dollars has changed the discussion. Let me mention one. This is one which was controversial. The President proposed a couple of years ago what we call the Class Size Initiative. He said, I would like to provide funding so that school districts in grades 1 through 3 didn't have to have class sizes larger than 18. This got translated into 100,000 teachers. I don't mean to raise this so that we can talk about the merits of that particular proposal, but I think it is important that we recognize that was a proposal that was framed not as let us expand the budget of the Department of Education by $1 billion. That wasn't what he said and that wasn't what the debate was. He said, let us focus on class size. The interesting thing was the congressional debate then became should we tie Federal dollars to class size or should we work on a more generic block grant. So that is a case in which I think the debate was affected very powerfully by the fact that it was framed in terms of performance measures. There are to be sure intermediate measures. Class size is not literacy but it is a heck of a long way from the let us just increase the budget of the Department of Education by 10 percent. I think we all recognize and everyone is conscious of the fact that performance information alone isn't going to take away the need to make choices. The President and Congress are going to have to say, I think we should do more in education versus defense, environment or whatever, but I really do feel and I have watched it in the budget process in case after case after case, the more debate goes toward measures other than dollars, the more focused the debate is and in my view, the better the ultimate decisionmaking. I am enormously grateful for your point about the bipartisan support for GPRA. We feel that very strongly. My colleague from OMB, Walter Groszyk, although he generally doesn't admit it, helped draft GPRA. We think it is very important that the Congress work on it, work on it aggressively, work on it expansively and work on it in a bipartisan fashion. Mr. Turner. Mr. McTigue, do you have any examples you could cite where you have seen Congress or a committee actually make a decision on funding based on results? Mr. McTigue. The first comment I would make is with all due respect, I think your question is a little bit premature because you are only now seeing the first of the annual reports based on that. Quite frankly, the quality of the reporting at the moment does not provide you with information where you could clearly say we should cancel this activity. To approximate an answer to your question, I think the principles that probably led to the writing of GPRA in 1993 have certainly been applied by Congress to a number of organizations. If you take the five, in my view, highest performing organizations in government, each and every one of them has been subjected to intense scrutiny by this Congress in the last 10 years. FEMA was slated by Congress to be wiped out in the early 1990's unless it was able to improve its performance. Today, it is one of the best performing government organizations and meeting the criteria of GPRA. You can say exactly the same thing for the Department of Transportation, for NASA, post the shuttle crash, that intense congressional interest dramatically changed the way in which that organization focused and delivered. You can say exactly the same sort of thing for Veterans Health. I think in those areas Congress has played a very significant role in improving a total organization and its culture. What could Congress do now? I think there are two things that I believe are very important right now for Congress. You should insist on greater transparency in the reporting that you get from agencies and greater disclosure. That would be very helpful to your role. The second thing is controversial and it is internal and that is Congress should conduct some reform itself. That reform would be that the processes of oversight, authorization and reauthorization should be used as a means of informing the process of appropriation, not commanding it but the knowledge built up in hearings like this should be used to inform whether or not an appropriation is appropriate for this particular program or activity. Mr. Turner. Ms. Taylor. Ms. Taylor. I would agree with Mr. McTigue about the fact that we can't use GPRA right now in making budget decisions. It really is too early and I think the important thing Congress should be concentrating on right now is the issue of performance, not to make agencies terrified that they are going to lose their budget because their performance rates are low because we don't want this to lead to performance goals that are so low that an agency can easily meet them and say, look, I met my performance goals. Rather, they should be striving for higher goals. I think we would all agree. I am just afraid if we directly tie it to the budget at this point, the only performance reports will be good performance reports and yet they won't be meaningful in terms of the act. Mr. Turner. I didn't expect any of you really to give me any real concrete examples and frankly only asked the question to make the point that as we look at the agencies and their efforts to implement GPRA, Congress has an equal responsibility to begin to use GPRA. Though the