U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

45–404 CC 1998

THE RESULTS ACT: ARE WE GETTING RESULTS?

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

GOVERNMENT REFORM 

AND OVERSIGHT 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

OCTOBER 30, 1997

Serial No. 105–60

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT 

DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman 

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York 

J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois 

CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland 

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut 

STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico 

CHRISTOPHER COX, California 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York 

STEPHEN HORN, California 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia 

DAVID M. MCINTOSH, Indiana 

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana 

JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

MARSHALL ‘‘MARK’’ SANFORD, South 

Carolina 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

PETE SESSIONS, Texas 

MICHAEL PAPPAS, New Jersey 

VINCE SNOWBARGER, Kansas 

BOB BARR, Georgia 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

TOM LANTOS, California 

ROBERT E. WISE, JR., West Virginia 

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania 

GARY A. CONDIT, California 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington, 

DC 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio 

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois 

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois 

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts 

JIM TURNER, Texas 

THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine 

HAROLD E. FORD, JR., Tennessee 

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

(Independent) 

KEVIN BINGER, Staff Director 

DANIEL R. MOLL, Deputy Staff Director 

WILLIAM MOSCHELLA, Deputy Counsel and Parliamentarian 

JANE COBB, Professional Staff Member 

JUDITH MCCOY, Chief Clerk 

PHIL SCHILIRO, Minority Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on October 30, 1997 .......................................................................... 1

Statement of: 

Armey, Hon. Richard K., majority leader, U.S. House of Representatives .. 18

Raines, Franklin, Director, Office of Management and Budget ................... 31

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by: 

Armey, Hon. Richard K., majority leader, U.S. House of Representatives, 

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 23

Horn, Hon. Stephen, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, prepared statement of ................................................................ 4

Maloney, Hon. Carolyn B., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New York, prepared statement of ........................................................... 10

Morella, Hon. Constance A., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Maryland, prepared statement of ............................................................ 6

Raines, Franklin, Director, Office of Management and Budget, prepared 

statement of ................................................................................................... 35

Waxman, Hon. Henry A., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California, prepared statement of ........................................................... 16

(1)

THE RESULTS ACT: ARE WE GETTING 

RESULTS? 

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 30, 1997 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in room 2154, 

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dan Burton (chairman of the 

committee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Burton, Hastert, Morella, Horn, Mica, 

Davis of Virginia, Sessions, Pappas, Snowbarger, Portman, Waxman, Maloney, Barrett, Norton, Cummings, Kucinich, and Ford. 

Staff present: Kevin Binger, staff director; Daniel R. Moll, deputy 

staff director; Judith McCoy, chief clerk; Jane Cobb, professional 

staff member; William Moschella, deputy counsel and parliamentarian; Teresa Austin, assistant clerk/calendar clerk; Will Dwyer, 

director of communications; Ashley Williams, deputy director of 

communications; Phil Schiliro, minority staff director; Phil Barnett, 

minority chief counsel; Agnieszka Fryszman, minority counsel; 

Mark Stephenson, minority professional staff member, and Ellen 

Rayner, minority chief clerk. 

Mr. BURTON. The Committee on Government Reform and Oversight will come to order. I have called this hearing today to continue the important oversight that I and the committee started in 

February, when we held the first full committee hearing of this 

year on the Government Performance and Results Act. While the 

press may know me for my efforts to ferret out fundraising abuses 

in the last Presidential election cycle, what they may not know so 

well is that I also take very seriously this committee’s duty to root 

out waste, fraud, and abuse in the rest of our Federal Government. 

In our fight against waste and mismanagement, this committee 

has held over 100 oversight hearings, this year. The Results Act is 

the key tool being used in these efforts. We all know that the traditional way of doing business in Washington has been to create another program or spend more money when we want to solve a problem. Our lives, our property, our health are increasingly being 

dominated by Washington rules and regulations that give more and 

more power to beltway bureaucrats. 

The old Washington way of doing business has resulted in a bloated Federal Government. We have gone from spending $590 

billion per year in 1980, to nearly triple that amount to more than 

$1.6 trillion this past year. We have also added a million new 

pages—a million new pages—of Federal regulations since 1980, 

and we have gone blindly about this without knowing the answers 

2

to some very fundamental questions, common-sense questions like: 

‘‘What is the purpose of this program? Is it appropriate that the 

Federal Government do it, or should it be done at the State or local 

level, or even by the private sector? Are there similar programs already in existence, and, if so, are they not achieving the desired results?’’ Taxpayers do not invest their hard-earned money in stock unless 

they think the company produces a good product in a most efficient 

and effective manner. Why should the public pay taxes to fund 

Federal programs that are not achieving good results? They should 

not, and they are counting on us to make sure that they do not. 

At our Results Act hearing last February, we learned that agencies had barely begun to think about their strategic plans that 

were due in September, even though they had known since 1993, 

when the law was passed, to start preparing their plans. As a result, the agencies’ draft plans were abysmal. 

You have seen from our September report that all but 2 of the 

24 major Federal agencies received a failing grade in their draft 

plans. The Labor Department’s score was the lowest, at 6.5 percent. Now, that is intolerable. The Departments of Energy, Commerce, HUD, and Agriculture all had scores below 20 percent. The 

average grade for these draft plans was 29.9 percent. When I was 

in school, 70 percent or below was failing, and we have grades at 

about one-third that level. 

We are finding the final strategic plans to be somewhat better 

than the draft versions, and we will come out with a second report 

next week with the latest strategic plan’s scores. Frankly, I think 

any improvements in the plans have more to do with where Congress, and not the administration, has placed the bar. In fact, some 

committee members, including myself, are concerned that the Results Act is not a high enough priority for OMB, thus the slipping 

deadlines and the low quality of the agency plans. 

Our majority leader, who is here with us today—and I thank you 

for being here, Dick—has played a key role in engaging Congress 

in this important effort. I am pleased to have him back before the 

committee to give us his perspective on where we are, and how far 

we have to go. 

After Mr. Armey, we will hear from the Director of the Office of 

Management and Budget, Franklin Raines, who has the chief role 

in coordinating and ensuring all Federal agencies comply with the 

Results Act. 

The General Accounting Office has also been involved in helping 

Congress access the agencies’ strategic plans. The Acting Comptroller General, Mr. James Hinchman, is here to testify on behalf 

of their efforts. 

For our final panel, I am pleased to welcome the Honorable Maurice McTigue, a visiting scholar at George Mason University from 

New Zealand. Mr. McTigue, formerly a Member of Parliament and 

Cabinet Minister in the Government of New Zealand, was a major 

force in seeing Results Act-type reforms implemented in his country. 

I also want to commend our subcommittee chairmen, several of 

whom have held hearings this year to examine the draft strategic 

plans of the agencies in their purview. Chairman Horn and ChairVerDate Sep 04 2002 15:35 Sep 25, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 W:\DISC\45404 45404
3

man Shays, in particular, have done an outstanding job. Also, congratulations to Congressman Pete Sessions, who started the ‘‘Results Caucus’’ to get Members focused in the areas in Government 

at high risk for waste, fraud, or abuse. I also want to thank Chairman Denny Hastert for his leadership in putting specific performance requirements into the reauthorization bill for the drug czar’s 

office; this is what the Results Act is all about. 

I want to welcome all of our witnesses here today, as we assess 

where we are in taking on the challenges of the Results Act. 

With that, Mr. Horn, do you have any opening statements? 

Mr. HORN. Well, just briefly, Mr. Chairman, we thank you for 

holding this hearing, and we thank you for the support of Jane 

Cobb of your staff and others who have been immensely helpful. I 

want to commend the majority leader for really doing what we all 

said he would do when he first testified before us on establishing 

a ‘‘war room’’ where they really keep track of what’s going on in 

the various executive departments. We thank particularly Ginni 

Thomas of his staff for the very great help she has provided all of 

us, and we appreciate your continued commitment on this. 

