U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1

79–010

" ! SENATE 106TH CONGRESS

2d Session

REPORT

2000

106–469

Calendar No. 918

MODIFYING THE DATE ON WHICH THE

MAYOR OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

SUBMITS A PERFORMANCE ACCOUNTABILITY PLAN TO CONGRESS, AND FOR

OTHER PURPOSES

R E P O R T

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

UNITED STATES SENATE

TO ACCOMPANY

S.3062

TO MODIFY THE DATE ON WHICH THE MAYOR OF THE DISTRICT

OF COLUMBIA SUBMITS A PERFORMANCE ACCOUNTABILITY

PLAN TO CONGRESS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

OCTOBER 3 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 22), 2000.—Ordered to be printed

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

FRED THOMPSON, Tennessee, Chairman

WILLIAM V. ROTH, JR., Delaware

TED STEVENS, Alaska

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine

GEORGE VOINOVICH, Ohio

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut

CARL LEVIN, Michigan

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois

ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey

MAX CLELAND, Georgia

JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina

HANNAH S. SISTARE, Staff Director and Counsel

JOHANNA L. HARDY, Counsel

KRISTINE I. SIMMONS, Staff Director, Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management,

Restructuring and the District of Columbia

MASON C. ALINGER, Professional Staff Member, Subcommittee on Oversight of Government

Management, Restructuring, and the District of Columbia

JOYCE A. RECHTSCHAFFEN, Minority Staff Director and Counsel

PETER A. LUDGIN, Minority Professional Staff Member

MARIANNE UPTON, Minority Chief Counsel/Staff Director, Subcommittee on Oversight of

Government Management, Restructuring and the District of Columbia

DARLA D. CASSELL, Chief Clerk

Calendar No. 918

106TH CONGRESS REPORT

2d Session " ! SENATE 106–469

MODIFYING THE DATE ON WHICH THE MAYOR OF THE DISTRICT OF

COLUMBIA SUBMITS A PERFORMANCE ACCOUNTABILITY PLAN TO

CONGRESS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

OCTOBER 3 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 22), 2000.—Ordered to be printed

Mr. THOMPSON, from the Committee on Governmental Affairs,

submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany S. 3062]

The Committee on Governmental Affairs, to which was referred

the bill (S. 3062) to modify the date on which the Mayor of the District of Columbia submits a performance accountability plan to

Congress, and for other purposes, reports favorably thereon without amendment and recommends that the bill do pass.

CONTENTS

I. Summary and Purpose .................................................................................. 1

II. Background .................................................................................................... 2

III. Legislative History ......................................................................................... 3

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis .......................................................................... 4

V. Estimated Cost of Legislation ....................................................................... 4

VI. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact .................................................................. 5

VII. Changes in Existing Law .............................................................................. 5

I. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE

S. 3062, the District of Columbia Performance Accountability

Plan Amendments Act of 2000, changes the deadline for the District of Columbia to submit its annual performance accountability

plan to Congress from March 1 of each year to be concurrent with

the submission of the District of Columbia budget to Congress each

year. It also replaces the reporting requirement that calls for the

submission of both an acceptable and a superior level of performance with one unified measurable, objective and ambitious performance goal. The purposes are to bring the District government closer

to performance budgeting by tying together the District’s budget

with its performance measures, and to allow the District governVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:26 Oct 05, 2000 Jkt 079010 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR469.XXX pfrm03 PsN: SR469
2

1 ‘‘Financial Status: District of Columbia Finances,’’ General Accounting Office, July 14, 2000,

GAO/T–AIMD–94–158. 2 ‘‘District of Columbia Government: Performance Report’s Adherence to Statutory Requirements,’’ General Accounting Office, April 2000, GAO/GGD–00–107.

ment to focus on achieving a single level of performance rather

than working to reach multiple performance targets.

II. BACKGROUND

House Report 104–96 that accompanies Public Law 104–8, the

‘‘District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management

Assistance Act of 1995,’’ provides a complete background of Congress’ decision to intervene in the daily proceedings of the District

government and implement significant management reform initiatives. House Report 103–754 that accompanies Public Law 103–

373, the ‘‘Federal Payment Reauthorization Act of 1994,’’ fully explains the original intent of Congress in establishing the performance accountability plans addressed by this legislation.

