39–006 

109TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 109–26 

PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AND RESULTS ACT 

MARCH 17, 2005.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State 

of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia, from the Committee on Government 

Reform, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

MINORITY VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 185] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Government Reform, to whom was referred 

the bill (H.R. 185) to require the review of Government programs 

at least once every 5 years for purposes of evaluating their performance, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon 

without amendment and recommends that the bill do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Committee Statement and Views ........................................................................... 2 

Section-by-Section .................................................................................................... 5 

Explanation of Amendments ................................................................................... 7 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 7 

Rollcall Votes ............................................................................................................ 7 

Application of Law to the Legislative Branch ....................................................... 15 

Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the Committee ...... 15 

Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives .................................... 15 

Constitutional Authority Statement ...................................................................... 15 

Federal Advisory Committee Act ............................................................................ 15 

Unfunded Mandate Statement ............................................................................... 15 

Committee Estimate ................................................................................................ 15 

Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate .................... 16 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill as Reported ...................................... 17 

Minority Views ......................................................................................................... 20 

2 

COMMITTEE STATEMENT AND VIEWS

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

The main purpose of the Program Assessment and Results (PAR) 

Act is to improve the Government Performance and Results Act 

(GPRA) of 1993, P.L. 103–62, by implementing a program review 

and evaluation process that attempts to determine the strengths 

and weaknesses of Federal programs with a particular focus on the 

results produced by individual programs. Furthermore, the information gathered in the review and evaluation process established 

by the PAR Act will build on the groundwork laid by GPRA to help 

the executive branch make informed management decisions and 

evidence-based funding requests aimed at achieving positive results. Finally, the program reviews created by the PAR Act will 

provide congressional policy makers with the information needed to 

conduct more effective oversight, to make better-informed authorization decisions, and to make more evidence-based spending decisions that achieve positive results for the American people. 

The PAR Act amends GPRA to require the Director of the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) to review each Federal program, as defined by OMB, at least once every five fiscal years. The 

choice of a five-year cycle divides the workload of evaluating all 

Federal programs into manageable segments for OMB. Attempting 

to evaluate the performance of all Federal programs in one year 

was a major impediment to the success of past attempts at performance measurement by previous Administrations. The five-year 

cycle also parallels the time frame used by OMB in its Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART), which OMB has used to evaluate 

programs, representing 20% of all Federal spending each year beginning with the fiscal year 2003 budget cycle. The PAR Act does 

not interfere with OMB’s timeline for using PART to complete program assessments of each program in the Federal budget, nor does 

the PAR Act attempt to codify the specific methodology used by 

PART. Instead, the PAR Act directs OMB to conduct reviews of 

programs in consultation with the relevant agency that administers 

the program and to evaluate each program’s purpose, design, strategic plan, management, results, and any other matters that OMB 

considers appropriate. 

As OMB develops its criteria for which programs to review each 

fiscal year, the PAR Act requires OMB to take into account the advantages of reviewing program activities with similar functions or 

purposes during the same fiscal year. The intent of this language 

is to ensure that the functions of government that cut across several programs and potentially cut across several agencies are reviewed at the same time. This information can then be used to 

compare the performance of programs against one another and to 

seek managerial and budget changes that capitalize on the best 

practices of the programs that are most successful in achieving the 

outcomes they were designed to achieve. In addition to considering 

the crosscutting nature of government functions, the PAR Act also 

directs OMB to review program activities more frequently than 

every five fiscal years in cases in which programs are determined 

to be of higher priority, special circumstances exist, improvements 

have been made, or the head of the relevant agency and OMB determine that more frequent review is warranted. Requiring more 

3 

frequent reviews in these circumstances will ensure that the lessons learned from programs that make improvements may be cultivated more frequently and that programs that continually fail to 

achieve their goals will be scrutinized more closely. 

The results of program reviews conducted under the PAR Act 

will be reported to Congress with the President’s next budget following the end of the fiscal year in which the program reviews 

were conducted. OMB currently uses this method of reporting in 

conjunction with the PART. The Committee is pleased with the 

high level of transparency that OMB has exhibited in reporting the 

results of the programs that have been evaluated using the PART. 

