39–006 

108TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 108–768 

PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AND RESULTS ACT 

OCTOBER 8, 2004.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State 

of the Union and ordered to be printed 

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

Reform, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

MINORITY VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 3826] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Government Reform, to whom was referred 

the bill (H.R. 3826) to require the review of Government programs 

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

with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do 

pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Committee Statement and Views ........................................................................... 4 

Section-by-Section .................................................................................................... 8 

Explanation of Amendments ................................................................................... 10 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 10 

Rollcall Votes ............................................................................................................ 11 

Application of Law to the Legislative Branch ....................................................... 12 

Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the Committee ...... 12 

Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives .................................... 12 

Constitutional Authority Statement ...................................................................... 12 

Federal Advisory Committee Act ............................................................................ 12 

Unfunded Mandate Statement ............................................................................... 12 

Committee Estimate ................................................................................................ 12 

Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate .................... 13 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill as Reported ...................................... 13 

Minority Views ......................................................................................................... 17 

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

2 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Program Assessment and Results Act’’. 

SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

Congress finds that— 

(1) inefficiency and ineffectiveness in Federal programs undermines the confidence of the American people in the Government and reduces the Federal Government’s ability to adequately address vital public needs; 

(2) insufficient information on program performance seriously disadvantages 

Federal managers in their efforts to improve program efficiency and effectiveness; 

(3) congressional policy making, spending decisions, and program oversight 

are handicapped by insufficient attention to program performance and results; 

(4) programs performing similar or duplicative functions that exist within a 

single agency or across multiple agencies should be identified and their performance and results shared among all such programs to improve their performance and results; 

(5) advocates of good government continue to seek ways to improve accountability, focus on results, and integrate the performance of programs with decisions about budgets; 

(6) with the passage of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, 

the Congress directed the executive branch to seek improvements in the effectiveness, efficiency, and accountability of Federal programs by having agencies 

focus on program results; and 

(7) the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 provided a strong 

framework for the executive branch to monitor the long-term goals and annual 

performance of its departments and agencies. 

SEC. 3. PURPOSE. 

The purposes of this Act are— 

(1) to improve the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 by implementing a program assessment and evaluation process that attempts to determine the strengths and weaknesses of Federal programs with a particular 

focus on the results produced by individual programs; 

(2) to use the information gathered in the assessment and evaluation process 

to build on the groundwork laid in the Government Performance and Results 

Act of 1993 to help the executive branch make informed management decisions 

and evidence-based funding requests aimed at achieving positive results; and 

(3) to provide congressional policy makers the information needed to conduct 

more effective oversight, to make better-informed authorization decisions, and 

to make more evidence-based spending decisions that achieve positive results 

for the American people. 

SEC. 4. PROGRAM ASSESSMENT. 

(a) REQUIREMENT FOR PROGRAM ASSESSMENTS.—Chapter 11 of title 31, United 

States Code, as amended by the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, 

is amended by adding at the end the following new section: 

‘‘§ 1120. Program assessment 

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

maximum extent practicable shall conduct, jointly with agencies of the Federal Government, an assessment of each program at least once every 5 fiscal years. 

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

under subsection (a), the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the 

head of the relevant agency shall— 

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

‘‘(2) evaluate the purpose, design, strategic plan, management, and results of 

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

‘‘(c) CRITERIA FOR IDENTIFYING PROGRAMS TO ASSESS.—The Director of the Office 

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

are performing similar functions, have similar purposes, or share common goals, 

such as those contained in strategic plans under section 306 of title 5. To the maximum extent possible, the Director shall assess a representative sample of Federal 

spending each fiscal year. 

‘‘(d) CRITERIA FOR MORE FREQUENT ASSESSMENTS.—The Director of the Office of 

Management and Budget shall make every effort to assess programs more frequently than required under subsection (a) in cases in which programs are determined to be of higher priority, special circumstances exist, improvements have been 

3 

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

‘‘(e) PUBLICATION.—At least 90 days before completing the assessments under this 

section to be conducted during a fiscal year, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall— 

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

Budget website or any successor website, and provide to the Committee on Government Reform of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate— 

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

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

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

being assessed and the criteria that will be used to assess the programs. 

‘‘(f) REPORT.—(1) The results of the assessments conducted during a fiscal year 

shall be submitted in a report to Congress at the same time that the President submits the next budget under section 1105 of this title after the end of that fiscal year. 