I would simply say this: We have held five hearings on the Results Act this year at the subcommittee level. The first three were 

conducted while agencies were still working on their strategic 

plans, and I think a lot of lessons were learned, mutually, by the 

executive branch and the legislative branch. 

Our two most recent hearings concentrated on the Office of Management and Budget and the General Services Administration. I 

guess I would say that the strategic plans are in minimal compliance with the requirements of the Results Act, so we would hope 

that this hearing will try to get at some of the things that the executive branch could do, which would assure that these plans comply 

with the law, after the 5 years that, as the chairman said, we have 

given the executive branch to begin in this area. So, without objection Mr. Chairman, I would like to have the statement put in the 

record as if read. 

Mr. BURTON. Without objection. 

[The prepared statements of Hon. Stephen Horn and Hon. Constance A. Morella follow:]

4


g:\graphics\45404.001
5


g:\graphics\45404.002
6


g:\graphics\45404.003
7


g:\graphics\45404.004
8


g:\graphics\45404.005
9

Mr. BURTON. Are there further opening statements? Mrs. 

Maloney. 

Mrs. MALONEY Mr. Chairman, I would like to request that Mr. 

Waxman’s opening statement be put in the record, and in the interest of time, since we have an important leader here, I would like 

my statement also to be put in the record. I won’t read it. 

I would just like to say that the Government Performance and 

Results Act enjoyed wide bipartisan support. Since its passage in 

1993, it was the first bill that I managed on the floor of Congress, 

so I have a particular affinity for it. It was signed by a Democratic 

President; yet, I am told it was drafted and supported by members 

of President Bush’s Office of Management and Budget, and that 

President Bush himself, likewise, supported the concept and the 

GPRA bill. I don’t think anything better exemplifies the genuine 

desire of both sides of the aisle for a good effective and efficient 

Federal Government. 

I must say that one of the prime focuses of it is one of the focuses 

really of Mr. Armey himself, to eliminate waste and duplication in 

our Government, not only in Congress, but throughout Government. And I look forward to your testimony, and I request that my 

opening statement and Mr. Waxman be put in the record in full. 

Mr. BURTON. Without objection. 

[The prepared statements of Hon. Carolyn B. Maloney and Hon. 

Henry A. Waxman follow:]

10


g:\graphics\45404.006
11


g:\graphics\45404.007
12


g:\graphics\45404.008
13


g:\graphics\45404.009
14


g:\graphics\45404.010
15


g:\graphics\45404.011
16


g:\graphics\45404.012
17


g:\graphics\45404.013
18

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you. 

Mr. BURTON. Are there further opening statements? If not, Mr. 

Armey, welcome. I am glad to have you with us again. Since you 

were last here, your hair has gotten a little grayer. [Laughter.] 

Other than that, you look great. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD K. ARMEY, HOUSE MAJORITY 

LEADER 

Mr. ARMEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to make it very 

clear, of course, that my hair has certainly not gotten more gray 

because of any of the work done on this one. 

It is a pleasure to be back here. I think you have a very good 

lineup of people to come before you, and I am sure that when the 

day is over, you’ll look back and you will say the least of them was 

the majority leader, so I need to move on so you can get to those 

folks who will give more. 

I want to, if I may, though, take just a moment to join you in 

thanking Mr. McTigue from New Zealand. It is always great to 

have insight from people across the waters and around the globe, 

who have had success, and they have had success with the Results 

Act-type legislation in New Zealand, which is a nation that is presenting itself to be to the world a nation of good ideas. I would remind you, Mr. Chairman, they are also a nation that has the flat 

tax, so obviously their successes are emulated on as many fronts 

as possible, and I hope you will forgive me that moment of self-indulgence. 

But, I think Mrs. Maloney made a very important point: the Results Act was in fact born in bipartisanship. It has been enthusiastically embraced by both parties, and the administration from 

both parties, and legislators from both parties. And, I really think 

we all ought to always understand that we have a community effort here, and that we are all trying to learn new skills and to implement new process and new procedures for the very purpose of 

making this Government perform more effectively and achieve 

more satisfying and more verifiable results for the American people. This is very likely to be the best example of good government 

practices put in practice in the government, then anything any of 

us have seen for a long time. 

Certainly, that is not unrelated to the efforts of this committee. 

This is the committee of jurisdiction, and it is the committee that 

I think maintains the effort. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you 

personally for the efforts of this committee, and if I may, in particular, single out Subcommittee Chairman Horn for his devotion 

to this and other legislative efforts that do, in fact, lead us in the 

direction of a more effective government, achieving better results 

for the American people. 

I’d like to just take a quote from Tom Schatz of Citizens Against 

Government Waste, an organization that has been diligent in its 

review of the practices of government for years. Mr. Schatz said: 

‘‘While the Results Act is not a name that generates immediate excitement, it will, if properly administered and enforced by Congress, deliver the most significant level of accountability of the use 

of tax dollars in American history.’’

19

I think we ought to focus on what he said there for just a moment: if properly administered through the executive branch and 

through the agencies of Government, and of course enforced by 

Congress. This should not be seen as an adversarial relationship, 

and, indeed, I do not perceive that it is being worked out as an adversarial relationship. It is a cooperative relationship. We are all 

in it together, and I think we are working well together. I think 

Mr. Schatz is also right in that he understands that knowledge is 

power, and the power to do good comes from a clear understanding 

of what it is we are trying to accomplish, and how well we are 

doing along the way. 

Now, as we look at that, I am going to focus today on what I believe to be the status of our progress to date, and where I think 

we may need to make additional improvements. And, as I make 

that focus, I think you will find that I make that focus in equal 

parts as I look at the agencies; as I look at the executive branch; 

and, as I look at the Congress as well. 

If we are going to regain the public’s trust and confidence, we 

must reform bloated, unresponsive, and inefficient programs and 

agencies, and we must achieve a smaller, smarter, more commonsense government. Before we can intelligently evaluate whether 

any given policy is wise or misguided, whether an agency’s budgetary needs justify taking more from low-income Americans, mothers, and children, we must have reliable, detailed, information 

about how that money is spent. We must demand tangible, measurable goals, and then followup to ensure that these targets are 

reached. 

In a democratic society there will always be disagreements, both 

ideological and otherwise, about the desirability of many policies 

and programs. We will always seek common ground and principled 

compromise, but there is one thing on which we cannot compromise: Before the true policy debate can begin, we must have reliable, honest information about where our tax dollars are going 

and what they are accomplishing. 

We can no longer afford to give Federal agencies cart blanc. The 

purpose of the Results Act is to make the Federal Government accountable. We finally have a tool that allows us to discover what 

the Federal Government is doing, and how it is getting it done. 

With the implementation of another law, the Chief Financial Officers Act, we could also discover: How much does it cost? Isn’t it 

refreshing to think that we are now stopping to ask the inane question, whether or not programs are spending all their money, and 

instead we are asking: Is the program producing results, as judged 

by honest, objective performance measures? 

We are witnessing more and more congressional attention to 

using the Results Act as a tool of enhancing accountability. We 

have counted 23 congressional hearings on the Results Act since 

February, and including today, where Jim Talent’s Small Business 

Committee is having one, as well as Tom Ewing’s Agriculture subcommittee having one. 

Today, more and more Members are seeing the value of building 

performance standards into their authorizing efforts. I was particularly surprised by Denny Hastert and Rob Portman’s leadership in 

this regard, as they moved the drug czar reauthorization legislation 

20

recently, with six specific targets and goals. In that instance, we 

not only legislated policy, we insisted on a measuring stick to the 

achievement of result. This is how we can all use the Results Act 

principles as we do our legislative work, clarifying what Congress 

expects each program to achieve to the American people. 

A perfect example of how the act complements and enhances congressional oversight is the Results Caucus. The Results Caucus is 

bipartisan, and it is headed by Pete Sessions. It is dedicated to resolving specific management problems targeted by GAO’s high-risk 

list. Pete Sessions, and many of our colleagues, are tackling specific 

problems of waste, fraud, and error through this caucus, and I am 

proud, as a Texan, to watch Pete’s work through this caucus. 

