U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

73–837 DTP WASHINGTON : 2001

SEVEN YEARS OF GPRA: HAS THE RESULTS ACT

PROVIDED RESULTS?

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT,

INFORMATION, AND TECHNOLOGY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JULY 20, 2000

Serial No. 106–245

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house

http://www.house.gov/reform

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

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250

Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York

CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

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

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

MARSHALL ‘‘MARK’’ SANFORD, South

Carolina

BOB BARR, Georgia

DAN MILLER, Florida

ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas

LEE TERRY, Nebraska

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

GREG WALDEN, Oregon

DOUG OSE, California

PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin

HELEN CHENOWETH-HAGE, Idaho

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana

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

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

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

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

KEVIN BINGER, Staff Director

DANIEL R. MOLL, Deputy Staff Director

JAMES C. WILSON, Chief Counsel

ROBERT A. BRIGGS, Clerk

PHIL SCHILIRO, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, INFORMATION, AND TECHNOLOGY

STEPHEN HORN, California, Chairman

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia

GREG WALDEN, Oregon

DOUG OSE, California

PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin

JIM TURNER, Texas

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

EX OFFICIO

DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

J. RUSSELL GEORGE, Staff Director and Chief Counsel

ROBERT ALLOWAY, Professional Staff Member

BRYAN SISK, Clerk

MARK STEPHENSON, Minority Professional Staff Member

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on July 20, 2000 ............................................................................... 1

Statement of:

Armey, Hon. Richard K., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Texas, and Majority Leader, U.S. House of Representatives; and

Hon. Pete Sessions, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Texas and chairman, House Results Caucus .............................................. 7

Gotbaum, Joshua, Executive Associate Director and Controller and Acting

Deputy Director for Management, Office of Management and Budget;

Christopher Mihm, Associate Director, Federal Management and Workforce Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office; Maurice McTigue, distinguished visiting scholar, Mercatus Institute, George Mason University;

and Ellen Taylor, policy analyst, OMB Watch ........................................... 22

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

Armey, Hon. Richard K., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Texas, and Majority Leader, U.S. House of Representatives, prepared

statement of ................................................................................................... 10

Gotbaum, Joshua, Executive Associate Director and Controller and Acting

Deputy Director for Management, Office of Management and Budget,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 25

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

California, prepared statement of ................................................................ 3

McTigue, Maurice, distinguished visiting scholar, Mercatus Institute,

George Mason University, prepared statement of ..................................... 51

Mihm, Christopher, Associate Director, Federal Management and Workforce Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office, prepared statement of ...... 34

Sessions, Hon. Pete, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Texas and chairman, House Results Caucus, prepared statement of ...... 17

Taylor, Ellen, policy analyst, OMB Watch, prepared statement of .............. 104

Turner, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 6

(1)

SEVEN YEARS OF GPRA: HAS THE RESULTS

ACT PROVIDED RESULTS?

THURSDAY, JULY 20, 2000

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT,

INFORMATION, AND TECHNOLOGY,

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Stephen Horn (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Horn, Turner, and Maloney.

Staff present: J. Russell George, staff director and chief counsel;

Earl Pierce, professional staff member; Bonnie Heald, director of

communications; Bryan Sisk, clerk; Elizabeth Seong, staff assistant; Will Ackerly and Davidson Hulfish, interns; Trey Henderson,

minority counsel; and Jean Gosa, minority clerk.

Mr. HORN. We are here today to examine the implementation of

the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993. This is a

very important process.

The act was designed to evaluate whether Federal agencies and

programs are accomplishing their missions. Once the law has been

successfully implemented, the American people will be able to ask

and receive an accurate answer to the question, what are we getting for our money? The Results Act encourages efficiency and accountability in government spending by requiring agencies to justify how they spend their portion of the Government’s $1.8 trillion

budget. The law requires agencies to set goals and use performance

measures for their management and budgeting.

In a 1997 hearing before this subcommittee, Christopher Mihm

of the General Accounting Office testified that implementation of

the act varied among executive branch agencies in quality, utility

and responsiveness to the law. In 1999, the General Accounting Office found that only 14 of 35 agencies defined some type of relationship between the program activities on their proposed budgets and

the performance goals cited in their plans. Yet, few of the 14 agencies explained how they would use their funding to achieve these

goals.

Clearly, agencies have made progress in linking program planning with their budget requests. Yet, much work remains before

2

Congress can use this performance information as a significant tool

in the budget allocation process. Nevertheless, once the Results Act

has been successfully implemented, it will help us achieve a more

efficient, effective and responsive government.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Stephen Horn follows:]

3

4

5

Mr. HORN. We are honored to have as our lead witnesses, the

Majority Leader of the House, the gentleman from Texas, Mr.

Armey, and the chairman of the House Results Caucus headed by

the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Sessions.

We welcome all of our witnesses today and we look forward to

their testimony.

You know the routine here, my friend, and the full statement

goes into the record automatically when you are introduced, resume and all. In a minute, I am going to yield to another gentleman from Texas. This seems to be a Texas day here. I hope the

Texas Society is out here somewhere.

Mr. SESSIONS. Let us hope the rest of the year continues that

way, Mr. Chairman. [Laughter.]

Mr. HORN. I agree with you.

That is how it works and in the meantime, the gentleman from

Texas, Mr. Turner, our ranking member, will have his opening

statement.

Mr. TURNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Being from California, you certainly defer to Texas. We appreciate it.

This March, for the first time under the Results Act, agencies

Governmentwide were required to report on their results in achieving their goals. I think we all agree that this bipartisan legislation

we call the Results Act has been an effective tool for enhancing

government performance and efficiency. Its intent is to fundamentally shift the focus of our Federal Government and to be sure that

we move from a preoccupation with staffing and activity levels to

a focus on outcomes in Federal programs.

Outcomes are the results expressed in terms of real differences

in Federal programs and the impact those programs make in peoples’ lives such as increase in real wages earned by graduates of

an unemployment training program, or a reduction in fatality and

injury rates in workplaces or on our highways.

Congress and its committees can and have been involved in the

Results Act at all stages. Committees have a means to develop and

amend the strategic plans as well as the annual performance plans.

Agency officials have said that evidence of real involvement and interest on the part of congressional committees in using performance goals and information to help in congressional decisionmaking

would help to build and sustain support for the Results Act within

the agencies.

As a result, as Members of Congress, we have an obligation to

work with all of the executive branch’s agencies to be sure GPRA

is the tool that improves the efficiency of the Federal Government.

I believe that a strong and sustained congressional attention to

GPRA is needed to ensure the success of the act and I know that

goal is shared by Chairman Horn. I commend the chairman as well

as my colleagues from Texas for their strong support of this very

critical effort on the part of this Congress.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Jim Turner follows:]

6

7

Mr. HORN. I thank the gentleman.