Congress, being the deliberative body and elected by the people, may not always choose to fund programs based on results, it does need to become a part of the culture of the Congress. I frankly think the Congress is a long way from that kind of approach. I think Mr. McTigue, you put it very well when you suggested that in order to win the confidence of the public and improve the quality of government performance, the scrutiny provided by the Congress must be robust, focused on results, committed to rewarding superior activity and equally committed to punishing poor performance. I am not sure that is really a part of the process, not to say that process would result in the ultimate decision because other considerations may override and maybe appropriately so in certain circumstances. Somehow, as we try to train the managers in the agencies, we in Congress are going to have to be trained as well. I thank each of you for your comments. Mr. Horn. Thank you. You and the chairman of the full committee seem to be on the same track. Your questions and his if he were here, wanted to ask the point you had made on what is Congress doing on this. Let me go back to the reverse of what I was going from Ms. Taylor back to Mr. Gotbaum. Starting with Mr. Gotbaum, please name the Federal departments and agencies that have been unsuccessful in their implementation of the Results Act. Can you give me three or four? Mr. Gotbaum. As we have discussed before, usually Mr. Ose asks this question but he always asks it, and I know it is a concern. Mr. Horn. So you came prepared? Mr. Gotbaum. I came prepared with the same response, unfortunately, I gave each of the two times he asked. I think in order for OMB to be effective in its role as supervisor, encourager, combination cheerleader and sanctioner of agency performance, we need to use a combination of public praise and private criticism. So I have to resist the temptation to mention by name any of the agencies that disappoint. There certainly are several agencies whose performance reports look like they haven't taken the time to think through what they are trying to do and whose performance reports look an awful lot like they are describing their programs instead of describing their results and performance. There are certainly agencies whose performance reports look exactly like their organizational chart and their measures don't appear to have been linked to programs, which obviously is a problem. There are agencies whose performance reports don't include what intermediate output measures, efficiency measures, we think matter. There are plenty of grantmaking agencies that don't include information and don't even collect information on what is the turnaround time from the time a grant is applied for to the time a decision is made, and what is the turnaround time from the time a decision is made to actually delivering the check. I mention those as shortcomings in a range of agencies reports. I would, with the committee's forbearance, like to avoid naming the names but instead naming the sins because I think the sins are pretty clear. Mr. Horn. Did you read Mr. McTigue's study on who was ahead and who was behind? Mr. Gotbaum. I did. Mr. Horn. Would you say he gave a fair appraisal there? Mr. Gotbaum. I think he gave a fair appraisal of part of the things that we would like to look for. As I mentioned, clarity matters, linkage matters, and those are some of the things that Mr. McTigue's review focused on. We think there are other things. I view those in this process as outcome measures. What he was doing and was forced to do was evaluate the performance reports. What we are trying to do, we hope, is implement what we think is the outcome of GPRA, which is the extent to which these agencies are developing performance measures and using them in management and budget. For example, I give very high marks to the Department of Veterans Affairs, not just for the fact that they have clear measures in health but, that they are actually trying to realign programs and information systems. For me that is a very substantial task. That is not something which would necessarily be evident from reading their report. So I would say Mr. McTigue's report is an incomplete measure of what agencies are doing. The fact is that moving beyond reports to implementing this is a harder job and it is a job at which we are still at the initial steps. So his analysis covers most of the things you can see right now. I wouldn't want it to be seen as the complete measure because the best reports in the world, the clearest reports in the world with the finest measures in the world, if they are not actually used, are just paper. So we hope we in our analysis, and you in your oversight, will not stop at judging the quality of reports, that you will continually ask agencies, ``This is great, you got a good report, but what are you doing with this information? Are you managing to it? Are you changing your management systems? Are you changing your information systems? Are you really doing what GPRA was supposed to do?'' Mr. Horn. We went through this with Y2K. Nothing was being done by OMB, period. Nothing was being done by the administration in April 1996. We had to just get them in here and say, what are you doing, started the grading aspect and all that, and that finally shook