Committees have invested much time and effort in congressional 

consultations on strategic plans, and I commend the fine work of 

all who participated. This effort involved virtually every House 

committee, including authorizers, appropriators, and budgeteers. 

Your committee, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Horn’s subcommittee, 

played a particularly important role. Your committee work focuses 

on solving problems, improving Government management, exerting 

focused congressional pressure, and just plain old ‘‘rolling up the 

sleeves and doing hard work.’’ We have conducted this effort on a bipartisan and a bicameral 

basis, and we are pleased that so many of our colleagues are joining in the effort. We have received excellent support from GAO, 

and from the Congressional Research Service. We have worked 

closely with Frank Raines and his staff at OMB. Judging from the 

quality of the strategic plans we have now seen, we intend to work 

even more closely with them from now on. I am convinced that 

these efforts are worthwhile. Progress is being made, and we must 

continue. 

Last time I testified before you, Mr. Chairman, was in February. 

We talked about the promise of the Results Act and our expectations for making it work. Department by department, program by 

program, we found that the first round of strategic plans demonstrates how challenging it is to implement the Results Act, and 

how far we have to go. It also underscores the importance of sticking to the task. To invoke a cliche, the act really does involve fundamental ‘‘cultural change.’’ And, Mr. Chairman, I talked about 

that the last time I was here. 

We should all have, one, a modicum of patience, understanding 

it is hard for many of us. In many of our roles in our lives, as my 

daddy told me when I was a boy, it is tough to teach an old dog 

new tricks. And, there will be resistance; there will be foot-dragging; there will be disbelief. But, frankly, I think the agencies have 

done a great deal to demonstrate in themselves that you can overcome all of these factions of inertia. Should we be satisfied? No. 

But, we should also be appreciative that a great many people in 

this town have already demonstrated that they have a great deal 

of willingness to learn new and better ways of doing things against 

the grain of all their experience. 

By the same token, I think we should be impatient. It seems almost insane to say we should be both patient and impatient. We 

should also recognize that the purposes to which we can put this 

legislation’s full implementation are important enough that we 

21

must always be prodding, poaching, even nagging, to get everybody 

further down the line. 

There is good news. Nearly all congressional committees have become involved in consultations about agencies strategic plans. Congress received nearly 100 strategic plans. The principles of the Results Act were shown to work—you get what you measure—by Congress telling OMB and agencies how we could score their plans 

using 10 criteria; we did see improvement in these 10 areas. Some 

plans were closer than others to meeting the mark. Transportation’s and Education’s plans were the most impressive, although 

they still showed some gaps. Agencies had great difficulty developing their strategic plans. They are much more used to dealing 

with process than results. They are very important to us. They are 

much more comfortable measuring how many inspections they conduct, how many regulations they issue, and how quickly they spend 

our money, than they are at trying to access what all this accomplishes for the real benefit of the American people. 

The bad news is: We still have a long, as I said, have a long way 

to go. Next week Chairman Burton and I, along with some of our 

House and Senate colleagues, will issue a report that gives out 

final grades on 24 of the nearly 100 final strategic plans that were 

submitted on September 30 to the Congress, in accordance with the 

Results Act. 

This report will give credit where credit is due, and show examples of the problems we have found. We will also suggest next steps 

as we approach the February submission of President Clinton’s 

first-ever governmentwide performance plan and the agency performance plans that will accompany their budget submission and 

link to them. 

As I have said, making sure that we get the maximum results 

from the Results Act will not be easy. The first round of strategic 

plans was quite disappointing, for the most part. This makes it all 

the more important that the administration, OMB, and the agencies have a concerted effort to produce much higher quality performance plans next February. Agencies are going to be watching 

for the President’s governmentwide performance plan, due in Congress in February. 

Most agencies also face massive data capacity problems that 

threaten their ability to produce and provide decisionmakers with 

reliable performance information. Even the best strategic or performance plan will be only a paper exercise unless the agency can 

back it up with good data. I was surprised to learn yesterday that 

Frank Raines does not think this is an immediate problem, and 

that our scoring of strategic plans should not include any discussion of data credibility right now. I can’t be more strongly in disagreement with Frank on that point. I believe that the administration, the OMB, and we, together, need to tackle this problem headon, and solve it expeditiously, or the act will risk being a failure. 

More Members must get involved. If I had my way, I’d like to 

see every congressional committee with jurisdiction over departments, agencies, or function review the policy implications that are 

in the new strategic plan. Although our review to date had to focus 

on compliance, not policy, the time is right for Congress to tell the 

Government whether they are headed in the right or wrong direcVerDate Sep 04 2002 15:35 Sep 25, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 W:\DISC\45404 45404
22

tion. We need to ask fundamental questions such as: Is it clear 

where the agency is headed for the next 5 years? Is it going in the 

right direction? Are its goals and measures credible and results oriented, and do they make sense? Do they fulfill important Federal 

responsibilities, or are they more appropriate for other levels of 

government, or for the private sector? 

We need to integrate Results Act information into our basic legislative responsibility. When Congress considers program reauthorization, we need to ask what concrete results has the program 

achieved? Are they worthwhile and cost-effective? Is there a better 

way to provide this service? 

When Congress considers appropriations, we need to ask whether 

the agencies’ budget requests are proficiently tied to the results of 

its program, and what funding levels these results merit? 

When considering proposals to create new programs, we need to 

ask how these proposals relate to existing programs and resources 

dedicated to the same or similar goals, and why existing programs 

can’t be restructured or improved to produce the new desired outcome, without layering new programs on the old programs? 

Finally, we need to integrate Results Act information into our 

oversight activity, as we hold agencies accountable. While we can’t 

legislate good management, we can provide the right incentive. 

In summary, every dollar spent by the Government is a dollar 

earned by someone else. Taxpayers deserve a Government that 

doesn’t waste their hard-earned dollars. You and I have within our 

capability a chance to ensure honest data for smarter decisions. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, let me observe an Armey axiom: Nobody spends somebody else’s money as wisely as they spend their 

own. The Federal Government is an example of that. With proper 

implementation of the Results Act, we may actually be able to be 

the first best example of a reversal of an Armey’s Axiom, and I 

thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Richard K. Armey follows:]

23


g:\graphics\45404.014
24


g:\graphics\45404.015
25


g:\graphics\45404.016
26


g:\graphics\45404.017
27


g:\graphics\45404.018
28

Mr. BURTON. You did not plagiarize that axiom, did you? 

Mr. ARMEY Did I? 

Mr. BURTON. I don’t think you did; I just thought I would throw 

that in. Before we go to questions——

Mr. ARMEY. It is very hard, Mr. Speaker—or Mr. Chairman——

Mr. BURTON. Oh, you promoted me there. 

Mr. ARMEY. Let’s don’t get started with that again. [Laughter.] 

I was just going to say, a person of my vast experience and attentiveness is never sure for sure whether, indeed, I created the line 

myself or did get it from somebody else. 

Mr. BURTON. I got you. 

Before we go to questioning of the majority leader, Mr. Hastert? 

Mr. HASTERT. I thank the chairman, and certainly thank the 

chairman for holding this hearing today. I would first like to thank 

our majority leader also for appearing before us; this is an important issue. 

Mr. Leader, you have led this Congress in many ways, and 

scored many important successes for the American taxpayer, but 

that said, I think one of the most important contributions has been 

legislating the iron-clad assurances that Federal agencies become 

accountable. Your leadership and certainly tireless insistence on results are an example, and your role as the champion of the Results 

Act is an enduring victory for the average American taxpayer. 