In an effort to maintain this level of transparency under the PAR 

Act, the Act requires that OMB make every effort to ensure the 

transparency of the report. For any program reviewed, OMB should 

publish the information necessary for the public to understand 

what methods were used to evaluate the program, what information was derived from the application of those methods to the program, and what conclusions were drawn from the information derived. There is some concern that the PART has been unable to 

complete evaluations for some of the programs to which it has been 

applied over the three-year period in which assessments were conducted. Although the percentage of programs receiving a score of 

‘‘results not demonstrated’’ has decreased over the past two years, 

it remains too high. We encourage OMB and the agency community 

to work to continue to refine the evaluation criteria to ensure 

meaningful reporting for all federal programs, including those programs administered cooperatively among state and local stakeholders. 

Finally, the bill will move the due date for submitting strategic 

plans under GPRA to September 30 of each year following a presidential election and would change the duration of the coverage of 

the plans from 5 years to 4 years. These changes would improve 

the usefulness and timeliness of strategic plans by giving the management team of the most recently elected President enough time 

to assemble and set its goals for the President’s term. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993, 

P.L. 103–62, has laid a solid foundation for agencies working with 

Congress to set strategic goals and begin to utilize performancebased information. Building on GPRA, Congress must take the next 

step toward reforming the way the government conducts its business. 

Prior efforts to make the Federal government more effective—the 

Hoover Commission, Zero-Based Budgeting, the Planning-Programming-Budgeting System, and Reinventing Government—have come 

and gone with little lasting effect. Federal managers have learned 

that if they wait, each new Administration is likely to attempt yet 

another broad-based reform. From a management standpoint, it is 

difficult in that type of environment to make long-range plans, and 

it’s next to impossible to achieve the kind of cultural shift needed 

to reform the management of the Federal government. 

GPRA requires that agencies focus attention on program evaluation as one of six aspects of their strategic plans. Unfortunately, 

the Government Accountability Office reports (GAO–04–38) that 

4 

program evaluation is the one area where departments consistently 

come up short. Not only have agencies failed to comply with this 

requirement, the valuable information that stands to be gained 

from these evaluations is not culled, coordinated, or presented in 

a useful way. 

By creating and using the Program Assessment Rating Tool, or 

PART, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has gone a 

step beyond the strategic plans required by GPRA and implemented a system for evaluating the performance and results of individual Federal programs. The next logical step is to codify the requirement for a coordinated evidence-based review of programs. 

Clearly, developing a better understanding of how government operates program by program is a good idea. As such, the PAR Act 

is necessary to ensure that program assessments be required for 

this and future Administrations. 

The PAR Act does not seek to codify the use of the PART specifically. Rather, the Act amends GPRA by establishing a requirement 

for program reviews. Specifically, the OMB is required under the 

Act to review each program activity at least once every five years. 

Requiring OMB to be responsible for overseeing program assessment data will be a great step forward in realizing the reforms envisioned by GPRA and will make the Federal government more efficient and results oriented. 

Information gleaned from these program reviews will be useful 

across the board to all stakeholders. Members of Congress, taxpayers, Federal managers and the Executive Branch need to know 

if programs are being managed effectively and if they are achieving 

the desired results. Further, the PAR Act will facilitate data comparisons among different programs and across agencies, to see how 

different programs with similar goals are achieving results. Members of Congress can use the information to make informed budget 

decisions and conduct more effective oversight. It will help the taxpayers see what they are getting for their money. Most important, 

Federal managers will use the information to improve the way they 

manage programs. The results will be a more effective and efficient 

government for the good of all Americans. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

On January 4, 2005, Representative Todd R. Platts (R–PA), 

Chairman of the Subcommittee on Government Management, Finance and Accountability of the Committee on Government Reform, 

along with Representative Tom Davis (R–VA), Chairman of the 

Committee on Government Reform, introduced H.R. 185, the ‘‘Program Assessment and Results Act’’ to amend and improve the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993, P.L. 103– 

62. The bill was subsequently referred to the Committee on Government Reform. 

On March 10, 2005, the full Government Reform Committee held 

a business meeting to mark up H.R. 185. 