‘‘(2) The report shall— 

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

‘‘(B) specify the criteria used for each assessment; 

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

‘‘(D) describe significant modifications to the Federal Government performance plan required under section 1105(a)(28) of this title made as a result of 

the assessments; and 

‘‘(E) be available in electronic form through the Office of Management and 

Budget website or any successor website. 

‘‘(g) CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.—(1) With respect to program assessments conducted during a fiscal year that contain classified information, the President shall 

submit on the same date as the report is submitted under subsection (f)— 

‘‘(A) a copy of each such assessment (including the classified information), to 

the appropriate committees of jurisdiction of the House of Representatives and 

the Senate; and 

‘‘(B) consistent with statutory law governing the disclosure of classified information, an appendix containing a list of each such assessment and the committees to which a copy of the assessment was submitted under subparagraph (A), 

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

the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate. 

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

Representatives or the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall, consistent with statutory law 

governing the disclosure of classified information, provide to the Committee a copy 

of— 

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

(B) of such paragraph); and 

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

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

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

‘‘(h) INHERENTLY GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS.—The functions and activities authorized or required by this section shall be considered inherently Governmental 

functions and shall be performed only by Federal employees. 

‘‘(i) TERMINATION.—This section shall not be in effect after September 30, 2013.’’. 

(b) GUIDANCE.—Not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this 

Act, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall prescribe guidance 

to implement the requirements of section 1120 of title 31, United States Code, as 

added by subsection (a), including guidance on a definition of the term ‘‘program’’. 

(c) CONFORMING AND CLERICAL AMENDMENTS.— 

(1) Section 1115(g) of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking 

‘‘1119’’ and inserting ‘‘1120’’. 

(2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 11 of title 31, United 

States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘1120. Program assessment.’’. 

SEC. 5. STRATEGIC PLANNING AMENDMENTS. 

(a) CHANGE IN DEADLINE FOR STRATEGIC PLAN.—Subsection (a) of section 306 of 

title 5, United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘No later than September 30, 

1997,’’ and inserting ‘‘Not later than September 30 of each year following a year in 

which an election for President occurs, beginning with September 30, 2005, ’’. 

4 

(b) CHANGE IN PERIOD OF COVERAGE OF STRATEGIC PLAN.—Subsection (b) of section 306 of title 5, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘(b) Each strategic plan shall cover the 4-year period beginning on October 1 of the year following a year in which an election for President occurs.’’. 

COMMITTEE STATEMENT AND VIEWS

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

The main purpose of the Program Assessment and Results (PAR) Act is to improve the Government Performance and Results Act 

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

and evaluation process that attempts to determine the strengths 

and weaknesses of Federal programs with a particular focus on the 

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

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

the executive branch make informed management decisions and 

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

provide congressional policy makers with the information needed to 

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

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

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

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

Federal programs into manageable segments for OMB. Attempting 

to evaluate the performance of all Federal programs in one year 

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

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

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

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

the PAR Act attempt to codify the specific methodology used by 

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

programs in consultation with the relevant agency that administers 

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

considers appropriate. 

As OMB develops its criteria for which programs to review each 

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

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

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

compare the performance of programs against one another and to 

seek managerial and budget changes that capitalize on the best 

practices of the programs that are most successful in achieving the 

outcomes they were designed to achieve. In addition to considering 

the crosscutting nature of government functions, the PAR Act also 

directs OMB to review program activities more frequently than 

5 

every five fiscal years in cases in which programs are determined 

to be of higher priority, special circumstances exist, improvements 

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

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

achieve their goals will be scrutinized more closely. 

The results of program reviews conducted under the PAR Act 

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

were conducted. OMB currently uses this method of reporting in 

conjunction with the PART. The Committee is pleased with the 

high level of transparency that OMB has exhibited in reporting the 

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

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

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

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

publish the information necessary for the public to understand 

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

complete evaluations for 152 of the 407 programs—37.1% of the 

programs—to which it has been applied over the two-year period 

in which assessments were conducted. Although the percentage of 

programs receiving a score of ‘‘results not demonstrated’’ decreased 

in year two, it remains too high. We encourage OMB and the agency community to work to continue to refine the evaluation criteria 

to ensure meaningful reporting for all federal programs, including 

those programs administered cooperatively among state and local 

stakeholders. 

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

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

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

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

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

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

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

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

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

step toward reforming the way the government conducts its business. 

Prior efforts to make the Federal government more effective—the 

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

and gone with little lasting effect. Federal managers have learned 

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

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

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

6 

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

to reform the management of the Federal government. 