At minimum, the Results Act requires each Federal agency to 

submit to Congress an initial strategic plan outlining in black and 

white their mission, goals, and objectives, in addition to stating a 

plan to achieve those goals, and most importantly, a performance 

measurement system to ensure objective progress toward meeting 

those goals. This is not only good business practice, it represents 

a concrete way for Congress to ensure that hard-earned taxpayer 

dollars are not frittered away on bureaucracy or wasted on fruitless 

projects. Your efforts will take us a long way toward eliminating 

duplicative and ineffective programs, and properly supporting proven success. 

The Federal Government currently employs almost 3 million people and spends approximately $1.6 trillion annually. With such a 

large and unaccountable bureaucracy, fraud and abuse are bound 

to flourish. And, as you stated in your interim report, taxpayers 

pay more than five times what the private sector pays to build for 

example, houses. This kind of waste cannot continue, and I am 

happy to say that such spendthrift days are now over, since we 

have had the Results Act. 

As you know, I have taken privileges and principles of the Results Act and applied them specifically to the war on drugs. We 

have just passed a bill reauthorizing the drug czar’s office that includes setting hard targets and specific goals for that office to 

achieve. It requires the Office of National Drug Control Policy to 

report to Congress frequently regarding progress toward the goals 

of genuinely winning the drug war, and moreover, as required by 

the Results Act, that agency must justify each and every taxpayer 

dollar appropriated for the counter-drug effort. We are asking the 

same thing of that agency, that we are asking of the rest of the 

Federal Government—in a word ‘‘accountability.’’

29

Again, I commend you, Mr. Armey, our majority leader, for taking hold of the reins. When agencies were less than enthusiastic 

about the Results Act, you motivated them to comply, and when 

the draft strategic plans proved deficient, you pushed the demand 

better. When other issues took the attention of Congress, you persisted, and kept this act at the forefront. I would like to thank you 

for your perseverance, your ingenuity, and your principal leadership, and to borrow a phrase, ‘‘your results.’’ Thank you very much. 

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Hastert. Mr. Waxman. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Leader, we are pleased to have you here, and we appreciate 

your presentation. The Results Act was passed with broad bipartisan support because we want to make Government more efficient. 

That is a goal that we all share. 

I was struck by how Congress would rate if the same criteria 

were applied to us. One of the goals of the Results Act is to eliminate waste and duplication. In your report, Mr. Armey, you noted 

that, and I am going to quote: ‘‘The Federal Government is plagued 

by duplication and program overlap. We cannot afford to have multiple agencies doing essentially the same thing, or working at crosspurposes with one another. Departments seem rarely to coordinate 

within their own walls, much less coordinate with other agencies. 

As a result, duplication of program overlap in the Federal Government are widespread.’’ That is a distressing reality, but I want to draw your attention 

to the Congress, because our committee is doing a campaign finance investigation, and Senator Thompson is doing a campaign finance investigation; the Justice Department is doing one; we have 

the independent counsel, Kenneth Starr, conducting similar inquiries. As Representative Condit has repeatedly pointed out, this duplication wastes millions of taxpayer dollars; but, this isn’t the only 

example. 

Last week, Chairman Burton issued subpoenas to the International Brotherhood of Teamsters in the Ron Carey campaign. 

Now, it is, of course, important for Congress to investigate this, but 

we have Senator Thompson investigating it; we also have in the 

House, Representative Hoekstra, who is the chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee’s Oversight and Investigation 

Subcommittee. He is conducting an investigation, and he has already held two hearings on this issue. 

There are more examples of duplication. Now, both the House 

and the Senate are investigating why the White House did not discover the Clinton videotapes any sooner, and Chairman Burton 

said he intends to depose as many as 60 witnesses. It is appropriate to investigate, but Chairman Thompson’s investigation is 

virtually identical; he is deposing the same witnesses, with the 

same questions, and reviewing the same documents. 

One of the frustrations for many Members of the minority is this 

double standard that the Republicans seem to be following, and I 

want you to comment, because we have a lot of concern about duplication in the agencies, but we seem to ignore duplication activities under our own roof. I, for example, sent a letter to the Speaker 

saying, ‘‘Why don’t we have one committee, House/Senate, to do the 

campaign and finance investigation?’’ I never even got a response 

30

to that letter. The majority spent $40,000 in this committee to create a data base, and rather than share it, the minority had to go 

spend $40,000 to recreate the data base. Recently, our committee 

had staff go out to get computer disks. They took 2 days to do it; 

spent hundreds of taxpayer dollars. In fact, it was a total of six 

working days, and staff time was wasted, because they could have 

easily had this mailed to our committee. 

Now, you supported the Congressional Accountability Act, as did 

I, that forced Congress to live under the same laws we impose on 

the private sector; it is just as easy to waste taxpayers’ money if 

it is somebody else’s money, whether it is at the administrative 

branch or the legislative branch, it appears. I am wondering if you 

think the American people would benefit if the Results Act were 

applied to Congress, as well, so Congress was held accountable for 

achieving results efficiently, in the same way we are trying to hold 

agencies accountable—a goal I think we would want for both institutions. 

Mr. ARMEY. I appreciate your observation. I might first make 

this point: The entire House and one-third of the Senate is held accountable every 2 years to the American people at the polling place. 

We have divisions of authorities and responsibilities, and it is a 

fascination to watch it. It all began with the Founding Fathers having created a bicameral legislator along with an executive branch. 

I have looked at that, and I generally applaud the wisdom of the 

Founding Fathers. On occasions, when I look at the Senate, I wonder if perhaps maybe a unicameral legislature might have been a 

better idea, but there is a House; there is a Senate; they will do 

that. Within our respective bodies we do have divisions of authorities and responsibilities, and it is often contested. I am just sitting 

here looking at Jack Brooks’ portrait. Only last night we watched 

Jack Brooks and John Dingell musing about their many lively battles over jurisdiction over the years. Certainly, the sense of multiple jurisdictional rights and obligations among the different committees of the House is not a new game; it has been going on since 

long before I was here, and I suspect it will go on long after I was 

here. 

The last election cycle, I believe, probably did, in fact, generate 

enough oversight and investigation opportunities to keep just about 

everybody you have cited fully employed for a long time. So, it just 

seems to me that what we have found is the House with its apparatus, the Senate with its apparatus, and the Justice Department 

with its apparatus. I’ve said, if we all swing full-time, full into 

gear, we might be able to cover all the ground that is out there for 

us to look at. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Armey, you advised us that we should be patient and impatient, but I think you are being too patient when we 

are wasting the taxpayers’ dollars in the Congress, while you are 

impatient with the executive branch. I think we ought to be impatient wherever we see taxpayers’ dollars wasted. I appreciate your 

answer. 

Mr. ARMEY. I appreciate that, and also I should acknowledge 

that I have been very patient with the tone of your question, too; 

so it was evened up. 

31

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, I think that’s appropriate, because you are 

making a presentation to the committee and each of us can ask 

questions, and I think it is a legitimate question I raised with you. 

Mr. ARMEY. I do. 

Mr. BURTON. We thank the gentleman. 

We have a vote on the floor; it is going to be followed, I understand, by final passage, I believe—I can’t read your writing, but 

anyhow it’s going to—[laughter]—we have to teach these young 

people how to write. Did they take penmanship in your school? Oh, 

you wrote that, OK. [Laughter.] 

That’s a college professor. 

The House—the House, see, you’ve got me thinking as the Speaker. The committee will stand in recess for about the next 10 to 15 

minutes. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. BURTON. The committee will come back to order. I want to 

apologize for the apparent confusion. There is going to be another 

vote on the floor in just a few minutes, and as a result, some of 

the Members are staying over there for the vote. What I think we 

will do is go ahead and start with Mr. Raines. If you don’t mind, 

Mr. Raines, we will get you sworn in and start receiving your testimony, and then as the vote takes place, I will go over and vote and 

have Mr. Horn take the Chair, while I am gone, or Mrs. Morella, 

one of the two. So, while you are standing, let me swear you in. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. BURTON. Thank you. Do you have an opening statement, Mr. 

Raines? 