During the markup Rep. Edolphus Towns (D–NY), the ranking 

member of the Government Management, Finance and Accountability Subcommittee, offered an amendment seeking to require the 

head of the Office of Management and Budget to provide notice and 

an opportunity for public comment in the Federal Register on a detailed description in draft form of each program to be assessed, the 

5 

draft performance goals for each such program and the draft criteria used to evaluate each program. The amendment also called 

for the publication in the Federal Register of the final list of programs to be assessed, the final performance goals and final criteria 

used to evaluate, along with a summary of all public comment. The 

amendment also sought to add a ‘‘sunset’’ provision to the bill, 

which would have terminated the program assessments required 

under the legislation in 2013. This amendment was defeated by a 

vote of 16 ‘‘nays’’ and 15 ‘‘yeas’’. 

Also, during the business meeting Rep. Waxman (D–CA) offered 

an amendment that required program reviews conducted pursuant 

to the bill to be performed by the heads of agencies, rather than 

by OMB. The amendment failed on a vote of 17 ‘‘nays’’ to 15 ‘‘yeas’’. 

The committee approved H.R. 185 by a vote of 19 ‘‘yeas’’ and 14 

‘‘nays’’ and ordered it reported favorably to the full House of Representatives for consideration. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION

Section 1.—Short title 

The Act may be cited as the ‘‘Program Assessment and Results 

Act.’’ 

Section 2.—Findings 

This section summarizes the findings of Congress with respect to 

the following: the lack of program performance information available to Federal managers and Congress for decision-making; the 

importance of performance information to making good managerial 

and budget decisions; and the foundation that the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), P.L. 103–362, has laid 

for program performance reviews. 

Section 3.—Purpose 

This section states the purposes of the Act, which are: to amend 

and improve GPRA by implementing program reviews that determine the strength and weakness of Federal programs; to use the 

information gathered for the executive branch to make informed 

management decisions and evidence-based funding requests; and to 

provide Congress with information necessary to conduct more effective oversight, to make better-informed authorization decisions, 

and to make more evidence-based spending decisions. 

Section 4.—Program review and evaluation 

Paragraph (a) establishes a requirement for program reviews by 

amending chapter 11 of title 31, United States Code, as amended 

by GPRA. 

This amendment to GPRA adds ‘‘Section 1120. Program review 

and evaluation.’’ to the end of chapter 11 of title 31, United States 

Code. 

Paragraph (a) of the new section 1120 requires the Director of 

the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to review each program activity at least once every 5 fiscal years. 

The bill as passed by the committee includes language stating 

that the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall ‘‘to 

the maximum extent practicable’’ conduct a review of each program 

6 

every five years. This language was included in the final version 

of H.R. 185 to give minimal flexibility to the Director should a special circumstance arise where an assessment of a certain program 

is deemed unneeded. The clause, ‘‘to the maximum extent practicable’’ is not intended to give the Director wholesale flexibility or 

the ability to exempt any programs from review without a legitimate reason. Should the Director seek to exempt any program from 

this review requirement he shall notify the Congress, including the 

House Committee on Government Reform and Senate Committee 

on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, in writing explaining the specific reasons why the review is deemed unneeded. 

Paragraph (b) of section 1120 requires the Director in conducting 

a review of a program activity to coordinate with the relevant agency and evaluate each program activity’s purpose, design, strategic 

plan, management, results, and any other matters that the Director considers appropriate. 

Paragraph (c) of section 1120 requires the Director to develop criteria for deciding which program activities to review each fiscal 

year. It further instructs the Director to take into account the advantages of reviewing program activities with similar functions or 

purposes during the same fiscal year. 

Paragraph (d) of section 1120 requires the Director to make 

every effort to review program activities more frequently than 

every 5 fiscal years in cases in which programs are determined to 

be of higher priority, special circumstances exist, improvements 

have been made, or the head of the relevant agency and the Director determine that more frequent review is warranted. 

Paragraph (e) of section 1120 requires that at least 90 days prior 

to completing the assessments required under this section that the 

Director publish on the OMB website or successor website and provide to the House Committee on Government Reform and Senate 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs a list 

of all programs to be assessed during a fiscal year and the criteria 

to be used in those assessments. This section further requires that 

OMB provide a formal mechanism for interested persons to comment on the programs being assessed and the criteria used to assess those programs. 

Paragraph (f) of section 1120 requires: 

(1) The Director to submit the results of the reviews for a fiscal 

year to the Congress along with the President’s next budget following the end of the fiscal year in which the reviews were conducted; 

(2) Specifies the criteria that shall be required for the report. 