Now we have the ‘‘el tremendo’’ gentleman from Texas. We are

delighted to have the Majority Leader here. He has been a backer

of the results-oriented approach from day 1. We are pleased to have

him here. We will have a few questions for him but I know he has

a busy day.

The gentleman from Texas, the Majority Leader, Mr. Armey.

STATEMENTS OF HON. RICHARD K. ARMEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS, AND MAJORITY LEADER, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES; AND

HON. PETE SESSIONS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS AND CHAIRMAN, HOUSE RESULTS CAUCUS

Mr. ARMEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let me first appreciate the work that your committee has done.

I think as much as any committee in Congress, this subcommittee

and this committee has led our efforts under the Results Act.

The Results Act, as you know, was passed in 1993 and it was designed to bring accountability and performance in government

agencies to the American people. Every one of us, as a Member of

Congress, will get testimony from back home in that area of our

work which we most often refer to as case work about the extent

to which the agencies are providing the services in the lives of our

constituents, the American people, who pay for these agencies, and

by whose authority the agencies exist. All too often we find ourselves frustrated along with our constituents in the agency not performing.

This has been, I think, a particularly heart warming experience

for me to be able to be involved in the Results Act. The Results Act

basically says to every agency, have a clear understanding of what

you are doing, be able to express that to us, tell us what your mission is and give us some evidence of your ability to achieve the results you desire.

We give the agency a great deal of latitude there. If we have a

quarrel with what they believe and express to be their mission, we

can take that up legislatively, but the fundamental question is, do

you in fact have an ability to demonstrate that you are getting results, even as you define your mission? We have encouraged this.

I have to tell you, to a large extent, what we did when we passed

the Results Act was ask the agencies to conform to a new regime

of accountability. I, for one, was more than willing to be patient

and encouraging. I have always argued that for any of us in any

occupation of our life, adaptation to change the adoption and the

performance under new regimes are always something we must

have some time and encouragement in doing, and we have done

that.

What you have seen happening simultaneously over the past couple of years is congressional oversight that has been designed to in

fact encourage greater performance—your scorecards being very

important in that regard—and at the same time, for us to give a

very strong view of the results that are there.

I think, quite frankly, this Congress has been encouraging and

it has been diligent in oversight. You have seen the oversight exVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:15 Sep 21, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\73837.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
8

tension go to other committees across Congress and more committees have taken up the understanding of the implementation of

their role in oversight in this regard.

I have to tell you, Mr. Chairman, despite all the time and effort

that we have spent being encouraging in this manner, I have come

to a moment of some disappointment. Our latest evaluations of performance are frankly disappointing to me. Every agency in the Federal Government has had a chance to travel that learning curve

and frankly, should be doing better, each and every one of them.

I think we need to appreciate the performance of the General Accounting Office. They worked very hard on this, they have taken

it seriously and they have been very supportive again, both to the

committee and to the agencies, but we have had independent reviews that have supported their own analysis from George Mason

University and other reviewers across the country that it just isn’t

working well enough for the American people.

I think what we need to do today perhaps is start to just step

it up another level. My friend, Pete Sessions, came to me early on

when we began talking about Results Act and said, I would like to

form a Results Caucus. He and his caucus have been very active

in that and we will hear from Pete in a moment.

While I don’t think we should ever be a singularly discouraging

voice out there, I think while we continue our encouragement, we

must at this point be a little demanding.

Finally, let me say two final points. One, I have taken that initiative a little bit with something that perhaps you have seen the

‘‘waste-o-meter.’’ We try to keep a better track of this, try to publicize the results and try to arm our budgeteers and appropriators

with real information should it become necessary as we try to implement an overall, rigorous budget process, fighting against demands for new, more spending, to document that spending is not

necessarily justifiable given the levels of waste we have uncovered

from the committees reporting today and the reports we have had,

and the fine work of GAO, some $16 billion uncovered already this

year, that we have talked about.

Finally, if I might chafe a little under the bit, at or about the

time we created the Results Act, the Vice President of the United

States, Al Gore, was billed as the administration’s leader in this effort in what he called the whole effort to reinvent government. I

know there was a great deal of public relations there but the fact

of the matter is that the Results Act and any efforts to reinvent

government, enforce accountability in Government lay fallow until

this congressional majority took over in 1995.

Therefore, it irritates me a little bit when constituents come into

my office with severe disappointments, sometimes heartbreaking

disappointments about agencies that just aren’t performing as they

should be for them. People come to my office here, people sometimes with multibillion dollar private agreements that are being

held up by some agency that just won’t make a decision.

We don’t necessarily sit in Congress and say to the agency, you

should make this or that decision but I think we have a responsibility to say, make a decision—a disservice to the people by virtue

of agencies not performing.

9

To have the Vice President criticize this Congress that has tried

through all our oversight efforts in so many ways to encourage this

better service, refer to us as a do nothing for the people Congress,

I must say gets under my skin a little bit. I have to say, where

were you, Mr. Vice President, after all the publicity waned over reinventing government; where were you when it came time to dig

in as committee after committee has done here and implement the

rigor, maintain the oversight and continue the encouragement and

at times, if necessary, express some anger?

We have done that. Your committee has done that. As I said,

other committees have done that and the fact of the matter is, we

are getting improvement, but it is not coming fast enough. You will

hear further testimony today about that.

I guess my parting word would be, let us not only continue but

continue to expand our effort across the Congress to implement

this because the goal is worthy. The objectives of the Results Act

are laudable. We have said to the American people, we are determined to not only make it clear in every agency of this government,

a shared understanding of what your mission is, what your duty

is to the American people, but to give one another encouragement,

prodding and at times, if necessary, criticism in seeing to it that

the American people get the services they deserve from the agencies created by this Congress on their behalf.

Let me again thank you for letting me be here this morning. Let

me again encourage you to continue your fine work and I express

my firm belief that as we continue in understanding and implementing GPRA, we will make this government a government that

is a better service in the lives of its constituents and that is what

this government has an obligation to be.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Dick Armey follows:]

10

11

12

13

14

Mr. HORN. We thank you. Those are very worthwhile bits of wisdom. By the way, when we did take over this committee in 1995,

we did offer an invitation to the Vice President on several occasions

and we told him it wasn’t one where we were going to crab a lot

about it, we just thought he was trying to do a good job and we

will give you a forum. We wouldn’t even get that.

Let me ask you on this serious business. I have a feeling, and

I did say it once either in the retreat or in the conference but nobody listens to humble subcommittee chairs but they will listen to

you.

I think under your leadership, if we can get the chairs of the full

authorization committees, the chairs of the Subcommittees on Appropriations, and get their political counterparts—Presidential

nominees, be it Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Assistant Secretary—

in the same place around a table and say, we have read through

what some of your goals are, show me where in the law this is

based. I just think we have to get a dialog of principals, not just

a dialog of staff. With all due respect to the wonderful staff around

here, the fact is, they are not elected and the executive branch at

least has the imprimatur of the President’s nomination and the

confirmation of the Senate. I think that closure has not been very

good.