STATEMENT OF FRANKLIN RAINES, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF 

MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 

Mr. RAINES. Yes, Mr. Chairman, with your permission I would 

like to make a few brief remarks, and I have a written statement 

that I would like to have placed in the record. 

Mr. BURTON. Without objection. 

Mr. RAINES. Thank you. 

Mr. BURTON. Can you pull the microphone a little bit closer to 

you, Mr. Raines, please? 

Mr. RAINES. Sure. I am pleased to be here this afternoon to testify on the implementation of the Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA]. If I may, let me start by first acknowledging the 

strong support we received in implementing this act from this committee, and particularly the Subcommittee on Government Management, chaired by Mr. Horn. 

As you may know, Mr. Chairman, the majority leader and I have 

become regular correspondents on the Results Act. And I know this 

is his second appearance this year before your committee, which is 

evidence, I believe, of his commitment and interest in making this 

act work for the Federal Government and the American people. We 

appreciate and welcome his interest, because, frankly, neither 

OMB nor the agencies collectively can make this act work if Congress is not engaged. 

Let me also acknowledge Jim Hinchman’s leadership and his 

staff at GAO, who have worked extensively on GPRA for many 

months with both Congress and ourselves on GPRA. 

32

This afternoon I am pleased to report that we are on schedule 

with the implementation of the Results Act across the Government. 

The first real products of the law are at hand, and this is an opportune time to assess where we are, and what lies ahead. 

Let me briefly review what the Results Act requires of agencies 

at this point. The deadline for agencies to send their strategic plans 

to Congress and OMB was exactly 1 month ago. These strategic 

plans describe what an agency will do and how it will do it. A strategic plan charts both a course of action and a level of accomplishment for each agency through the first years of the next century. 

Taken together, the strategic plans describe what our National 

Government intends to do and accomplish over this period. They 

are also the foundation for the annual performance plans, which 

set out specific goals that an agency will achieve in a fiscal year. 

Strategic plans from every major Cabinet agency, 95 in all, were 

sent to Congress and OMB 4 weeks ago. We made a commitment 

earlier this year to deliver agencies’ strategic plans that were both 

timely and compliant with the statute, and we have delivered on 

that commitment. 

Getting these plans done and delivered on time was no minor 

achievement. These plans are the product of a lot of hard work in 

the agencies, and they also reflect a significant effort of the staff 

at OMB, and many staff here on Capitol Hill during agency consultations. 

The first set of agency annual performance plans have been received by OMB. These plans are for fiscal year 1999, and we are 

currently reviewing and using them as we prepare the President’s 

budget for the next fiscal year. The annual plans contain measurable goals of what will be accomplished in a particular fiscal year. 

To a large extent, the goals will describe the progress, often incremental, the agency is making in achieving the long-term goals and 

objectives that are set out in its strategic plan. And as part of our 

review of these plans, we are analyzing the agencies’ capacity to 

collect data to support goals. 

Annual plans define what we will get for the money we will 

spend, not only in terms of Government products, services, and 

benefits, but how well these are sustained, produced, and delivered. 

In these annual plans, the performance goals and the target levels 

for those goals are matched to the budget request of the agency. 

Agencies will make any necessary changes to the performance 

goals later this year to reflect the President’s decisions on their 

budget request. Next February, after the President transmits his 

budget to Congress, the agency annual performance plans will be 

sent to you. 

The strategic planning required by the Results Act is simple in 

concept, but difficult to do well. OMB’s own experience spans 2 

years, and involved, in some manner, nearly all of OMB’s staff. 

When we committed to the delivery of timely and compliant strategic plans from the agencies, we also predicted that all the plans 

would not be of uniformly high quality. Some are better than others, and that is to be expected. 

For every agency, the development of these plans has been an 

iterative process. The initial drafts were usually incomplete; various plan elements often were mismatched; and goals were poorly 

33

described. But with each successive version, the plans improved. 

Perseverance and hard work paid off. 

Each plan became better in different ways, so it is very difficult 

to make any universal characterizations about where changes occurred or why. Certainly, improvements in the style and clarity of 

presentation were widespread. Perhaps the most prevalent problem 

was the difficulty agencies had in describing the linkage between 

their annual performance goals and their long-term goals. Over 

this past summer, as agencies prepared their fiscal year 1999 performance plans containing their annual goals, this led to a marked 

improvement in the descriptions of this linkage. 

As I noted earlier, we believe that all the plans now address the 

required elements for a strategic plan. GPRA requires that strategic plans be revised and updated at least every 3 years. OMB’s 

guidance allows agencies to make minor adjustments to a strategic 

plan in interim years and to use the annual performance plan to 

identify and describe the minor adjustments. A strategic plan 

should be a dynamic document, not set in stone, so that it fails to 

reflect significant changes that have occurred or are emerging, and 

not ever-changing in its revisions so that it is useless as a means 

of managing or directing any program. 

This first set of strategic plans is not the only set of strategic 

plans that agencies will produce under the Results Act. We should 

expect that these plans will be refined, enhanced, and be a better 

product in the future. GPRA does not intend that strategic plans 

be hollow instruments. For the first time, agency strategic plans 

are translated, on a yearly basis through the annual performance 

plans, into a program of action and accomplishment funded by the 

budget. The best test for the quality of these strategic plans will 

be found in the annual performance plans you receive next February, and how well these annual plans move the agency toward 

achieving its long-range goals and objectives, and, ultimately, its 

mission. 

The Results Act requires agencies to consult with Congress when 

developing a strategic plan. It also allows stakeholders, customers, 

or other agencies, to provide the agency with their views on the 

plan. This GPRA provision made development of strategic plans a 

very open, public process. 

OMB required each agency to summarize its consultation and 

outreach in its letter transmitting the strategic plan to Congress. 

And this letter was also to include a summary of any substantive 

and germane views that disagreed with the programmatic, policy, 

or management course of action presented in the submitted plan. 

These requirements helped underscore the importance of the consultation process in the course of plan development. 

For most agencies, the congressional consultation was quite extensive, especially with the House committees and the various 

intercommittee teams that were established to facilitate consultation. Agencies generally have reported that this consultation was 

constructive and helpful, and has led to improvements in their 

plans. 

With GPRA, we have the opportunity to change the nature of the 

conversation from one which now focuses on how much money we 

are providing, or inputs, to one oriented more toward what the 

34

money will buy, or outcomes. Examples of such an outcome is: lowering the number of highway traffic deaths. Results from GPRA 

performance measurement pilot projects also show how this can 

work. 

Budgeting under the regimen of the long-term Balanced Budget 

Agreement is essentially a zero-sum game. Within the discretionary spending cap, choices about which programs receive funding increases, remain level-funded, or shrink, should increasingly 

be governed by performance. While performance will never be the 

only element in the process, analysis of performance should become 

a major factor in decisionmaking. We are mindful that in our use 

of performance information when making budget decisions, that 

that will never be the only relevant factor. Policy judgments will 

continue to be a factor, and in some cases, the prevailing factor. 

We must avoid using GPRA only as a budgetary cleaver. One response to poorly performing programs may be to cut or eliminate 

resources, but perhaps with more money allocated differently, or 

new managers, or a different management approach, performance 

of these programs would improve. When faced with poor performance, we must first understand the reasons for it, and then apply 

the appropriate remedy. If the automatic consequence of poor performance is to end the program, then soon the only performance reported will be good performance—not that every program will, indeed, be effective and efficient, only that the reports will indicate 

such. So, it will be important for us to be discerning and critical 

in our assessment of program performance, and prudent in the 

courses that we take. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement, and I would be 

pleased to respond to any questions that you or other members of 

the committee might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Raines follows:]

35


g:\graphics\45404.019
36


g:\graphics\45404.020
37


g:\graphics\45404.021
38


g:\graphics\45404.022
39


g:\graphics\45404.023
40


g:\graphics\45404.024
41


g:\graphics\45404.025
42

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, I want to ask you a couple of questions, 

Mr. Raines, before I have to run and vote. The first one is, you 

eluded to the prospect that there might be some budget cuts for 

agencies that do not perform well, or do not report in accordance 

with the Results Act in a timely fashion. That is one of the things 

that’s a possibility because the leadership of the House, and I think 

in the Senate both, are very concerned that the Results Act be followed in a really fair and timely manner. 