Paragraph (g) of section 1120: 

(1) Establishes provisions for the submission of program assessments containing classified information. 

(A) Requires that a copy of the assessment (including the classified information) be provided to the appropriate committees of the 

House of Representatives and the Senate, and 

(B) Requires that, consistent with statutory law, an appendix 

containing a list of each assessment referenced in (A) be provided 

to the Committee on Government Reform of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the 

Senate. 

7 

(2) Establishes that upon request from the Committee on Government Reform of the House or the Committee on Governmental 

Affairs of the Senate, the Director of OMB shall provide to the requesting committee a copy of any assessment or appendix referenced in subparagraph (A) or (B) respectively. 

(3) Establishes that the term ‘‘classified information’’ refers to 

matters in section 552(b)(1)(A) of title 5 U.S.C. 

Paragraph (h) of section 1120 establishes that the functions and 

activities authorized by this section shall be considered inherently 

governmental functions and performed only by Federal employees. 

Paragraph (b) of Section 4 provides that the Director shall have 

6 months after the date of enactment of this Act to issue guidance 

to implement the requirements of section 1120. 

Paragraph (c) of section 4 makes conforming amendments to Section 1115(g) of title 31. 

Section 5.—Strategic planning amendments 

Paragraph (a) amends section 306 of title 5, United States Code, 

to change the date for submitting strategic plans as required under 

GPRA to September 30 of each year following a presidential election. This change in date makes the release of strategic plans correspond with the change in leadership from one Administration to 

the next. 

Paragraph (b) amends section 306 of title 5, United States Code, 

to change the period of coverage for strategic plans from five years 

to four years, again corresponding with a presidential term. 

EXPLANATION OF AMENDMENTS

The Committee did not adopt any amendments. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On March 10, 2005, the Committee met in open session and ordered reported favorably the bill, H.R. 185, by rollcall vote, a 

quorum being present. 

ROLLCALL VOTES

8 


Insert graphic folio 10 here HR26.001
9 


Insert graphic folio 11 here HR26.002
10 


Insert graphic folio 12 here HR26.003
11 


Insert graphic folio 13 here HR26.004
12 


Insert graphic folio 14 here HR26.005
13 


Insert graphic folio 15 here HR26.006
14 


Insert graphic folio 16 here HR26.007
15 

APPLICATION OF LAW TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

Section 102(b)(3) of Public Law 104–1 requires a description of 

the application of this bill to the legislative branch where the bill 

relates to the terms and conditions of employment or access to public services and accommodations. This bill improves the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993, P.L. 103–62, 

by implementing a program review and evaluation process that attempts to determine the strengths and weaknesses of Federal programs with a particular focus on the results produced by individual 

programs. As such this bill does not relate to employment or access 

to public services and accommodations. 

STATEMENT OF OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF

THE COMMITTEE

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause (2)(b)(1) 

of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee’s oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the 

descriptive portions of this report. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

In accordance with clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee’s performance goals and 

objectives are reflected in the descriptive portions of this report. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Under clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 

Representatives, the Committee must include a statement citing 

the specific powers granted to Congress to enact the law proposed 

by H.R. 185. Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of the Constitution of 

the United States grants the Congress the power to enact this law. 

FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT

The Committee finds that the legislation does not establish or 

authorize the establishment of an advisory committee within the 

definition of 5 U.S.C. App., Section 5(b). 

UNFUNDED MANDATE STATEMENT

Section 423 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act (as amended by Section 101(a)(2) of the Unfunded Mandate 

Reform Act, P.L. 104–4) requires a statement whether the provisions of the reported bill include unfunded mandates. In compliance with this requirement the Committee has received a letter 

from the Congressional Budget Office included herein. 

COMMITTEE ESTIMATE

Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the Committee of the costs that would be incurred in carrying out H.R. 185. 

However, clause 3(d)(3)(B) of that rule provides that this requirement does not apply when the Committee has included in its report 

a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill prepared by the DirecVerDate Aug 04 2004 04:31 Mar 19, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR026.XXX HR026
16 

tor of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the 

Congressional Budget Act. 

BUDGET AUTHORITY AND CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST

ESTIMATE

With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of 

the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect to requirements 

of clause (3)(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 

1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate for 

H.R. 185 from the Director of Congressional Budget Office: 

MARCH 17, 2005. 