them up a little. Two Cabinet office friends of mine said keep at it. It is the only way I can get this bureaucracy working. It worked. I am not a Mr. Fuzzy type. I am anything but that. All I can say is the question has been asked, it should be answered, you are under oath and we want the information. I want to know what are the ones that have not done as good a job as they should have. That ought to help you, unless they cry too much and say, I won't do it. That is nonsense. Tell us which ones aren't producing. Mr. Gotbaum. I think that this is a case that is in some respects different from Y2K for a bunch of reasons. Frankly, it is a harder, more complicated job. As I mentioned in my testimony, I think this is a case in which we at OMB have turned on the heat progressively, I would hope progressively more effectively. We started by saying send us reports, then saying send us information but these are, as Mr. Turner mentioned, as Mr. Armey mentioned and Mr. Sessions mentioned, sufficiently early days in that process so that I don't think we can say and I wouldn't pretend that we are there. We are not at the promised land. I kind of think of this in biblical terms as maybe we have crossed the Red Sea but we have a long time in the desert yet. I really do think that we can be most effective not by dropping the dime on people but by talking about what are the standards we think they should meet, hoping you will agree or disagree. Mr. Horn. People have had 8 years and you don't say they shouldn't be noted if they haven't produced much after 8 years? Mr. Gotbaum. The issue is not whether agencies are producing plans and reports. They are. This is not a case in which any significant agency has just dropped the ball entirely and said, I am not going to implement GPRA. That is not what is going on here. Every significant agency--we have 100 strategic plans, 100 performance plans, almost 100 performance reports. The issue is a little more subtle than that which is, when you read these things, are they picking measures that are relevant, then getting to the point that Chris mentioned and Ellen mentioned, are they picking measures, are they picking goals that are either too high or too low. We get a lot of that. I guess if I wanted to be a cheerleader, I could say the good news is we have 100 agencies complying with the law, they are turning out reports but I think and I hope your oversight, like our oversight, goes beyond that and says, are they picking the right measures. We have a huge range. We have agencies like DOT that did pretty well the first time and are doing OK and we have agencies like Education that didn't do so well the first time and SSA that didn't do so well the first time and are getting better, and we have agencies where I think it is clear they have a ways to go in terms of their measures. If the question is, are they complying with the law, they are complying with the law, but I know our goal and I believe your goal as well is that they do more than comply with the law, that they use the stuff and incorporate it, that they are working on it. Mr. Horn. Have you got a unit under your control in OMB that is working on types of measurement across the various parts of the executive branch? Mr. Gotbaum. We have some efforts and I don't want to mislead the committee. We have some efforts that are cross- cutting efforts. For example, on the procurement side, the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, which is in OMB, developed a set of Governmentwide measures for efficacy on the procurement side which they are now putting out which will enable people to benchmark procurement. On the grant side, partly as a result of pressure under a different law, Public Law 106-107, an act out of this committee, that said review grants. We have set up a process where we are trying to get agencies to come together and talk about where grant programs are on either a common constituency or for a common purpose, how we can simplify and consolidate and measures will be part of that effort. I can say yes, we are making some efforts in that area. Mr. Horn. So there is a unit that you can count on in terms of developing measurements for various programs? Mr. Gotbaum. Yes. Mr. Horn. Mr. Mihm, since the witness from the administration refuses to answer the question, will you answer the question and we will follow your advice and have them all in here. Please tell us what you think are the ones that aren't really conforming and have been unsuccessful in implementation. Mr. Mihm. If I was going to pick out of the 24 CFO Act agencies a handful of agencies having the biggest trouble with this, I would include the Office of Personnel Management, the Department of State and the Small Business Administration. One of the things that brings the three of them together is that they are agencies that have real challenges to try to determine that critical point of how what they do makes a difference. All of them are really struggling with that. In the case of OPM and SBA, it is an even larger issue as to their relevance and it is something that is beginning to be raised and questioned. Those are the agencies that are really having a real struggle. I would agree with one thing Mr. Gotbaum raised and that is there is no agency that has got this entirely licked and no agency that