Now, one of the things that I was going to ask you is this act 

was passed in 1993, and I was looking at the comparisons between 

the first time we issued a report and now, and while there has 

been some improvement, there has not been any really marked improvement, except possibly in the Department of Transportation, 

Department of Education, NASA, and maybe the National Science 

Foundation. Other than that, there has been marginal cooperation 

from these agencies. Have you talked to them and really pushed 

them to comply with the Results Act? 

Mr. RAINES. Mr. Chairman, from the beginning of my tenure in 

this job, this has been a continuing theme of mine when I talk to 

agency heads. I have talked to the Cabinet about this. I have 

talked to the CFO Council about it. I am somewhat of a broken 

record on the subject that performance in not only performing— performance on the GPRA requirements, but performance itself 

will be very important factors in any recommendations that we 

make comparing funding. 

Mr. BURTON. Well, that being the case, if they are not listening 

to you, and you’re the fellow they ought to be listening to, what do 

we have to do to get their attention? I mean, do we have to use 

the budgetary bludgeon to get their attention? Do we have to cut 

spending in some of these programs because we are simply not getting compliance in the Results Act? 

Mr. RAINES. Well, Mr. Chairman, I actually think you are getting 

their attention. It’s a big government, and it has many masters, 

and getting the attention of the Government in a way that changes 

behavior is not easy. And I would say that if you compare the implementation of the Results Act to prior efforts to guide Government decisionmaking—ranging from program budgeting, program 

planning and budgeting systems back in the 1960’s, to zero-based 

budgeting in the 1970’s, to management by objectives in both the 

1970’s and the 1980’s—I believe that the GPRA process will stack 

up well against those, if you look at the real effect on the permanent Government, not simply the things that might be said by appointed officials. If you look at how much it is beginning to seep 

into the permanent Government, to the folks who will be here no 

matter what administration is in power—— Mr. BURTON. Career employees. 

Mr. RAINES. I think it is beginning to make a difference, and that 

is——

Mr. BURTON. Well, I hope that you’ll convey, at least from the 

Chair of this committee, that we are very serious about that, and 

the leadership in the House and I believe the Senate are very serious about that. And if some of the Cabinet officers are not able to 

convey to their subordinates in these various agencies regarding 

compliance, they are very likely to see some attempts to make 

43

some adjustments in their budgets, so that we will get their attention. 

With that, Mr. Horn, would you take over the Chair? Thank you 

very much. 

Mr. RAINES. Thank you. 

Mr. HORN [presiding]. We appreciate your coming, Director. Let 

me just go through a few questions with you. Given the discussion 

that you heard following the questions to the majority leader and 

given some of the majority leader’s comments, what’s your thinking 

on requiring revised strategic plans next year, or every year? How 

do you feel about it? We have heard of 5-year plans in the Soviet 

Union, and 5-year plans in the People’s Republic of China. They 

were rather rigid plans, and the question would be, what’s your 

reading now, as you have looked over a number of these plans? 

Mr. RAINES. Well, my view is that strategic plans should not 

change dramatically over short periods of time; otherwise, they 

cease to be strategic plans, and they simply become tactical documents that are being changed to meet the pressures of the day. I 

would put far more emphasis on the annual performance plans. 

This is where an agency is committing to actual performance within a relevant period that managers on the ground can effect. Those 

plans can be crafted to meet changing conditions as they may appear. 

Now, of course, there will be a need to update strategic plans. 

The President, no doubt, will establish priorities that may not have 

been thought as being priorities earlier by an agency. Congress 

may pass a major piece of legislation establishing a brand-new priority. So there will have to be an evolution. 

Just an example: In the Balanced Budget Act, the Congress created a new program for children’s health that will reduce the number of kids who do not have health care coverage. It was a major 

priority to the President, it was included in the budget negotiations, a brand-new program. If we had had a strategic plan outstanding, of course, that plan would have to be modified to take 

that into account. But I would discourage effort going into annual 

modifications of the plan, because I think that it does detract from 

the plan, and for another reason. I have set as my highest goal in 

this job not getting our planning right, or our budgeting right, but 

getting our execution right. I think that we have an imbalance in 

the attention by top-level officials between execution, planning, and 

budgeting. So I would like to try to move their attention more toward execution and implementation, and I would hate to see a 

planning process consume all their time, and prevent them from focusing on execution. 

Mr. HORN. As you have reviewed these plans, did any particular 

form of measurement as to the progress the agencies and Congress 

and you and the President would see—how much progress has been 

made? Did there seem to be any standard that made some sense 

to you that might be applicable across a number of agencies? 

Mr. RAINES. Well, I think the plans, they were different, and I 

think, quite frankly, the test that we applied to them varied. For 

example, the scorecard the House used included some categories for 

which the agencies did not know were going to be categories they 

would be judged by. But on the other hand, a number of agencies 

44

responded to those categories and they produced a plan; their final 

plan encompassed some of the items that those categories covered, 

and therefore, was responsive to an interest that the House, in particular, had in those matters. And, so, I think it varies generally. 

We even tried to encourage the agencies to look at other agencies’ plans to compare them to see when people say one plan is a 

good plan and theirs isn’t quite as good, what does that mean? In 

fact, just a couple of weeks ago I met with the budget officers from 

the major agencies, and went through with them our impressions 

of their plans, as well as our impressions of the budget submittals 

they just made. The obvious purpose of that is that we would like 

to see a little competition going on among the agencies to see who 

gets recognized for having a sound and solid plan, because, I think 

those kinds of things will help have continuous improvement in the 

agencies responsiveness. 

Mr. HORN. Should agencies have satisfaction surveys that go to 

their clientele, as to how they have been treated, how their satisfactions are? That would be normal practice in many organizations. 

What do you feel about applying that to the executive branch? 

Mr. RAINES. Oh, I think that measuring customer satisfaction is 

an important management tool, and particularly where the customer is the general public. I think it is a very valuable tool and 

a necessary tool. Indeed, a number of agencies already try to measure customer satisfaction. It has been a major part of the National 

Performance Review in the effort to improve customer service, is to 

ensure that they actually ask the customer how they are perceiving 

the service, and not simply measuring against the agency’s own internal process. 

Mr. HORN. When I was in the California State University system 

as a president, I worked for 5 years to get our trustees to adopt 

almost what New Zealand is doing. That was to have your executives on a campus, say 110 in the management class, 4 or so different classes, get rid of the civil service positions we had inherited 

from the Federal Government, because they made the mistake of 

hiring people from the Civil Service Commission when they were 

founding that establishment. And we went to employment contracts, and we went to a broad salary scale between $20,000 and 

$100,000 with overlaps in broad categories, and in the contracts we 

spelled out: What are you going to accomplish this year in terms 

of either regular initiatives, and how do we know, and other additional initiatives? Do you think that would be a useful way to go 

in the Federal Government, with either the Senior Executive Service, or everybody down through the lowest management level, 

which could be a 9, 12, 14 even, given the situation and how they 

are organized? What do you feel about that? 

Mr. RAINES. Well, I think there ought to be a close connection between the performance plan and the annual assessment of employee performance. We need to establish, at the beginning of the 

year, what the expectations are, have those tied to the performance 

plan, and then when we measure how the agency did, to see whether or not that individual manager was making the kind of contribution that was required. It is too frequent, in both Government and 

business organizations, as well as in nonprofit organizations, that 

the organization doesn’t do well, but everybody gets very high ratVerDate Sep 04 2002 15:35 Sep 25, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 W:\DISC\45404 45404
45

ings. And, so I am a believer of tying these together. Indeed, within 

OMB we have made it very clear that with our own strategic plan 

and performance plan that will be tied to our rating process and 

to our annual awards and bonus process, and we will be looking 

at that through our entire process, because I strongly believe you 

have to—if these incentives are to work, you have to run them 

through your entire performance review system. 