Mr. ARMEY. I appreciate that point. I couldn’t agree with you

more. It has to be a full partnership. This is a big government. Any

big enterprise like this, it is easy for people to lay down on the job

and let it be overlooked or to have confusions about what their jobs

are and let that not be clearly understood.

It does take a partnership effort I think between the House, the

Senate and the executive branch to make something that is frankly

this bold and large—imagine this. If you went before any college

class in America and said, my job is to make sure the Federal Government, as large as it is, never misses a beat in serving to the

best of its ability, the needs of the American people, you would astound people with just how enormous that task is. No small group

of people can do that. We must all work on it together.

That is why I have tried to use the authorities of my office to

encourage that and I think your point is well taken. We have to

do a better job all the way around.

Mr. HORN. I thank you and I know you have other things to do

but if you want to stay and listen to Mr. Sessions, fine. We would

welcome you.

Does the gentleman from Texas have any questions for the Majority Leader?

Mr. TURNER. No.

Mr. SESSIONS. Majority Leader, are you going to stay or stick

around?

Mr. ARMEY. I might stay a little bit because I am so proud of you.

If I may, Mr. Chairman, my good colleague just got a clean bill of

health from Baylor University and they said he was good looking

too, so I am going to stay.

Mr. SESSIONS. It is true, I went in for a little bit of day surgery

and everything turned out all right.

I thank my good friend, the Majority Leader.

15

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for asking me

to be here today.

I would also like to give the same accolades to the gentleman

from Texas, Mr. Turner. He and I have numerous conversations, as

you and I do, Mr. Chairman, and I have found that Mr. Turner is

not only focused on government efficiency, but that his answer to

the problems is right in line with the things you and I are attempting to accomplish. I would like to applaud the gentleman for his

leadership and work on that also. I thank Mr. Turner for that.

As you know, the Results Caucus is interested in giving this government every single dollar it needs but not a penny more. Today,

you are hearing testimony from Majority Leader Armey from Texas

talk about his observations as the father and leader of the GPRA

and other things that have come through this Congress that would

empower and give stature to government agencies to be able to resolve their own problems.

Mr. Armey and I have, for quite some time, decided that there

is a time and a process that would allow this government the opportunity to see that a process that would encourage efficiency was

important. We have also decided that we were not going to become

frustrated, that we were going to work with agencies, work with

GAO, work toward resolution of problems.

The fact of the matter is that I believe the gentleman from

Texas, Mr. Armey and I concur. It seems like the government has

had time to work through these problems and they have not made

as much progress as either one of us would have wanted.

The Results Act, as you know, was a challenge for agency directors and those managers of the government to run their agencies

more efficiently. It was created as a challenge, as an opportunity

for them to focus on the near term needs of the government by

them establishing those goals and directions they would like to go

into.

The fact of the matter is that as technology and time has played

its course, many Federal programs are still dramatically underperforming, inefficient and have become functionally obsolete. This

government and its managers have not even recognized those

changes and taken hold of that.

I believe that the Results Act, which was designed to address

those problems as well as to functionally require that the Government managers would be attuned to those changes has not worked.

I have not seen agencies using the Results Act as a helpful management tool. I will repeat, I have not seen the agencies use the

Results Act as a helpful management tool which it was completely

designed for.

The performance plans the agencies produce are often still too

broad, they are attempting to solve every agency problem with a

large stroke of a brush rather than specifically focusing on a structured performance plan to focus or to move toward reform by addressing those immediate problems that face their agency.

I continue to have, as Majority Leader Armey and both you, Mr.

Chairman, and Mr. Turner, regular talks with agencies about their

performance, regular talks with agencies about how they perform

their job. I will tell you that the feedback I hear is that the manVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:15 Sep 21, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\73837.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
16

agers of the government see the Results Act as cumbersome and

yet just another hoop to jump through.

I am disappointed. I am disappointed because I do not believe

that the agencies have looked at what this is all about. I don’t believe they have worked hard enough to make it work and I further

do not believe that they view it as a value added process.

We will continue to focus on the job of oversight. Mr. Armey and

I will continue not to be frustrated, but I will tell you, Mr. Chairman, we will not yield back to believing that the Government, regardless of how big it is, should not be efficient. We believe a government or an organization, even the smallest in this Government,

should become efficient and should do what its mandate is laid out

to be.

Last, I would say this. While I have said we are not going to be

frustrated, you can anticipate and expect that the Majority Leader

and the Results Caucus led by me will continue to speak out on the

issues where we see problems. We do appreciate what this committee is doing as well as the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Burton,

and the whole committee, and we want to continue working with

you.

Today, you are going to hear from people who have specific examples, ideas about how we can make it better, and I encourage

this committee to address that in the way they choose. We will continue to be a value added partner.

I thank you for the opportunity to be here.

Last, I would say this, and ask unanimous consent to say this,

I have a professor to my right, Dr. Armey; I also have a professor

from my university, Dr. Weldon Crowley, who is here. Dr. Crowley

was my history professor. So many times we talk about learning

things in fifth grade, how government works and playing them out

here. In this case, it was at Southwestern University as a young

student where my professor, Dr. Weldon Crowley, a man who is

very distinguished in what he does, to teach me the ways of government and here we are playing them out today with the Majority

Leader and this esteemed committee.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Pete Sessions follows:]

17

18

19

20

21

22

Mr. HORN. We thank you and we welcome you to the chamber

here. I know it must have been tremendous to get all that knowledge in his head and maybe you should be a distinguished trustee

professor for life as a result of that. [Laughter.]

We thank the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Sessions. He has done

a terrific job with the Results Caucus. We will be putting out our

dear colleague bit which I hope will help you based on the General

Accounting Office, as to where the waste is in a lot of agencies

which we have done about every 6 months or so.

Thank you both for coming.

Unless Mr. Turner has some questions, you have heard mine and

I thank you very much.

We will have now panel two, the Honorable Joshua Gotbaum,

Christopher Mihm, Maurice McTigue and Ellen Taylor.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. HORN. The clerk will note the four witnesses have affirmed

the oath.

We will begin with the Honorable Joshua Gotbaum, Executive

Associate Director and Controller, and Acting Deputy Director for

Management, Office of Management and Budget. I think you have

appeared three times or so this last month. We thank you.

STATEMENTS OF JOSHUA GOTBAUM, EXECUTIVE ASSOCIATE

DIRECTOR AND CONTROLLER AND ACTING DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR MANAGEMENT, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND

BUDGET; CHRISTOPHER MIHM, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, FEDERAL MANAGEMENT AND WORKFORCE ISSUES, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE; MAURICE MCTIGUE, DISTINGUISHED VISITING SCHOLAR, MERCATUS INSTITUTE,

GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY; AND ELLEN TAYLOR, POLICY

ANALYST, OMB WATCH

Mr. GOTBAUM. Yes, Mr. Chairman, but since each of them is

something that is quite important to the business of government,

I am actually grateful.