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

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

program evaluation is the one area where departments consistently 

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

requirement, the valuable information that stands to be gained 

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

a useful way. 

By creating and using the Program Assessment Rating Tool, or 

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

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

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

is necessary to ensure that program assessments be required for 

this and future Administrations. 

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

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

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

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

Information gleaned from these program reviews will be useful 

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

if programs are being managed effectively and if they are achieving 

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

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

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

Federal managers will use the information to improve the way they 

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

government for the good of all Americans. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

On February 25, 2004, Representative Todd R. Platts (R-PA), 

Chairman of the Subcommittee on Government Efficiency and Financial Management of the Committee on Government Reform, 

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

Committee on Government Reform, introduced H.R. 3826, the ‘‘Program Assessment and Results Act’’ to amend and improve the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993, P.L. 103– 

62. The bill was subsequently referred to the Committee on Government Reform. The Committee on Government Reform then referred H.R. 3826 to the Subcommittee on Government Efficiency 

and Financial Management, which has jurisdiction over GPRA and 

7 

all matters relating to the overall efficiency and management of 

government operations. 

On May 19, 2004, the Subcommittee on Government Efficiency 

and Financial Management held a business meeting to mark up 

H.R. 3826. Subcommittee Chairman Todd Platts (R-PA) offered an 

amendment in the nature of a substitute, which enhances coordination between OMB and the relevant agency in determining the programs to review, as well as enhances the transparency of the programmatic review report provided to Congress by ensuring that 

this report specifies (1) the performance goals for each program review, (2) the criteria used to evaluate, (3) the results of the evaluation, and (4) is available in electronic form through the OMB 

website. The amendment also provided for the termination of the 

review requirement as of September 30, 2013, essentially after two 

complete review cycles have been completed. The amendment also 

made a number of other technical changes to the legislation. The 

amendment in the nature of a substitute was adopted by voice 

vote. 

The Subcommittee also adopted an amendment offered by Rep. 

Edolphus Towns (D-NY), which required the head of the Office of 

Management and Budget to provide notice and an opportunity for 

public comment in the Federal Register on a detailed description 

in draft form of each program to be assessed, the draft performance 

goals for each such program and the draft criteria used to evaluate 

each program. The amendment also called for the publication in 

the Federal Register of the final list of programs to be assessed, the 

final performance goals and final criteria used to evaluate, along 

with a summary of all public comment. This amendment was 

adopted by voice vote. 

H.R. 3826 was reported to the full Committee on Government 

Reform, as amended, by voice vote. 

On June 3, 2004 the full Committee on Government Reform held 

a business meeting to mark up H.R. 3826. Chairman Platts of the 

Subcommittee on Government Efficiency and Financial Management offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute which 

makes additional changes from the Manager’s Amendment approved by the Subcommittee. Recognizing that this law places some 

additional burden on OMB and the agencies the amendment gives 

the OMB Director some latitude to exempt certain programs from 

the review requirement. This amendment also respects the privacy 

of classified information by excluding it from the reporting requirement. 

The amendment also made changes to the amendment adopted 

by the Subcommittee originally offered by Mr. Towns. Mr. Towns’ 

amendment sought to ensure that stakeholders and others with an 

interest in the programs being assessed would have an opportunity 

to comment on the programs and the criteria used to assess them. 

While the amendment changed the language of the original amendment, it ensures that there is a provision providing for the publication of programs to be assessed and the criteria that will be used 

in those assessments. The Manager’s Amendment, requires that 

this information be posted on the OMB web site at least 90 days 

prior to completion of the assessments and requires that the Director of OMB provide a mechanism for interested parties to comment. 

8 

The Manager’s Amendment was adopted by the committee by voice 

vote. 

Rep. Towns offered an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to restore the language of his amendment approved by the Subcommittee on Government Efficiency and Financial Management. This amendment was defeated by a rollcall vote 

of 15 ‘‘nays’’ and 9 ‘‘yeas’’. 

During the business meeting Rep. Waxman (D–CA) offered an 

amendment that required program reviews conducted pursuant to 

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

OMB. The amendment failed on a voice vote. 

Also during the business meeting, two amendments were offered 

by Rep. Van Hollen (D–MD) and subsequently withdrawn. Rep, 

Van Hollen offered an amendment that directed the functions and 

activities required by the bill to be classified as inherently governmental activities and an amendment that required the submission 

to Congress of any classified information as a result of the bill. 