Hon. TOM DAVIS, 

Chairman, Committee on Government Reform, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 185, the Program Assessment and Results Act. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Matthew Pickford. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN, Director. 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 185—Program Assessment and Results Act 

H.R. 185 would amend the Government Performance and Results 

Act of 1993 to require the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) to review, to the maximum extent practicable, each program 

activity in the federal government at least once every five years. 

The review, to be performed by government employees, would focus 

on the purpose, design, strategic plan, management, results, and 

other appropriate measures of each program. Results of those reviews would be submitted to the Congress. 

Most of the provisions of H.R. 185 would codify and expand the 

current practices of OMB regarding federal program assessments. 

OMB currently reviews program performance through its Program 

Assessment Rating Tool (PART) which was developed to assess and 

improve program performance throughout the federal government. 

Based on information from OMB, CBO estimates that implementing this bill would not significantly increase the ongoing costs 

of reviewing federal programs. To the extent that reviews lead to 

improved program performance, subsequent legislation could modify the budgets of federal program operations. 

Enacting the bill would not affect direct spending or revenues. 

H.R. 185 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates 

as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would not 

affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Matthew Pickford. 

This estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

17 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italics, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

CHAPTER 11 OF TITLE 31, UNITED STATES CODE 

CHAPTER 11—THE BUDGET AND FISCAL, BUDGET, AND 

PROGRAM INFORMATION 

Sec. 

1101. Definitions 

* * * * * * * 

1120. Program assessment. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 1115. Performance plans 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(g) For purposes of this section and sections 1116 through ø1119¿ 

1120, and sections 9703 and 9704 the term— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

§ 1120. Program assessment 

(a) ASSESSMENT.—The Director of the Office of Management and 

Budget to the maximum extent practicable shall conduct, jointly 

with agencies of the Federal Government, an assessment of each 

program at least once every 5 fiscal years. 

(b) ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENTS.—In conducting an assessment of 

a program under subsection (a), the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the head of the relevant agency shall— 

(1) coordinate to determine the programs to be assessed; and 

(2) evaluate the purpose, design, strategic plan, management, 

and results of the program, and such other matters as the Director considers appropriate. 

(c) CRITERIA FOR IDENTIFYING PROGRAMS TO ASSESS.—The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall develop criteria 

for identifying programs to be assessed each fiscal year. In developing the criteria, the Director shall take into account the advantages of assessing during the same fiscal year any programs that 

are performing similar functions, have similar purposes, or share 

common goals, such as those contained in strategic plans under section 306 of title 5. To the maximum extent possible, the Director 

shall assess a representative sample of Federal spending each fiscal 

year. 

(d) CRITERIA FOR MORE FREQUENT ASSESSMENTS.—The Director 

of the Office of Management and Budget shall make every effort to 

assess programs more frequently than required under subsection (a) 

in cases in which programs are determined to be of higher priority, 

special circumstances exist, improvements have been made, or the 

18 

head of the relevant agency and the Director determine that more 

frequent assessment is warranted. 

(e) PUBLICATION.—At least 90 days before completing the assessments under this section to be conducted during a fiscal year, the 

Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall— 

(1) make available in electronic form through the Office of 

Management and Budget website or any successor website, and 

provide to the Committee on Government Reform of the House 

of Representatives and the Committee on Governmental Affairs 

of the Senate— 

(A) a list of the programs to be assessed during that fiscal year; and 

(B) the criteria that will be used to assess the programs; 

and 

(2) provide a mechanism for interested persons to comment on 

the programs being assessed and the criteria that will be used 

to assess the programs. 

(f) REPORT.—(1) The results of the assessments conducted during 

a fiscal year shall be submitted in a report to Congress at the same 

time that the President submits the next budget under section 1105 

of this title after the end of that fiscal year. 

(2) The report shall— 

(A) include the performance goals for each program assessment; 

(B) specify the criteria used for each assessment; 

(C) describe the results of each assessment, including any significant limitation in the assessments; 

(D) describe significant modifications to the Federal Government performance plan required under section 1105(a)(28) of 

this title made as a result of the assessments; and 

(E) be available in electronic form through the Office of Management and Budget website or any successor website. 