Mr. HORN. You know the routine which is your paper is already

in the hearing record. We would like a summary of it and you don’t

have to read it because we have read it.

Mr. GOTBAUM. I appreciate that.

I would note that I am joined this morning by a number of folks

from OMB staff, including Jimmy Charney, Texas A&M, 1996, who

wanted me to make sure you knew that Mr. Turner’s colleague was

an alumnus of his.

I don’t want to spend a lot of time in this committee talking

about the importance of GPRA because I think it is crystal clear

that this committee recognizes it is important. I think it is important to affirm that the administration does too and that as this

committee knows, each year we put out a set of priority management objectives. For the last several years, performance measurement has been PMO 2 because Y2K was PMO 1. This year performance management, using performance data, is PMO 1.

The story of our implementing this law, which was passed with

bipartisan support and which we strongly endorse, is I think a

story of real effort and some real success and a long way to go. I

think we should be honest about that.

23

I have listed in my testimony the fact that 100 Federal agencies

have turned out strategic plans and performance plans and performance reports and this year, for the first time, they all turned

out performance reports and we think this is a very important

milestone.

What I would like to do is talk about the risks that we face—

how we go from here—and what the challenges are. I am happy to

talk in questioning about what individual agencies have done.

We are still learning what the right measures are. This is a difficult task, something the Government hadn’t done before, particularly systematically and certainly not with the force of law. GPRA

is not a one size fits all business. What we find is that as agencies

develop their measures, and try to implement them, there is a trial

and error process. That necessarily involves error and it involves

allowing people to learn from their mistakes.

Let me list one of my personal favorites which is the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. OSHA wanted to implement the law, so they said, we are going to measure and keep track

of the number of inspections we do. Then they realized that this

was an intermediate measure, a measure of their effort but not a

result. They said, we are really in the business of workplace safety,

so maybe we should be tracking and measuring and sending our

troops based on where the workplaces are safe or not safe. They

reformed the way they did business.

This had a couple of powerful effects. One, it enabled them to be

more effective in their job, and two, it enabled the businesses they

regulate to understand what the right goals were. I mention this

because I think it is very important as we implement GPRA and

as you provide oversight to both encourage these guys to do it and

allow them to make mistakes and encourage them to correct and

improve the results.

We need both outcome and output measures. There are some

who say that agencies should only be measured by how they are

doing in reducing poverty or improving the quality of housing, or

reducing unemployment rate. We agree that agencies should be

measured by that but it would be a mistake to throw out all measures of output because it matters to the Government, it matters to

the citizens, and I believe it matters to the Congress how efficiently

agencies do things.

So while I think it is very important that we keep track of measures of unemployment and how they change as a result of job training programs, if we can figure that, it is equally important that we

tell the Social Security Administration that they ought to watch

how long it takes for them to answer the telephone.

The real challenge of GPRA is moving beyond report writing. It

is in taking performance information and using it in program management and budgeting. There are people who argue that we

should measure the success of our implementation of GPRA by the

clarity of reports or the validity of the data used. I must strenuously disagree. They matter but those are output measures. Those

are not outcome measures.

The outcome that we are trying to get is to have performance information used routinely by agencies to measure how they manage

24

their programs and by OMB and you in how you review their programs and their budgets.

This is hard stuff because it means you have to pick the right

measures, you have to put them out there and get agreement on

them, you have to put them in your management systems and then

you have to use them, but we are beginning.

In budgeting, we have always used and looked for, performance

information. What GPRA has done is added the force of law to that

requirement and as a result, we are increasingly using performance

information in budget decisions. I have listed some examples in my

testimony.

OMB strongly supports this. We are using it. We too are learning

how to incorporate performance information into the budgeting

process. We started by giving guidance on plans and then when we

got the plans saying how do you incorporate this into budget decisions? We then said to the agencies, send us performance information with your budget plans. We started using it internally.

This year we moved a step ahead: We said to the agencies, send

us your performance plan as part of your budget submission. What

we were trying to do was ask the agencies to integrate performance

measures and budgeting so that we can do a better job. As a result,

we hope you will agree they will do a better job.

We have a very long way to go. We have a long way to go in improving the measures we use, a long way to go in integrating them

into management and budget, and we have a long way to go in realigning budgets, programs and organizations as a result of those

reviews, but we are, I hope the committee recognizes, beginning.

This leads me to my last point, which is the role of Congress.

We are enormously grateful for the attention that this committee

and this Congress places on the Government Performance and Results Act. We think it is essential that you review progress and

hold everybody’s feet to the fire.

I view this as an issue of combining patience and pressure. One

of the things for which we are grateful is that the Congress has

recognized this is a trial and error process. We have to keep working at it. I was enormously gratified at the statements by Congressman Sessions and Mr. Armey because they recognize this

takes time. But you have to hold our feet to the fire.

That is really my last request, which is that you continue to do

so. Hearings like this one, every time you hold one, send a message. Your suggestion, Mr. Chairman, of combining forces with appropriations and authorizing committees would make the message

even clearer. We hope it is something the Congress will take to

heart.

In closing, all I will say is, however you choose to do it, we are

committed to working with you, to delivering on the promise of performance, and as a result, to deliver the quality of government the

American people deserve.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gotbaum follows:]

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

Mr. HORN. Thank you. That is a very optimistic view and I am

glad to hear it.

Now we go back to a regular also here and that is Christopher

Mihm, Associate Director, Federal Management and Workforce

Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office, part of the legislative

branch.

Mr. MIHM. Yes, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Turner. Once again, it is an

honor and a pleasure to appear before you to discuss the Government Performance and Results Act.

The issuance last spring of the first performance reports showing

the degree to which agencies met their goals and the strategies and

plans they have to meet unmet goals, along with their annual performance plans and strategic plans and the Governmentwide performance plans, represents a new and potentially more substantive

phase of GPRA implementation. That is, we have now completed

the first full cycle of the act in its planning and reporting requirements.

For GPRA to be fully useful to Congress and the executive

branch, however, agencies need to make continued progress in addressing a set of five enduring challenges that we have reported on

fairly consistently: first, articulating the results orientation; second,

coordinating cross-cutting programs; third, showing the performance consequences of budget decisions which you highlighted in

your opening statement; fourth, showing how daily operations contribute to results—one of the issues that Mr. Gotbaum raised—and

fifth, building the capacity to gather and use performance information.

First, in regards to adopting a results orientation, the challenge

confronting agencies is to develop a clear sense of the results to be

achieved as opposed to the products and services the agency produces. The lack of a comprehensive set of goals that focused on results was one of the central weaknesses that we saw when we

looked at the fiscal year 1999 annual performance plans.

Important progress was made over the next year and all of the

fiscal year 2000 plans we looked at, the plans the agencies are operating under now, contained at least some goals and measures

that addressed program results. Still, detailed in my written statement, there are plenty of opportunities for continued progress in

that area.