H.R. 3826, as amended, was approved by voice vote and ordered 

reported favorably to the full House of Representatives for consideration. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION

SECTION 1—SHORT TITLE

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

Act.’’ 

SECTION 2—FINDINGS

This section summarizes the findings of Congress with respect to 

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

importance of performance information to making good managerial 

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

for program performance reviews. 

SECTION 3—PURPOSE

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

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

information gathered for the executive branch to make informed 

management decisions and evidence-based funding requests; and to 

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

and to make more evidence-based spending decisions. 

SECTION 4—PROGRAM REVIEW AND EVALUATION

Paragraph (a) establishes a requirement for program reviews by 

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

by GPRA. 

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

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

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

9 

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

The bill as passed by the committee includes language stating 

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

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

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

of H.R. 3826 to give minimal flexibility to the Director should a 

special circumstance arise where an assessment of a certain program is deemed unneeded. The clause, ‘‘to the maximum extent 

practicable’’ is not intended to give the Director wholesale flexibility or the ability to exempt any programs from review without 

a legitimate reason. Should the Director seek to exempt any program from this review requirement he shall notify the Congress, 

including the House Committee on Government Reform and Senate 

Committee on Governmental Affairs, in writing explaining the specific reasons why the review is deemed unneeded. Paragraph (b) of section 1120 requires the Director in conducting 

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

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

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

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

purposes during the same fiscal year. Paragraph (d) of section 1120 requires the Director to make 

every effort to review program activities more frequently than 

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

be of higher priority, special circumstances exist, improvements 

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

Paragraph (e) requires that at least 90 days prior to completing 

the assessments require under this section that the Director publish on the OMB website or successor website and provide to the 

House Committee on Government Reform and Senate Committee 

on Governmental Affairs a list of all programs to be assessed during a fiscal year and the criteria to be used in those assessments. 

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

Paragraph (f) of section 1120 requires: 

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

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

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

Paragraph (g) of section 1120: 

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

(A) requires that a copy of the assessment (including the 

classified information) be provided to the appropriate committees of the House of Representatives and the Senate, and 

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

containing a list of each assessment referenced in (A) be proVerDate Aug 04 2004 06:17 Oct 13, 2004 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR768.XXX HR768
10 

vided to the Committee on Government Reform of the House 

of Representatives and the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate. 

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

Affairs of the Senate, the Director of OMB shall provide to the requesting committee a copy of any assessment or appendix referenced in subparagraph (A) or (B) respectively. (3) Establishes that the term ‘‘classified information’’ refers to 

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

Paragraph (h) establishes that the functions and activities authorized by this section shall be considered inherently governmental functions and performed only by Federal employees. Paragraph (i) terminates the review requirement in 2013, essentially after two complete review cycles have been completed. Paragraph (b) of Section 4 provides that the Director shall have 

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

to implement the requirements of section 1120. 

Paragraph (c) makes conforming amendments to Section 1115(g) 

of title 31. 

SECTION 5—STRATEGIC PLANNING AMENDMENTS

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

to change the date for submitting strategic plans as required under 

GPRA to September 30 of each year following a presidential election, beginning with September 30, 2005. This change in date 

makes the release of strategic plans correspond with the change in 

leadership from one Administration to the next. 

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

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

to four years, again corresponding with a presidential term. 

EXPLANATION OF AMENDMENTS

The provisions of the substitute are explained in this report. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On June 3, 2004, the Committee met in open session and ordered 

reported favorably the bill, H.R. 3826, as amended, by rollcall vote, 

a quorum being present. 

11 


Insert offset folio 14 here HR768.001
12 

APPLICATION OF LAW TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

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

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

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

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

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

to public services and accommodations. 

STATEMENT OF OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF

THE COMMITTEE

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

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

descriptive portions of this report. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

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

House of Representatives, the Committee’s performance goals and 

objectives are reflected in the descriptive portions of this report. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

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

Representatives, the Committee must include a statement citing 

the specific powers granted to Congress to enact the law proposed 

by H.R. 3826. Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of the Constitution of 

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

FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT

The Committee finds that the legislation does not establish or 

authorize the establishment of an advisory committee within the 

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

UNFUNDED MANDATE STATEMENT

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

Reform Act, P.L. 104–4) requires a statement whether the provisions of the reported include unfunded mandates. In compliance 

with this requirement the Committee has received a letter from the 

Congressional Budget Office included herein. 

COMMITTEE ESTIMATE

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

3826. However, clause 3(d)(3)(B) of that rule provides that this requirement does not apply when the Committee has included in its 

report a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill prepared by the 

13 

Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of 

the Congressional Budget Act. 