(g) CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.—(1) With respect to program assessments conducted during a fiscal year that contain classified information, the President shall submit on the same date as the report 

is submitted under subsection (f)— 

(A) a copy of each such assessment (including the classified 

information), to the appropriate committees of jurisdiction of 

the House of Representatives and the Senate; and 

(B) consistent with statutory law governing the disclosure of 

classified information, an appendix containing a list of each 

such assessment and the committees to which a copy of the assessment was submitted under subparagraph (A), to the Committee on Government Reform of the House of Representatives 

and the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate. 

(2) Upon request from the Committee on Government Reform of 

the House of Representatives or the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate, the Director of the Office of Management and 

Budget shall, consistent with statutory law governing the disclosure 

of classified information, provide to the Committee a copy of— 

(A) any assessment described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) (including any assessment not listed in any appendix 

submitted under subparagraph (B) of such paragraph); and 

(B) any appendix described in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1). 

19 

(3) In this subsection, the term ‘‘classified information’’ refers to 

matters described in section 552(b)(1)(A) of title 5. 

(h) INHERENTLY GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS.—The functions and 

activities authorized or required by this section shall be considered 

inherently Governmental functions and shall be performed only by 

Federal employees. 

SECTION 306 OF TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE 

§ 306. Strategic plans 

(a) øNo later than September 30, 1997,¿ Not later than September 30 of each year following a year in which an election for 

President occurs, beginning with September 30, 2005, the head of 

each agency shall submit to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and to the Congress a strategic plan for program 

activities. Such plan shall contain— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

ø(b) The strategic plan shall cover a period of not less than five 

years forward from the fiscal year in which it is submitted. The 

strategic plan shall be updated and revised at least every three 

years, except that the strategic plan for the Department of Defense 

shall be updated and revised at least every four years.¿ 

(b) Each strategic plan shall cover the 4-year period beginning on 

October 1 of the year following a year in which an election for President occurs. 

* * * * * * * 

(20) 

1Government Accountability Office, Performance Budgeting: Observations on the Use of 

OMB’s Program Assessment Rating Tool for the Fiscal Year 2004 Budget, 6 (Jan. 2004) (GAO– 

04–174). 

MINORITY VIEWS 

H.R. 185, the Program Assessment and Results Act (PARA), 

would require every federal program to be reviewed or evaluated 

at least once every five years. We support the concept of programmatic reviews. However, as drafted, this bill allows the program review process to be politicized. In addition, the bill fails to 

ensure adequate public participation. Finally, the bill permanently 

authorizes these reviews whereas it should have a termination date 

to ensure its usefulness. 

During full Committee markup, we proposed amendments to 

PARA addressing these three fundamental flaws. An amendment 

by Rep. Henry A. Waxman would have required agencies, and not 

the partisan Office of Management and Budget (OMB), to perform 

the bill’s required program assessments. An amendment by Rep. 

Ed Towns would have enhanced transparency by requiring a notice 

and comment process prior to the conducting of assessments. Another amendment by Rep. Ed Towns would have sunsetted the bill 

in the year 2013. Because these three amendments were rejected, 

we cannot support PARA as reported by the Committee on Government Reform. 

THERE IS NO ROOM FOR POLITICS IN THE PROGRAM ASSESSMENT

PROCESS

PARA expands on the requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). GPRA requires agencies to set annual goals and measure their performance in achieving those goals. 

PARA adds a periodic five-year review to provide a detailed analysis at the individual program level. 

As drafted, this bill deviates from GPRA in one significant respect. Instead of requiring agencies to set performance goals and 

evaluate the performance of their programs, PARA requires the 

White House, through the OMB, to pick the criteria and evaluate 

performance. The Waxman amendment sought to fix this problem. 

When Congress passed GPRA, it clearly wanted the agencies to 

set the goals and measures, not OMB. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) highlighted this issue when it reviewed the 

Administration’s Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART), upon 

which the bill before us is based. When explaining that OMB intends to modify GPRA goals and measures in order to align them 

with the PART, GAO found that ‘‘OMB’s judgment about appropriate goals and measures is substituted for GPRA judgments 

based on a community of stakeholder interests,’’ including Congress.1

21 

2Office of Management and Budget, Fiscal Year 2006 Budget of the U.S. Government, Program Assessment Rating Tool, PART Performance Measurements, Housing and Urban Development, 16 (Feb. 2005). 3 Id., Environmental Protection Agency, 3–15. 