Second, coordinating cross-cutting programs: we have found that

unfocused and uncoordinated cross-cutting programs waste scarce

resources, confuse and frustrate taxpayers and program beneficiaries—as the Majority Leader pointed out in the casework examples he discussed—and limit overall program effectiveness.

Although the fiscal year 2000 plans indicate that agencies continue to make progress in coordinating these cross-cutting programs, we are still finding they need to complete the far more difficult and substantive task of establishing complementary performance goals, mutually reinforcing strategies and where appropriate,

common performance measures.

Third, a key objective of GPRA is to help Congress develop a

clearer understanding of what is being achieved in relation to what

is being spent. We are finding that agencies are making incremenVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:15 Sep 21, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\73837.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
33

tal progress in developing the useful linkages between their annual

budget request and performance plans but that much additional

work is needed in this area as well.

The actions of many agencies during fiscal years 1999 and 2000

performance planning cycles constituted important first steps but,

I would stress, just first steps in forging closer links between the

plans and budgets and could be seen in essence as a baseline from

which to assess future progress.

Fourth, understanding and articulating how agencies’ day-to-day

operations contribute to results is a critical element of GPRA implementation. Mr. Gotbaum mentioned the excellent example of the

experiences over at OSHA and I would underscore that. The point

there is that as OSHA and other agencies begin to move beyond

what they do on a day-to-day basis and consider the results they

are designed to achieve, that often opens whole new avenues for

them to explore in terms of strategies and program initiatives they

should be undertaking that would lead them to more effectively

achieve the results.

Fifth, we found although the fiscal year 2000 plans contained

valuable and informative information relating strategies and programs to goals, there was plenty of work that was still needed in

that area. Let me mention two in particular.

First, the virtual absence of discussions of human capital, which

as you know from the Comptroller General earlier this week, is a

major concern. The fiscal year 2000 plans suggested that one of the

critical components of high performing organizations, the systematic integration of human capital and performance planning, is not

being adequately addressed throughout the Federal Government.

More broadly, any serious effort to fundamentally improve the

performance of Federal agencies must address the management

challenges and program risks including those elements on our high

risk list. This obviously was the point that Mr. Sessions was making. Unfortunately, the fiscal year 2000 plan showed inconsistent

attention to the need to resolve these issues.

The fifth and final key challenge we found deals with the substantial and longstanding limitations in agency ability to produce

credible performance information. In fact, these challenges and the

lack of credible performance information is one of the greatest continuing weaknesses with GPRA implementation.

In summary, GPRA has the potential and is already beginning

to help Congress and the executive branch ensure that the Federal

Government provides results the American people care about. We

look forward to continuing to support the Congress in this regard

and in any way we can to meet your needs.

As you know from my prepared statement, one of the things we

suggest is under House Rule 10, the oversight plans that the standing committees must send to this committee could be used as a vehicle for further drilling GPRA into congressional oversight plans.

We look forward to helping you with that or in any other way.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mihm follows:]

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

Mr. HORN. Thank you. We have two more witnesses and then we

will open it to questions. I think it will be a very good dialog from

all four of you.

Our next witness is Maurice McTigue, distinguished visiting

scholar, Mercatus Institute, George Mason University, and a fellow

once parliamentarian. We were delighted to visit Australia and

New Zealand in a trip last year to see if any of your fine work was

still holding forth. In places, it is, so I would like to talk to you

about that sometime.

Go ahead.

Mr. MCTIGUE. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, and I would be delighted

to talk to you about it.

As you indicated, my experience is mainly as a politician and as

a member of Cabinet, and at a time when my country was going

through major changes, most of which were based upon the principle that is the founding principle of GPRA.

I think for Congress one of the interesting factors involved in

that process is that while it started 16 years ago, and there have

been three changes of the party in power in governance in New

Zealand, there has been no relaxation in the rigor with which the

performance of government has been pursued.

In the 3-years that I have been here in the United States and

have worked closely with the agencies of government and also with

Congress in terms of sharing some of our experiences, I think the

thing that impresses me most about GPRA is that it does focus on

changing the primacy of measures to a focus on outcomes.

I have heard a number of people make comment this morning

about efficiency. When I talk about the primacy of measures, it is

that the primacy of the measure of effectiveness must outweigh

considerations of efficiency. That is not something that legislatures

have been good at doing in the past.

I think if we were to look at the high spot of government performance over the past 3 years in the United States, it would be

the success of the Y2K project. In my view, the success of that

project was driven in no small part by people like yourself who actually asked the right questions. The question was the outcome

question—will the computers work on January 1, 2000? It didn’t

focus so much on tell me what you have done, you kept focusing

on ‘‘will the computers work on January 1, 2000.’’

That is outcome-based scrutiny. We want to know the result. Can

you actually deliver for us what you have promised you would deliver for us? If we looked at the principle that I think is important

to Congress in considering this whole area of activity, that principle would really be this—‘‘that all future decisions by government

would be taken in full knowledge of the consequences of that decision.’’

In the past, I believe many decisions have been taken in full

knowledge of what will be done but without full knowledge of the

consequences of that decision. What GPRA does is shifts the focus

of accountability to what were the public benefits from the expenditure of that money rather than what were the activities that were

funded from the expenditure of that money?

If we look at GPRA as a tool, then it breaks into four significant

parts. The first part of the process is planning. Give to the public

49

a fair expectation of what it is that you are going to achieve. The

second part of it is implementation, putting in place and implementing those outputs that are meant to achieve that outcome.

We have been through the first two stages of that with GPRA

and I like to remind people that GPRA, while passed in 1993, only

took effect for fiscal year 1999, so there is very little evidence at

this stage of the success or otherwise of GPRA.

As an ex-politician and working in a university at the moment,

in my mind the most important part of GPRA is what occurs now.

In March of this year, we saw the first round of disclosure of performance. What was in the reports of the agencies should disclose

what was achieved and now we are at the fourth stage, what does

Congress do in the process of oversight and scrutiny of those reports?

To me that is the most important part. One of the things you

need to do, in my view, is look at the quality of the reporting. Have

you had placed in front of you sufficient knowledge and a high

enough quality of information for you to be able to make decisions

in the knowledge of the full consequences of those decisions? We at

the Mercatus Center did a study on the quality of reporting and

in many instances, the reports do not provide you with that capability. Some of them were good. Most of them lacked in a number

of areas in terms of being able to identify for you what were the

public benefits from these activities.

In looking at those reports, I think you also need to look at not

only are they open and transparent but is there full disclosure? For

example, we found some organizations that describe their activity

in terms of ‘‘we fully met the goal’’ when what they actually did

was achieve 90 percent of the goal. Ninety percent might be a good

measure in some cases but in some other areas, you might determine that was quite inadequate.