hasn't made improvement over the last couple of years. Everyone is moving and moving in the right direction but clearly there are some agencies that are lagging the rest. I think those three are among them. Mr. Horn. What do you think is the reason on the three you picked? Mr. Mihm. I think in part it deals with the difficult in connecting what they do on a day to day basis to a larger result; in some cases it was because of that difficulty I think senior leadership at the agency was slow to embrace GPRA and understand the seriousness of the Congress. The first couple of annual performance plans from the Department of State, I hope senior management wasn't too involved in putting those together. The most recent one does reflect the use of qualitative goals which is allowed by the Act with OMB's authorization. As a result, you now have a far more sophisticated discussion of what State is trying to achieve and how it will hold itself accountable. In the case of SBA, we have seen a couple of years in a row where their mission statement is right in the sense that it is based on statute and the goals are now outcome oriented goals. The performance measures for those goals are things like contacts to small businesses, numbers of loans made. This is little connection between those performance measures and the results they are trying to achieve. In the case of the Office of Personnel Management, there is an agency whose relevance and real fundamental mission is now under question. It is not as though the annual performance plan is going to resolve that but the annual performance plan I don't think gives a real indication of the struggle or how they are trying to work their way out of that. Mr. Horn. Mr. McTigue, do you agree with Mr. Mihm's OPM, State, SBA? Is that what your study would confirm? Mr. McTigue. I couldn't actually confirm that. I suspect that what he is saying is correct because we haven't actually conducted a study of who are those organizations that missed their goals by the most. Even that may not be very informative because in the first instance, some organizations set really strict goals and 95 percent of that goal might be very good performance where others set fairly easy goals and 100 percent performance may not be very adequate. I think we have been able to note what I would call the conglomerate organizations, like Agriculture, Justice and Labor, those that have a huge number of stovepipes have found it more difficult to implement GPRA because there is not a common mission. Some of that is due to mission creep over a long period of time inside the government, so they are doing some odd things that don't really belong in their portfolio. The other is that it is quite difficult to get a single purpose or an imperative for that organization and they are still battling with what is the imperative that drives us as the Department of Agriculture or the Department of Commerce. I think you will find that is one of the missing factors with those organizations. They are trying but they are finding it more difficult. It's easy to write a mission statement, it is easy to have an imperative if you are NASA, FEMA or Transportation or something like that. It is much more difficult if you are the Department of Agriculture with 78 different stovepipes that you have to account for. Mr. Horn. Mr. Gotbaum, would you agree with what Mr. Mihm has selected there in terms of the three agencies. Mr. Gotbaum. Actually, no, I wouldn't. The State Department has conceded publicly that they were late to the party and that they are now paying more attention, that they have a ways to go and I agree with that. On SBA and OPM, I guess everything in life is relative but I can't remember personally the OPM report but in the SBA report, they were clearly making efforts to link their programs to results and to benchmark them, so let us just say there are other agencies which as I say I would prefer not to name, that have not, as far as I am concerned, made that attempt, made that basic linkage, whereas SBA I know has and I think OPM too, at least attempted to make the linkage. So I allow the State example and I would suggest there are some other places that GAO might want to look. Mr. Mihm. We will take your suggestions off-line. Mr. Horn. The gentleman from Texas? Mr. Turner. Nothing else, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Horn. Thank you very much. We appreciate your coming. We do expect the answer to that question. With that, we are in adjournment. [Whereupon, at 12 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] [Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.093 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.094 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.095 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.096 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.097 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.098 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.099 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.100 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.101 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.102 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.103 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.104 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.105 -