Mr. HORN. When Mr. Koskinen was up here for his last appearance, I asked him, how many people within OMB are concerned 

with management or involved in management advice? He said, 

‘‘Oh, 540.’’ I assume that is your full personnel strength. I thought 

that answer—and I told John that—was nonsense. And the question is, how many people in OMB are directly concerned with management issues and can advise Cabinet officers and departments 

and agencies on management processes? 

Mr. RAINES. Well, I think other than overestimating the number 

of people we have at OMB, I think John was not far from the 

mark, and let me tell you why. We have taken to heart the integration that OMB 2000 caused in bringing together our management 

resources and our budget resources into our resource management 

offices. This was a reorganization that I inherited, but if I hadn’t 

inherited it, I would have done it myself, having been in OMB before, when we had a fairly strict separation between management 

and budget. And we have some examples now of how this can be 

effective. 

The thing I have learned in management in the public sector and 

the private sector is that command and control is not sufficient to 

induce change in management practices. You need a number of levers to operate, and OMB doesn’t have all the levers I would like, 

but we do have a few. But they take many forms. In resource management offices, what we are able to do is to use budgets, FTE allowances, determinations on space, regulatory approval process, 

clearance process on legislation, a variety of tools to ensure that 

agencies are beginning to turn their attention to what we consider 

to be the most important management issues. 

We’ve begun our Director’s review process, which happens every 

fall, leading up to our recommendations to the President regarding 

his budget. I can tell you every one of these reviews is suffused 

with management issues, and in a way that was never the case 

when I was in OMB before. So, it is a matter that I think everybody in OMB understands, that in order to be successful, you have 

to be adept, not simply in analytical methodologies and tools, but 

you have to know something about management. I have encouraged those who do not feel that they have sufficient grounding in 

management to seek additional training to work with our specialists in management, who work under the Deputy Director for Management, and indeed to get out of OMB and let’s go visit some 

places that we think know something about what we are working 

on. 

In fact, I led a field trip like that just a couple of weeks ago to 

a private firm that was working on a similar problem, and we 

brought people from the budgetary side, from the regulatory side, 

from the management side, all of us there trying to learn about different techniques that can be applied to management problems. 

46

Mr. HORN. This committee has spent a lot of time on the year 

2000 situation. Who is your person in charge of that to coordinate 

efforts within the executive branch? 

Mr. RAINES. Sally Katzen, who is the Administrator of OIRA, has 

been ably leading that effort, and has been providing real guidance 

and leadership throughout the executive branch and throughout 

OMB to ensure that we get greater and greater attention to solving 

that pressing problem. 

I might even point that as another example in answer to your 

earlier question. We are attempting to use as many levers as we 

have in OMB to ensure that agencies pay attention to this problem 

in a way that not only this committee would like to see us do it, 

but as the President as well. And those will include ways that we 

can influence agency behavior regarding their budget resources, as 

well as influences through our various management counsels. 

Mr. HORN. Mr. Davis, 10 minutes on questions for the witness. 

Mr. BARRETT. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. HORN. Oh, I am sorry, I am sorry. Mr. Barrett. 

Mr. BARRETT. I would hate to have us measure our efficiency of 

results here. Thank you, Mr. Horn, I appreciate that. 

Mr. Raines, welcome. 

Mr. RAINES. Thank you. 

Mr. BARRETT. We have had a lot of discussion this afternoon 

about the Results Act, and I am a supporter of the Results Act. I 

think that it does make sense to set goals and to have expectations 

that can be met. I think, though, we have gotten a little off-track 

in our discussion and I am sorry Mr. Armey isn’t here, because I 

would, frankly, rather address some of these concerns to Mr. 

Armey when he lauded the reauthorization of the ONDCP, an issue 

that I was involved with quite intimately as a ranking member of 

that subcommittee, and I would have to say that that is a better 

example of how the Results Act is misused rather than used. Because I think one of the worst things that we can do is to set standards or set measures or goals that we know we are not going to 

reach. 

This committee reported a bill that said that we would reduce 

teenage drug use by 90 percent by the year 2002. Frankly, I think 

that if we are talking about goals, I think that goal is understated. 

I would love to reduce teenage drug use by 100 percent in the year 

2002, but in terms of real reality, I think that we would take a different view if the person whose head was on a chopping block was 

the chairman of this committee or the majority leader rather than 

General McCaffrey. I think that the Republican leadership in Congress is more than happy to put General McCaffrey’s head on a 

chopping block, saying that if you don’t reach a 90 percent reduction in teenage drug use by the year 2002, you are out of here, but 

we can wash our hands of it. I don’t think that that is leadership; 

I think that it is political posturing. Fine. If we are going to play 

political games, we are going to play political games, but I think 

when you have a situation where the ONDCP calls the targets in 

the bill arbitrary and unachievable, and then we somehow say this 

is responsive government, I think is ludicrous. 

So, I just think somebody has got to say that, that, yes, it’s fine 

to play these games, and to say we should have these measures—

47

and I think we should—but I think when the agency itself says it’s 

arbitrary and unachievable, that all we are doing is setting up for 

a political fight, and if that is what we want to do, that’s politics 

in Washington, I can live with that. But, let’s not pose for the holy 

pictures and say somehow this is good government, when it is basically a dress rehearsal for the 1998 or 2000 elections. 

And, I would again daresay that there is no one on this committee who would put their career on the line to say that we will 

achieve a 90 percent reduction in teenage drug use by the year 

2002. I’d love to see it happen, but I think we have to be realistic. 

The Department of Defense represents roughly half of all discretionary budget money expended by Congress. Its compliance with 

the GPRA is therefore very important. Mr. Raines, do you believe 

that DOD’s issued plan adequately addresses the suggested improvements that GAO made in its August 1997 report on its draft 

plan? 

Mr. RAINES. Well, we have concluded that all of the agencies that 

have sent in plans have met the requirements of the act, but I 

would say that you would find with all of the plans as well, including the DOD, that there is some variation as against comments the 

GAO or other commentators may have made. DOD actually has 

had a strategic plan in process for many years, through its quadrennial review process that has established the goals and objectives 

for the Armed Forces and through their future years defense plan 

applied budgetary resources against those goals and objectives, and 

they have been attempting to drive that down through their organization over the last several years. 

So, I would—in direct answer to your question, I think that 

there—and Jim Hinchman can probably give a better answer to 

this—I am sure that there are differences between the suggestions 

that were made and the final effort that the Department put in the 

quadrennial plan, but I think that the Department has in that plan 

established the basics necessary for an effective strategic plan for 

the Department. 

Mr. BARRETT. How would you compare the quality of their plan, 

top third, middle third, bottom third? 

Mr. RAINES. Well, we haven’t really done a quantitative analysis 

as the House staff has done, so I don’t think I could give you a 

careful one. I would say that in terms of strict compliance with the 

GPRA, they are not likely to rate in the highest category, simply 

because they have such an entrenched system, that getting them 

to modify that to meet the GPRA’s specific requirements is going 

to take some work. And, I don’t think that’s all bad. I think that 

they have been ahead of the rest of the Government in this, and 

for them to modify their own system to meet the GPRA requirements is going to take some time for them to make that adjustment. 

Mr. BARRETT. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HORN. You’re quite welcome. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. 

Portman, and you are presiding. 

Mr. PORTMAN [presiding]. Why, thank you, Mr. Chairman. You 

know it’s interesting, I’m the lowest person on the totem pole——

Mr. HORN. Get as close to the bell as you want, but we have 

some votes beyond that, so we’ll be in recess for about 20 minutes. 

48

Mr. PORTMAN. I was going to say that normally when you are the 

lowest person on the totem pole, you have plenty of time to prepare 

your questions; in fact, normally you don’t get questions. [Laughter.] 

This is quite an honor. I’m shocked. [Laughter.] 