In other cases, they described adequate performance as anything

above 67 percent of goal. Those are very arbitrary and I think what

you need to know is what was the percentage of each goal that was

achieved rather than a broad-based measure like that. So that is

full disclosure in my view and it is very important to the success

of Congress’s security of Government.

What then might Congress do through committees like yourself?

I believe what Congress has to do is to learn to conduct scrutiny

based on outcomes rather than conduct, scrutiny based on process.

What you need to be able to do is to look at a particular outcome:

you are examining an agency, you pick a particular activity, look

at that outcome. If you were to follow that outcome through, you

would be able to say how much of the public good for this particular issue comes from this agency and how much from others.

By following that outcome and looking at the effectiveness of

each program, you can then make comparisons and finally get to

a position of saying if we have optimal utilization of resources, here

is the potential public benefit. The cost to the American public for

suboptimal utilization of resources is the difference between optimal allocation and the status quo. We, the public could have had

50

this quantity of benefit and we are shortchanged by the amount

that was placed in ineffective programs.

That is the end of my testimony and thank you for the opportunity.

[The prepared statement of Mr. McTigue follows:]

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

Mr. HORN. Thank you.

We have a vote on the floor now, so we are going to have to recess for 20 minutes. I think it is just one vote but why don’t you

all have a cup of coffee. Just go down to the basement and you can

get plenty of coffee.

We will be recess until at least 11:05 a.m.

[Recess.]

Mr. HORN. The committee will come to order.

We will now continue with the last presenter, Ellen Taylor, policy analyst, OMB Watch. You might just tell us in a couple of sentences what OMB Watch is. This is your chance to plug it.

Included that because I was afraid no one would know.

Ms. TAYLOR. Thank you for this opportunity to testify. For those

who don’t know, OMB Watch is a nonprofit, research and advocacy

organization that seeks to promote greater government accountability and citizen participation.

For the past 3 years, we have actively sought to increase the participation of nonprofits as one kind of stakeholder under GPRA in

the implementation of the act. I believe this work, including our

lack of success in persuading nonprofits of the importance of

GPRA, and our reflection on that, gives us a unique perspective

from the others presented here. I hope it will be useful in these deliberations.

This has already been said a number of times but it is very important that Congress and the executive agencies work together in

a constructive way to accomplish GPRA. Second, Congress should

mandate stakeholder involvement in the performance planning

process, encouraging the active solicitation of comments on performance measures and ensuring that agencies have adequate resources to obtain outside comments.

It is already part of the law that stakeholders must be involved

during the strategic planning stage, but we would argue that the

performance planning stage is the real meat and potatoes of GPRA

and it needs outside involvement, and it needs involvement of

State and local grantees who are involved in Federal programs.

Third, Federal agencies must make greater use of the Internet

to make data and performance measurement transparent and accessible to the public. I would suggest this kind of public exposure

can actually help improve the quality of the data and mitigate

some of the problems in data and in benchmarking.

There is no doubt that GPRA is an important tool and yet we remain skeptical about whether it can achieve the purposes for which

it was made into law. These three changes may help GPRA to

strengthen government accountability and enhance public trust. I

would like to look more closely at our recommendations.

First, GPRA’s success depends on government’s commitment to

it. Otherwise, it will simply become another kind of exercise in a

long series. Government agencies we have seen are taking GPRA

very seriously and they are taking it not as just another paperwork

exercise, but as a real potential to do things differently, and to do

things better.

This can only happen with a concerted and constructive involvement of Congress, not as an antagonist but as a partner. In this

regard, we encourage congressional committees to exercise their

103

oversight authority but we would caution if that oversight is done

in the context of partisanship or as a way to wage ideological battles, it will be detrimental. We should always remember that GPRA

is about improving government and performance, not about

downsizing or not about privatizing, or not about bean counting.

While we recognize one of the distinguishing features of GPRA

is its linkage to the budget, we also think it is important to realize

that it is not a panacea for difficult budget decisions. Performance

measurement may be a helpful tool in determining resource allocations but quantifiable measures of performance will never be

enough.

Finally, we think Congress has a golden opportunity here not

only to emphasize the problems in government but to highlight

those government programs that do work, that are effective and accomplish goals for citizens. Recent studies have shown that citizens

rate government almost on a par with private services. Yet, mistrust of government as a whole is still a problem. We think one

way of overcoming that is to start focusing on the successes of

GPRA and not just on the failures.

Our second recommendation is stakeholder involvement in performance planning. While we know the public can’t become privy

to Federal budget decisions, the performance plans are too important to disallow public engagement on the selection of benchmarks

and performance measures. Performance information can be pulled

out of the budget submissions and made available to stakeholders

without impinging on the privileged nature of the budget.

Finally, agencies need to use the Internet to make their GPRA

plans and reports available but also to provide the public with the

underlying data and the information used in their plans to measure performance. We believe that public exposure and input can

positively affect the quality of that data.

For example, even though the EPA never identifies specific

amounts of reduction in emission of toxic chemicals, the public accessibility of their toxics release inventory helped to create an

amazing 45 percent reduction in toxic emissions it was easy to find,

easy to access.

To conclude, frankly, we don’t know whether the Results Act has

achieved results during the past 7 years. We have doubts but we

remain hopeful. GPRA was not meant to be perfect in the first go

around and this really has been the first go around. We think it

may succeed in its purposes if there is meaningful stakeholder involvement in the performance plans, including that of Federal

grantees, if underlying data as well as plans and reports are publicly accessible and open and transparent, and if Congress will

work in a constructive partnership with agencies to achieve

GPRA’s potential.

Thank you for allowing me to speak.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Taylor follows:]

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

Mr. HORN. We appreciate your presentation and we are now

going to go to questions. It will be 5 minutes for each and we will

alternate between myself and Mr. Turner.

Let me start with you, Ms. Taylor. I would be interested, based

on your analysis, in what are the three top Federal departments

and agencies that have successfully implemented the Results Act,

if you were asked that question, which you just have been, what

would you say?

Ms. TAYLOR. I think I would hedge. I think maybe that is the

wrong way to go about it, trying to identify the agencies that have

done the best.

Mr. HORN. We need some role models in this work.

Ms. TAYLOR. Right. I think we should pick out parts of each

agency’s plans that meet the mark and use those as examples so

other agencies with similar programs or for whom that information

could be transferred.

Mr. HORN. Give me an agency where they have something that

has really made a difference in terms of using the Results Act.

Ms. TAYLOR. I haven’t read the results reports carefully so I am

really at a loss to try to specifically give an agency. I think my example of the EPA and the toxics release inventory is an example

of an agency who made information available and accessible and

through that, allows the public to start urging accountability which

aids the agency ultimately in their performance. I am sorry to be

vague.

Mr. HORN. Do you have any evidence that they have used measurements that would apply to other types of environmental problems?