Among other things, the Federal Payment Reauthorization Act of

1994 requires the District to devise, implement, and submit to Congress comprehensive financial and performance standards that address performance management goals. The primary motivation behind the Congressionally mandated performance goals for the District was a General Accounting Office (GAO) report that identified

a number of efforts by the District government to balance its books

with short-term actions that postponed financial solutions and

caused greater cash problems. The report also cited a widening gap

between spending and revenue, and it identified several impending

capital needs and programs for which the District had not adequately planned. At a hearing on the financial condition of the District of Columbia in 1994, the GAO testified that performancebased planning would help the District to address many of the

problems outlined in the GAO report.1

As a result of the Federal Payment Reauthorization Act of 1994,

the District of Columbia must develop and submit to the appropriate House and Senate authorizing and appropriating committees

and GAO, annual performance accountability plans and reports by

March 1 of each year. The reports, which assess the District’s

progress in meeting the performance goals established in the corresponding fiscal year’s performance accountability plan, are to be

reviewed and evaluated by the GAO in consultation with the Office

of Management and Budget. GAO is required to submit its findings

to the Congress by April 15 of each year.

On April 14, 2000, the GAO released its evaluation of the District’s FY1999 performance accountability report. The GAO found

that ‘‘the Mayor’s performance report did not contain the following

required information for any of the 542 agency goals identified in

the plan: (1) actual performance compared with two levels of

planned performance, and (2) titles of the management employee

and immediate supervisor most responsible for achieving each

goal.’’ The GAO report also concluded that the city’s performance

accountability report ‘‘does not describe, as required, the status of,

or the steps taken to comply with, any of the court orders pertaining to the 12 civil actions concerning activities of the District

government during fiscal year 1999.’’ 2

3

Regarding this GAO evaluation, it should be noted that the original law was drafted so that the Mayor would have both planning

and reporting responsibility. But as noted in the GAO report, in

1997, Congress transferred the reporting responsibility to the Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority (the

Control Board). Then, in November 1999, Congress returned this

planning and reporting responsibility back to the Mayor. However,

because of the temporary transfer in 1997, the Mayor’s performance report for FY1999 was required to be based on goals that the

Control Board—not the Mayor—had established. So rather than report on all of the Control Board’s goals, the Mayor opted to focus

his FY1999 performance accountability report on the short-term

goals he had established after taking office in January 1999.

Following the release of this GAO report, and a subsequent hearing by the Senate Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring, and the District of Columbia on May 9,

2000, the Mayor sent a letter to Senator George V. Voinovich (ROH), Chairman of the Subcommittee, requesting changes to the

performance accountability requirements. The request included

changing the submission deadline for the submission of the performance accountability plan from March 1 to June 15, and eliminating the requirement for multiple goals for each performance

measure.

The latter request by the Mayor refers to the requirement in the

Federal Payment Reauthorization Act of 1994 that requires the

District to submit both acceptable and superior achievement goals

for each performance measure. S. 3062 streamlines the performance goal requirements that were initially established in the Federal Payment Reauthorization Act of 1994 by replacing the multiple levels of performance goals with one set of ambitious performance targets. This would clarify the goals District managers are expected to meet and align congressional mandates on the District

with what is required of federal agencies.

III. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

On May 9, 2000, the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government

Management, Restructuring, and the District of Columbia held a

hearing on the progress of performance management in the District, at which Mayor Williams proposed harmonizing the submission deadline for the District’s budget and performance accountability plan to Congress, testifying that ‘‘. . . the performance plan

and the budget have to work together and really have to contain

a lot of the same information, because modern budgeting is performance budgeting.’’

S. 3062 was introduced on September 18, 2000, by Senator

Voinovich. It was cosponsored by Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL).

The bill was referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.

Although the legislation would have appropriately been referred to

the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring, and the District of Columbia, the Subcommittee requested that the bill be held at full Committee in order to expedite

its consideration. The legislation was ordered reported on September 27, 2000 by voice vote.

4

IV. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1, paragraph 1 of the legislation addresses the District’s

performance accountability plan that is required by Congress prior

to each fiscal year. Paragraph 1, subparagraph A of the legislation

changes the March 1 deadline, instead requiring the Mayor to submit a performance accountability plan that is ‘‘concurrent with the

submission of the District of Columbia budget to Congress,’’ beginning in 2001. Paragraph 1, subparagraph B of the legislation

strikes the section of the law that requires the city to establish

both superior and acceptable goals for the performance measures,

replacing the multiple performance measures with one set of

‘‘measurable, objective performance goals.’’