I am not going to know quite what to do, but, Mr. Director, 

thank you for being here. I wish my friend Mr. Barrett was going 

to stay around; maybe he will. OK, thanks. [Laughter.] 

Thank you for your time, and I will just ask you a couple of brief 

questions related really to what Tom Barrett was talking about, 

and how the standards that might be set for the Office of National 

Drug Control Policy might mesh with the Performance Act, with 

GPRA and its requirements. I am supportive of setting goals; I 

think it makes sense. What those goals are is sort of a matter of 

some debate, as Mr. Barrett has indicated. Some people believe 

these goals are overly ambitious, unattainable, and therefore could 

be used politically. In my view, our challenge is to find goals that 

are attainable. Certainly, we’ve had a 75 percent reduction in drug 

abuse from about 1979 to 1991. If you look back to the 1960’s, we 

have had about a twentyfold increase since then, but we had about 

2 percent of the population that was experimenting with drugs. So, 

there are some standards you can look back to historically where 

we have made some progress. I, frankly, believe that we are beginning to make some progress now, slow but sure, and it tends to be 

among the older teenagers. 

But, as you have looked at this, and I know you have got 14 Cabinet agencies and a lot of other plans to review, and I do not expect 

you to be an expert on ONDCP’s, but do you think that it does 

make sense to establish some standards, some goals, and if so, how 

would you assess the goals that are being proposed by the House 

at this point? 

Mr. RAINES. Well, we clearly believe that establishing goals for 

the reduction in drug use are important. And, indeed, General 

McCaffrey, in his performance plan, does establish goals that he 

believes, and I believe, are aggressive goals that will require an 

enormous effort, not just by the Federal Government, but by all of 

American society to achieve. So that we do believe that those goals 

are important. 

We had a concern, and continue to have a concern, with the 

House bill passed as to whether the goals that are contained in 

that bill are realistic, and there is a real danger in establishing unrealistic goals, and that is that the people who are expected to 

achieve them will simply throw up their hands and say, ‘‘Well since 

that can’t be done, I’m not going to try to do anything, because I 

will be judged a failure, no matter what I do.’’ This is something 

that we are all going to have to pay attention to, whether it’s goals 

that are established by departments in their performance plans or 

goals established by Congress. 

It is one thing to set a high aspirational goal; it is another to set 

a goal that is so far beyond capability or resources or level of commitment that it becomes simply rhetoric. And, I think that is the 

thing that we have to watch, and all of us would aspire to have 

problems completely eliminated, but making dramatic progress on 

the elimination is the first step. We are not going to make them 

49

go away tomorrow, but if we can have serious progress over the 

next several years, that’s moving us in the right direction. And, as 

we achieve on the goals, we ought to keep raising the bar, so that 

we aren’t simply aspiring to achieve something we know we can 

reach; we ought to be reaching a little bit beyond our grasp. But, 

there is a serious danger that if you have a goal that says you are 

virtually going to eliminate a problem that has never been eliminated in the history of mankind, that people aren’t going to take 

that seriously, and therefore, they will begin to fall back into old 

behavior, which is simply to go through the motions, and spend the 

money, and report how they spent the money, as opposed to how 

they have actually achieved something. 

Mr. PORTMAN. I would not disagree with your overall approach. 

I think it’s actually quite positive that the legislation uses the Results Act—in this case, in a way to set goals on drug abuse, but 

I think it’s inappropriate use of the Results Act, and I assume you 

would agree with that? 

Mr. RAINES. Well, Congress always has the right to set goals. I 

just am simply saying that we should understand the consequences 

if the setting of goals is outside of any range of performance we are 

likely to see. What I would rather see is a good interaction between 

Congress and the agencies, where Congress may set an aspirational goal and then call upon the agency to specify, how much can 

you achieve in the next 3 years, 4 years, 5 years? That is the interaction that I would anticipate should happen with the Results Act. 

And then in the performance plan you find out, well, how much 

can you achieve this year, and so you would have a 1-year, a multiyear, and then our aspiration as to where we would like to be, ultimately, as established in the statute. 

Mr. PORTMAN. I think if you look at the goals we have set out 

in this particular area, which is the ONDCP goals, they do not call 

for elimination or even virtual elimination of drug use. They do call 

for fairly ambitious goals. Again, I think if you look from 1979 to 

1991, 75 percent reduction in teenage drug use, to assume that by 

2001 we could have a 60 percent reduction, I think it’s about 65 

percent reduction from current levels; that may be doable. I just 

encourage you—I’m sure you already have taken a look at it, but 

take a careful look as you are reviewing all of these performance 

goals, and I think you will find that they are not as unrealistic as 

perhaps you indicated earlier. 

The second point that I would make is that I do think that our 

strategy here is a little bit different than it might be with other 

agencies, because we really want to give General McCaffrey and 

ONDCP the tools to do something they have not been able to do 

previously, and I know that is something that you would be intimately involved with, along with the other agencies, the 50-odd 

agencies and departments that have some role to play in the drug 

war. It is not just setting goals given the current parameters, it’s 

setting goals that are relatively ambitious, I would agree, but then 

giving General McCaffrey and his office, more discretion, more 

tools at their disposal to try to meet those goals. Certainly, that 

would mean your working very closely with him to referee all those 

disputes that would emerge from that. 

50

So thank you for your time. I have got to go run and vote. There 

are a few other Members who have requested to ask you questions, 

and the Chair has asked me to ask you whether you could accommodate that request. 

We will have a series of votes that may go 20 minutes. That is 

the goal we will set; it will probably be more like 25 minutes. 

Would that be possible for you to await their return? 

Mr. RAINES. Yes, I do have to get back downtown, but I could be 

here as late as 4:30 p.m. 

Mr. PORTMAN. OK, that has been communicated, I am sure, and 

we will now stand in recess until such time as the votes are completed. Thank you, Mr. Director. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. HORN [presiding]. We have problems on the floor this afternoon. There are 16 votes underway, and that will take us 2 hours. 

So, what I would like to do is have staff, before you leave the room, 

work out with you a convenient time we can recess this hearing to, 

so we aren’t wasting your time, and not having Members who, 

frankly, want to be here to ask questions. So, we would appreciate 

your indulgence on this, and if staff could go down now and try to 

work out a mutually convenient time that does not conflict with the 

full committee’s investigations next week, and does not conflict 

with my schedule—so, if you would, bear with us. 

And with that, we will recess to a time to be announced by the 

Chair in the usual manners we have to release when committees 

are meeting. So, with that, we are in recess. 

[Whereupon, at 3:57 p.m., the committee adjourned subject to the 

call of the Chair.] 

[Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:]

51


g:\graphics\45404.026
52


g:\graphics\45404.027
53


g:\graphics\45404.028
54


g:\graphics\45404.029
55


g:\graphics\45404.030
56


g:\graphics\45404.031
57


g:\graphics\45404.032
58


g:\graphics\45404.033
59


g:\graphics\45404.034
60


g:\graphics\45404.035
61


g:\graphics\45404.036
62


g:\graphics\45404.037
63


g:\graphics\45404.038
64


g:\graphics\45404.039
65


g:\graphics\45404.040
66


g:\graphics\45404.041
67


g:\graphics\45404.042
68


g:\graphics\45404.043
69


g:\graphics\45404.044
70


g:\graphics\45404.045
71


g:\graphics\45404.046
72


g:\graphics\45404.047
73


g:\graphics\45404.048
74


g:\graphics\45404.049
75


g:\graphics\45404.050
76


g:\graphics\45404.051
77


g:\graphics\45404.052
78


g:\graphics\45404.053
79


g:\graphics\45404.054
80


g:\graphics\45404.055
81


g:\graphics\45404.056
82


g:\graphics\45404.057
83


g:\graphics\45404.058
84


g:\graphics\45404.059
85


g:\graphics\45404.060
86


g:\graphics\45404.061
87


g:\graphics\45404.062
88


g:\graphics\45404.063