Ms. TAYLOR. I think that approach would be transferrable to

other agencies, to other kinds of problems government is trying to

solve. I think we all agree that sometimes the data is lacking and

the agencies are struggling to come up with the right

benchmarking and starting measures to show they have measured

performance, so I think the openness of the data so the public can

see it and can know what they are starting from and where they

are trying to go is really important.

Mr. HORN. Mr. McTigue, what is your answer to that question?

Mr. MCTIGUE. This is an opportunity to make myself very unpopular with a lot of people. The three I would pick I would pick

for different reasons. I would pick the Department of Transportation because in my view they are using comprehensively the principles of the Results Act to influence their decisionmaking.

One of the things that impressed me most about the Department

of Transportation is that in their internal budget negotiation

round, what they do is identify 10 priority areas and other areas

of activity and if necessary they have to concede resources to those

10 priorities. Those priorities are set very much on the basis of the

outcomes we need to achieve. So I think there is a good example

of making comprehensive use of the principles of GPRA.

If I looked at who has been most successful in changing their

outcomes, I would say Veterans Health because Veterans Health

starting about 5 years ago, moved the emphasis of that entire organization to the imperative of improving the wellness of veterans,

and they direct their resources to that particular end goal.

113

They have some wonderful information that looks at the efficacy

of different health procedures inside veterans hospitals and other

facilities and how the efficacy of those procedures has significantly

improved over time to the point now where they are equal to or

better than those procedures in public and private hospitals. That

is a dramatic outcome improvement.

If I was to look for the organization where Congress and the

American public are getting the greatest benefit in terms of their

tax dollars, I would say it is FEMA because today FEMA is doing

about 20 percent more for about 25 percent less money in its administrative budget while managing more disasters.

In addition to that, it has also moved to a new and very important focus on mitigation. How can they continually reduce the consequences of a disaster on individuals and communities so that at

the same time they are dealing with their base cause, which is

helping people get their lives together, after a disaster they are

also looking at how they can minimize the impact.

Those would be my three choices but for three very different reasons.

Mr. HORN. What is your suggestion, Mr. Mihm?

Mr. MIHM. One of the advantages of being third is that it gives

me to time to think. The disadvantage is when someone steals

some of the best ideas, so I am going to agree in large measure

with what has been said.

I think the Department of Transportation as a department is

clearly one of the leaders. That is, when you look across their various modal administrations, you see a lot of leadership from the

Coast Guard, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is

certainly one of the leaders in this; FAA, despite a lot of other high

risk problems, is beginning to come along as well.

Social Security Administration, I would put as one of the leaders.

I think that is a function of two things, one, their experience in

doing accountability reports under the Government Management

Reform Act led them early to be thinking about how they pull together and talk about what they are doing and accomplishing. I

also think it is a function in SSA that a lot of their outcomes are

more outputs, making sure the right check gets to the right bank

account on the right day. Nevertheless, they have done a fairly sophisticated job in thinking about their goals and presenting them

in that regard.

I would also agree with Veterans Health Administration. The

chronic disease prevention index that they have has become quite

sophisticated looking across a variety of diseases such as: diabetes,

obesity, heart disease. It is a quite sophisticated index that they

are able to evaluate the performance of VHA generally as well as

each of their integrated service centers, and to talk about how they

are doing.

We are doing a review at the request of Mr. Burton that is looking at how the performance goals are being drilled into the contracts of senior managers at VHA and elsewhere. So I would put

them among the leaders as well.

Mr. HORN. Mr. Gotbaum, I want you to answer the question last

because you have the overall view from the executive branch. Then

114

I will give 10 minutes to Mr. Turner for his questioning because

we are obviously going over 5.

Mr. GOTBAUM. I am sure you have run into this dilemma; what

do you say when everything has been said but not everyone has

said it. I don’t disagree with these particular analyses, so what I

would like to do is elaborate on a couple of points.

One, Veterans Affairs. The work that was done in Veterans

Health has been very impressive. I would note the Department of

Veterans Affairs is now taking the next step we talked about,

which is that they are trying to both realign their budget accounts

so they follow program lines and to modernize their financial systems to take them into account.

I mentioned moving from output measures and asking how good

the reports are, to outcome measures, how much is incorporated

into management. The Department of Veterans Affairs is really

trying to go this next step, for which I personally commend them.

Social Security and NASA are interesting cases because these

agencies really were concerned with accountability and were a little

slow to develop the skill on the performance side but have clearly

gotten it, and gotten it very well. The nice thing is, because they

were so concerned with accountability in the first place, each has

produced reports that cover both financial accountability and performance. That achieves the goal that you mentioned which we

agree is quite important: people want to know what they get and

what they pay for with their money.

The last one I want to mention is Education. I want to mention

it because of two things. One, the task is hard. A large part of the

Department of Education budget is programs in which they send

checks to States and local governments who implement their programs. So one of the real tasks and real difficulties for Education

is: what is it I measure? What is it I am accountable for? Am I accountable for merely how quickly I send the check or how carefully

I review the State agency’s plan, or should I be accountable for literacy levels in local jurisdictions?

In my view, one of the impressive and honest things in the Department of Education’s accountability report is how clear they are

that they are keeping track of both but they haven’t yet figured out

what is the best tie between their activities and final results. I

commend them, partly because they have improved dramatically

over the last year, and partly because they are honest about the

linkage question which is, for those of us in the Federal Government, really very important.

Mr. HORN. Thank you very much.

Ten minutes of questioning to the gentleman from Texas, Mr.

Turner.

Mr. TURNER. One of the areas I want to spend a little time with

each is discussing the role of the Congress and the committees in

successful implementation of the Results Act. I want to do that because I think when we look honestly at the origin of this legislation, it did begin as a bipartisan effort.

As I recall, Mr. Conyers and Mr. Clinger were the co-sponsors in

the House and Senator Roth was the sponsor in the Senate. I

frankly believe the success of GPRA not only will lie with the ability of the agency managers to put GPRA and the performance

115

measures in place and to properly evaluate them, but it is going

to depend on the ability of Congress to carry out its role in GPRA.

I think we need to jealously guard the bipartisan nature of this

legislation. Frankly, I really think it is not only important to jealously guard it to ensure its success, I think it is probably poor politics to do otherwise because if you make an effort to make efficiency and effectiveness of government a partisan issue, it is like

trying to make motherhood a partisan issue. I don’t think the public is going to buy into it. I think they understand both sides of

aisle believe in efficiency and effectiveness in government.

I think if we can ensure the Congress approaches this legislation

in that manner, I think we have the hope of its ultimate success.

If we fail to do that, I think we sow the seeds of its destruction.

In keeping with those thoughts, I want to first ask a question

perhaps of any of you who would like to respond. I think I might

want to start with Mr. Mihm.

One of the key things we all know ultimately GPRA is all about,

as I think Mr. McTigue expressed in his testimony, is that Congress should be able not just to see government agencies manage

activities and then hope for results, but as you said in your testimony, GPRA makes it possible for Congress to choose to do only

those programs that will produce results.