Section 1, paragraph 2 of the legislation makes similar technical

changes to the performance accountability report as those made to

the plan (the report evaluates the District’s success in achieving

the goals set in its performance accountability plan). Paragraph 2,

subparagraph A of the legislation states that the changes to the report will take effect in 2001. Paragraph 2, subparagraph B of the

legislation strikes the requirement that the Mayor must report on

acceptable and superior levels of performance in the performance

accountability report.

V. ESTIMATED COST OF LEGISLATION

U.S. CONGRESS,

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE,

Washington, DC, September 29, 2000.

Hon. FRED THOMPSON,

Chairman, Committee on Governmental Affairs,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 3062, a bill to modify the

date on which the Mayor of the District of Columbia submits a performance accountability plan to the Congress, and for other purposes.

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

to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are John R. Righter (for

federal costs), and Susan Sieg Tompkins (for the state and local impact).

Sincerely,

BARRY B. ANDERSON

(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).

Enclosure.

S. 3062—A bill to modify the date on which the Mayor of the District of Columbia submits a performance accountability plan to

the Congress, and for other purposes.

S. 3062 would require that the Mayor of the District of Columbia

submit the city’s annual performance accountability plan to the

Congress at the same time that he or she submits the city’s budget.

Currently, the Mayor must submit the report by March 1. In addition, the bill would require that the city prepare only one set of

performance goals under the Government Performance Results Act.

Currently, it must prepare two sets. CBO estimates that enacting

5

S. 3062 would have no impact on the federal budget. The bill would

not affect direct spending or receipts, so pay-as-you-go procedures

would not apply.

S. 3062 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would

impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. The bill

would amend the statutes of the District of Columbia to relax certain requirements for the timing and content of annual reports of

managerial performance. While the District of Columbia may incur

costs to change its data management systems, over the long term,

the District would benefit from the narrower reporting requirements.

The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are John R. Righter (for

federal costs), and Susan Sieg Tompkins (for the state and local impact). This estimate was approved by Robert A. Sunshine, Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

VI. EVALUATION OF REGULATORY IMPACT

Pursuant to the requirement of paragraph 11(b) of Rule XXVI of

the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee has considered

the regulatory and paperwork impact of S. 3062. The legislation

contributes to the efficient administration and management of the

District of Columbia by facilitating the city’s reporting requirements to Congress. It would impose no additional regulatory burdens, and should reduce paperwork and administrative burdens on

the District of Columbia by streamlining the District’s performance

plan requirements. Over time, it should also reduce paperwork burdens on the District by tying together the performance plan and

the budget into one, integrated document.

VII. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing

Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the Committee bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed

to be omitted is shown in strikeout, new matter is printed in italic,

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

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SELF-GOVERNMENT AND

GOVERNMENTAL REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1973

* * * * * * *

TITLE IV—THE DISTRICT CHARTER

* * * * * * *

PART D—DISTRICT BUDGET AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

* * * * * * *

Subpart 2—Audit

* * * * * * *

SECTION 456. PERFORMANCE AND FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY.

(a) PERFORMANCE ACCOUNTABILITY PLAN.—

6

(1) SUBMISSION OF ANNUAL PLAN.—Concurrent with the submission of the District of Columbia budget to Congress each

year (beginning with 2001), the Mayor shall develop and submit to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight of

the House of Representatives, the Committee on Governmental

Affairs of the Senate, the Committees on Appropriations of the

House of Representatives and the Senate, and the Comptroller

General a performance accountability plan for all departments,

agencies, and programs of the government of the District of Columbia for the subsequent fiscal year.

(2) CONTENTS OF PLAN.—The performance accountability

plan for a fiscal year shall contain the following:

(A) A statement of measurable, objective performance

goals established for all significant activities of the government of the District of Columbia during the fiscal year (including activities funded in whole or in part by the District

but performed in whole or in part by some other public or

private entity).

(B) * * *

(C) * * *

(3) * * *

(b) PERFORMANCE ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT.— (1) SUBMISSION OF REPORT.—Not later than March 1 of each

year (beginning with 2001), the Mayor shall develop and submit to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight of

the House of Representatives, the Committee on Governmental

Affairs of the Senate, the Committees on Appropriations of the

House of Representatives and the Senate, and the Comptroller

General a performance accountability report on activities of the

government of the District of Columbia during the fiscal year

ending on the previous September 30.

(2) CONTENTS OF REPORT.—The performance accountability

report for a fiscal year shall contain the following:

(A) For each goal of the performance accountability plan

submitted under subsection (a) [D.C. Code 47–231] for the

year, a statement of the actual level of performance

achieved compared to the stated goal.

(B) * * *

(C) * * *

(3) * * *

* * * * * * *

Æ