BUDGET AUTHORITY AND CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST

ESTIMATE

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

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

Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect to requirements 

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

1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate for 

H.R. 3826 from the Director of Congressional Budget Office: 

H.R. 3826—Program Assessment and Results Act 

H.R. 3826 would amend the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 to require the Office of Management and Budget 

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

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

The review would focus on the purpose, design, strategic plan, 

management, results, and other appropriate measures of each program. Results of these reviews would be submitted to the Congress. 

The authority to conduct these program reviews would expire on 

September 30, 2013. Finally, the bill would require agencies to submit comprehensive strategic plans to OMB by September 2005 instead of the following September. 

Most of the provisions of H.R. 3826 would codify and expand the 

current practices of OMB regarding federal program assessments. 

OMB currently reviews program performance through its Program 

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

improve program performance throughout the federal government. 

According to OMB, PART will be used to review 20 percent of all 

federal programs annually over the next five years. To the extent 

that reviews lead to improved program performance, subsequent 

legislation could change the cost of program operations. 

Based on information from OMB, CBO does not expect that 

changing the September 2006 due date for agencies’ comprehensive 

strategic plans would require significant additional resources. Enacting the bill would not affect direct spending or revenues. H.R. 

3826 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 

defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would not affect state, local, or tribal governments. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Matthew Pickford. 

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

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

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

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

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

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

14 

TITLE 31, UNITED STATES CODE 

* * * * * * * 

Subtitle II—The Budget Process 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 11—THE BUDGET AND FISCAL, BUDGET, AND 

PROGRAM INFORMATION 

Sec. 

1101. Definitions. 

* * * * * * * 

1120. Program assessment. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 1115. Performance plans 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(g) For purposes of this section and sections 1116 through ¿1119

1120, and sections 9703 and 9704 the term— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

§ 1120. Program assessment 

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

Budget to the maximum extent practicable shall conduct, jointly 

with agencies of the Federal Government, an assessment of each 

program at least once every 5 fiscal years. (b) ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENTS.—In conducting an assessment of 

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

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

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

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

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

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

are performing similar functions, have similar purposes, or share 

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

shall assess a representative sample of Federal spending each fiscal 

year. 

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

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

assess programs more frequently than required under subsection (a) 

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

special circumstances exist, improvements have been made, or the 

15 

head of the relevant agency and the Director determine that more 

frequent assessment is warranted. 

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

Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall— (1) make available in electronic form through the Office of 

Management and Budget website or any successor website, and 

provide to the Committee on Government Reform of the House 

of Representatives and the Committee on Governmental Affairs 

of the Senate— 

(A) a list of the programs to be assessed during that fiscal year; and (B) the criteria that will be used to assess the programs; 

and 

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

the programs being assessed and the criteria that will be used 

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

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

time that the President submits the next budget under section 1105 

of this title after the end of that fiscal year. (2) The report shall— 

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

(B) specify the criteria used for each assessment; 

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

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

this title made as a result of the assessments; and 

(E) be available in electronic form through the Office of Management and Budget website or any successor website. (g) CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.—(1) With respect to program assessments conducted during a fiscal year that contain classified information, the President shall submit on the same date as the report 

is submitted under subsection (f)— 

(A) a copy of each such assessment (including the classified information), to the appropriate committees of jurisdiction of 

the House of Representatives and the Senate; and 

(B) consistent with statutory law governing the disclosure of 

classified information, an appendix containing a list of each 

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

and the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate. 

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

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

Budget shall, consistent with statutory law governing the disclosure 

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

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

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

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

16 

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

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

(h) INHERENTLY GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS.—The functions and 

activities authorized or required by this section shall be considered 

inherently Governmental functions and shall be performed only by 

Federal employees. (i) TERMINATION.—This section shall not be in effect after September 30, 2013. 

* * * * * * * 

SECTION 306 OF TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE 

§ 306. Strategic plans 

(a) ¿No later than September 30, 1997, Not later than September 30 of each year following a year in which an election for 

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

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

activities. Such plan shall contain— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

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

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

strategic plan shall be updated and revised at least every three 

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

shall be updated and revised at least every four years.

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

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

* * * * * * * 

(17) 

MINORITY VIEWS 

H.R. 3826, the Program Assessment and Results Act (PARA), would require every federal program to be reviewed or evaluated 

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

ensure adequate public participation. 