Congress expresses its priorities through statutes authorizing 

agency activities. But OMB is not tasked with implementing those 

statutes. Instead, OMB implements the priorities of the White 

House. In fact, many agencies, and especially those charged with 

protecting public health, worker safety, and the environment, view 

OMB as hostile to the agencies’ fundamental missions. 

OMB has a history of using the PART review to criticize congressional actions and priorities. OMB rated the Community Development Block Grant program as ‘‘ineffective’’ and proposed its virtual 

elimination in the FY 2006 budget. OMB, in its PART analysis, 

partially blamed Congress. OMB explained that the programs mission is not clear because ‘‘throughout CDBG’s legislative history 

there has been ambiguity.’’ 2 Similarly, OMB criticized the acid rain 

program, created under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and 

widely regarded as a tremendously successful program and a model 

for environmental regulations. OMB penalized this program for 

complying with its explicit statutory directives from Congress. 

OMB’s rationale for downgrading the acid rain program states that 

these identified program deficiencies would be fixed if Congress 

passed the President’s proposal to amend the Clean Air Act.3

In addition to ignoring the will of Congress, OMB does a poor job 

assessing programs. HOPE VI has been found to be effective by the 

Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, as well as the GAO 

and the HUD Inspector General. Yet OMB in its FY2006 gave the 

HOPE VI an ‘‘ineffective’’ rating, and then used its rating to justify 

defunding the program in the FY2006 budget. Also, OMB rated the 

Superfund removal program as ‘‘results not demonstrated’’ because 

OMB did not agree with EPA’s measure of success. The Superfund 

program clearly has been a success. It has cleaned up thousands 

of hazardous waste sites since its creation in 1980 and it is a critically important program that addresses threats ranging from polluted groundwater to radioactive waste. 

Congress should not authorize OMB to effectively overrule Congress and set the goals for federal agency activities. 

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IS KEY TO SUCCESSFUL PROGRAM

ASSESSMENTS

PARA fails to provide adequately for public input into how programs should be evaluated. The Towns amendment sought to address this deficiency. The amendment would provide a period for 

public notice and comment on which programs will be reviewed, 

and what criteria will be used to review them. It does not require 

OMB or agencies to accept those comments, or modify their plans 

in any way. It simply creates a forum for public comment. 

Stakeholder participation is fundamental to GPRA, the underlying law that this bill seeks to amend. GPRA states that when developing its strategic plans, ‘‘the agency shall consult with the Congress, and shall solicit and consider the views and suggestions of 

22 

4Government Performance and Results Act, 5 U.S.C. § 306(d). 

5Government Accountability Office, supra note 1, at 31. 

those entities potentially affected by or interested in such a plan.’’ 4

GAO agrees. It has found that ‘‘stakeholder involvement appears 

critical for getting consensus on goals and measures.’’ 5

The Towns amendment was agreed to at the Subcommittee level 

in the 108th Congress. In a departure from customary practice, it 

was taken out and replaced with vague and much weaker language 

in a manager’s amendment at full Committee in the 108th Congress. Similarly, the Towns language was not included in the bill 

as introduced or as passed out of full Committee in the 109th Congress. 

SUNSETTING PARA IS APPROPRIATE

It is appropriate to sunset PARA in order to give Congress the 

opportunity to review whether the requirements of the bill have 

been effective and whether the bill should be reauthorized. The second Towns amendment would have sunsetted the bill in 2013. 

The language of this Towns amendment was agreed to at the 

Subcommittee level in the 108th Congress. In addition, this language was included when the bill was considered by the full Committee in the 108th Congress. The sunset language was removed 

from the bill when it was reintroduced in the 109th Congress. 

OTHER ISSUES

We are pleased that some provisions were added to PARA at the 

request of the minority. They include language on transparency, diversification of program assessments to ensure that both domestic 

and defense/homeland security programs were being assessed each 

year, enhanced coordination between OMB and agencies, all program assessments and other requirements of PARA be performed 

by federal employees, and program assessments that include classified information be available to Congress, but as a classified appendix. 

HENRY A. WAXMAN. 

TOM LANTOS. 

MAJOR R. OWENS. 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS. 

BERNARD SANDERS. 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY. 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS. 

WM. LACY CLAY. 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN. 

C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER. 

BRIAN HIGGINS. 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON. 

Æ