During full Committee markup, we proposed amendments to PARA addressing these two fundamental flaws. An amendment by 

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

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

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

Towns would have enhanced transparency by requiring a notice 

and comment process prior to the conducting of assessments. Because these two amendments were rejected, we cannot support 

PARA as it passed out of full Committee. 

THERE IS NO ROOM FOR POLITICS IN THE PROGRAM ASSESSMENT

PROCESS

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

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

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

evaluate the performance of their programs, PARA requires the 

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

performance. The Waxman amendment sought to fix this problem. 

We already have seen the problems that occur when OMB reviews programs. Over the last three years, OMB has created and 

used a process known as the Program Assessment Rating Tool, or 

PART, to review selected activities at the program level. That process has lead to questionable ratings for a number of programs. 

Some programs, such as HOPE VI and Even Start, have received 

poor ratings despite their success. In addition, OMB created a rating called ‘‘Results Not Demonstrated’’ which it uses when it is unable to properly measure a program. Under the PART, 37.1%, or 

152 out of 407 programs rated, received this rating. The ‘‘Results 

Not Demonstrated’’ rating implies that the program is poorly managed or inadequate for meeting its goals. This is unfair because 

agencies are often managing programs under different criteria than 

under PART. Thus, the designation of ‘‘Results Not Demonstrated’’ 

is mostly due to the unknown effectiveness of a program, as opposed to its ineffectiveness. 

Congress should not codify this current practice. Congressional 

intent in authorizing and funding government activities should be 

18 

faithfully carried out. This bill would have the effect of shifting 

power from Congress to the White House to direct and evaluate 

agency activities. Congress expresses its priorities through statutes 

authorizing agency activities. But OMB doesn’t implement those 

statutes. OMB implements the priorities of the White House. In 

fact, many agencies, and especially those charged with protecting 

public health, worker safety, and the environment, view OMB as 

hostile to the agencies’ fundamental missions. This bill actually encourages OMB to infringe on Congress’ prerogatives. 

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IS KEY TO SUCCESSFUL PROGRAM

ASSESSMENTS

PARA fails to provide adequately for public input into how pro- grams should be evaluated. The Towns amendment sought to address this deficiency. The amendment provides a period for public 

notice and comment on which programs will be reviewed, and what 

criteria will be used to review them. That’s all. It doesn’t require 

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

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

process is used all the time in many rule-making activities and is 

an appropriate parallel to the Government Performance and Results Act’s requirement for input from stakeholders when developing strategic plans. This amendment has already been agreed to once at the Sub- committee level. In a departure from customary practice, it was 

taken out and replaced with the vague and much weaker language 

in the manager’s amendment at the full Committee, which leaves 

to OMB the determination of what is an ‘‘appropriate mechanism 

for public input.’’ Given this Administration’s record on secrecy, 

this approach seems absurd. 

OTHER ISSUES

During full Committee markup, two amendments were offered, and then withdrawn, by Rep. Chris Van Hollen. Mr. Van Hollen’s 

first amendment required that federal employees perform all program assessments and other requirements of PARA. This language 

tracks GPRA and is important to ensure that this inherently governmental work is not contracted out. The majority has agreed to 

include this Van Hollen language in the bill as it is brought to the 

House floor. 

Mr. Van Hollen’s second amendment amended the provision of 

PARA that required OMB to produce program assessment reports. 

That provision of PARA stated that classified information could not 

be part of those reports. Mr. Van Hollen’s amendment required 

that classified information regarding program assessments be 

available, but as a classified appendix to the reports. It is imperative that Congress be apprised of the performance of programs that 

deal with classified information. Although it is necessary to ensure 

that classified information is not placed in the public domain, it 

should be available to Congress. The majority also has agreed to 

include language in the bill ensuring Congress has access to classified information regarding program assessments. 

Finally, during Subcommittee consideration of the bill, we were 

pleased that a number of provisions were added to PARA, which 

19 

were not part of the introduced bill. Those provisions include language on transparency, diversification of program assessments to 

ensure that both domestic and defense/homeland security programs 

were being assessed each year, enhanced coordination between 

OMB and agencies, and sunsetting the bill’s requirements. 

HENRY A. WAXMAN. 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS. 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY. 

DANNY K. DAVIS. 

DIANE E. WATSON. 

JIM COOPER. 

MAJOR R. OWENS. 

PAUL E. KANJORSKI. 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS. 

WM. LACY CLAY. 

LINDA T. SA

 ́

NCHEZ. 

BETTY MCCOLLUM. 

fi