With that concept, we will change the way the Congress conducts

oversight and review of our agencies. So what I would like to do

even though I acknowledge GPRA is in its infancy and this is only

the first year, even though passed in 1993, of full implementation,

I would like you all to give me an example, if you have one, of

where the Congress has made a decision, based on your observations of the work of the committees, to either fund or not fund a

program based upon the Results Act and the information flowing

from a given agency produced by the Results Act.

Mr. MIHM. I think we would be hard pressed to point out here

is where a budget was increased or decreased because the appropriators saw and said we are doing this because of GPRA.

However, one of the things we need to guard against is setting

the bar so high that if someone doesn’t say they are doing something because of GPRA, we call the law a failure. In other words,

when you take a look at the appropriations committee reports—we

have examined committee reports that have come out of the appropriators—there is plenty of language in there that talks about how

performance information was being used in their decisions, that

talks about the goals and the actual performance of a program.

GPRA is not often mentioned. However, it is very clear where

that information that is being used is coming from. It is coming

from GPRA plans and products. The point I am making is that

while I would be hard pressed to say here is something that happened only because of GPRA, we are seeing the conversation

change, more attention to performance information. GPRA is contributing to that environment and so in that sense, we are seeing

appropriations decisions are beginning to be influenced or at least

colored by a greater attention to performance and performance information.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Gotbaum, have you seen examples where

GPRA results have affected the funding decisions of the Congress?

116

Mr. GOTBAUM. I believe so. I meant what I said in my testimony.

I believe that we have always—we at OMB and the Congress in its

deliberations—looked for information about programs. What is it

doing? What is it actually accomplishing? GPRA provided the force

of law and the process and the language that enhanced that.

I agree and accept Chris’ point which is I am not sure I can hand

you a case in which I can tell you the chairman of an appropriations subcommittee said, based on the Social Security Administration’s performance report, I change their level. I don’t think that

is the right test.

I think there are lots of cases in which the fact the discussion

is based on performance and not on dollars has changed the discussion. Let me mention one. This is one which was controversial.

The President proposed a couple of years ago what we call the

Class Size Initiative. He said, I would like to provide funding so

that school districts in grades 1 through 3 didn’t have to have class

sizes larger than 18. This got translated into 100,000 teachers.

I don’t mean to raise this so that we can talk about the merits

of that particular proposal, but I think it is important that we recognize that was a proposal that was framed not as let us expand

the budget of the Department of Education by $1 billion. That

wasn’t what he said and that wasn’t what the debate was.

He said, let us focus on class size. The interesting thing was the

congressional debate then became should we tie Federal dollars to

class size or should we work on a more generic block grant. So that

is a case in which I think the debate was affected very powerfully

by the fact that it was framed in terms of performance measures.

There are to be sure intermediate measures. Class size is not literacy but it is a heck of a long way from the let us just increase

the budget of the Department of Education by 10 percent.

I think we all recognize and everyone is conscious of the fact that

performance information alone isn’t going to take away the need to

make choices. The President and Congress are going to have to say,

I think we should do more in education versus defense, environment or whatever, but I really do feel and I have watched it in the

budget process in case after case after case, the more debate goes

toward measures other than dollars, the more focused the debate

is and in my view, the better the ultimate decisionmaking.

I am enormously grateful for your point about the bipartisan

support for GPRA. We feel that very strongly. My colleague from

OMB, Walter Groszyk, although he generally doesn’t admit it,

helped draft GPRA. We think it is very important that the Congress work on it, work on it aggressively, work on it expansively

and work on it in a bipartisan fashion.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. McTigue, do you have any examples you could

cite where you have seen Congress or a committee actually make

a decision on funding based on results?

Mr. MCTIGUE. The first comment I would make is with all due

respect, I think your question is a little bit premature because you

are only now seeing the first of the annual reports based on that.

Quite frankly, the quality of the reporting at the moment does not

provide you with information where you could clearly say we

should cancel this activity.

117

To approximate an answer to your question, I think the principles that probably led to the writing of GPRA in 1993 have certainly been applied by Congress to a number of organizations. If

you take the five, in my view, highest performing organizations in

government, each and every one of them has been subjected to intense scrutiny by this Congress in the last 10 years.

FEMA was slated by Congress to be wiped out in the early 1990’s

unless it was able to improve its performance. Today, it is one of

the best performing government organizations and meeting the criteria of GPRA. You can say exactly the same thing for the Department of Transportation, for NASA, post the shuttle crash, that intense congressional interest dramatically changed the way in which

that organization focused and delivered. You can say exactly the

same sort of thing for Veterans Health. I think in those areas Congress has played a very significant role in improving a total organization and its culture.

What could Congress do now? I think there are two things that

I believe are very important right now for Congress. You should insist on greater transparency in the reporting that you get from

agencies and greater disclosure. That would be very helpful to your

role. The second thing is controversial and it is internal and that

is Congress should conduct some reform itself. That reform would

be that the processes of oversight, authorization and reauthorization should be used as a means of informing the process of appropriation, not commanding it but the knowledge built up in hearings

like this should be used to inform whether or not an appropriation

is appropriate for this particular program or activity.

Mr. TURNER. Ms. Taylor.

Ms. TAYLOR. I would agree with Mr. McTigue about the fact that

we can’t use GPRA right now in making budget decisions. It really

is too early and I think the important thing Congress should be

concentrating on right now is the issue of performance, not to make

agencies terrified that they are going to lose their budget because

their performance rates are low because we don’t want this to lead

to performance goals that are so low that an agency can easily

meet them and say, look, I met my performance goals.

Rather, they should be striving for higher goals. I think we

would all agree. I am just afraid if we directly tie it to the budget

at this point, the only performance reports will be good performance reports and yet they won’t be meaningful in terms of the act.

Mr. TURNER. I didn’t expect any of you really to give me any real

concrete examples and frankly only asked the question to make the

point that as we look at the agencies and their efforts to implement

GPRA, Congress has an equal responsibility to begin to use GPRA.

Though the Congress, being the deliberative body and elected by

the people, may not always choose to fund programs based on results, it does need to become a part of the culture of the Congress.

I frankly think the Congress is a long way from that kind of approach.

I think Mr. McTigue, you put it very well when you suggested

that in order to win the confidence of the public and improve the

quality of government performance, the scrutiny provided by the

Congress must be robust, focused on results, committed to rewardVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:15 Sep 21, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00121 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\73837.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
118

ing superior activity and equally committed to punishing poor performance.

I am not sure that is really a part of the process, not to say that

process would result in the ultimate decision because other considerations may override and maybe appropriately so in certain circumstances. Somehow, as we try to train the managers in the

agencies, we in Congress are going to have to be trained as well.

I thank each of you for your comments.

Mr. HORN. Thank you. You and the chairman of the full committee seem to be on the same track. Your questions and his if he were

here, wanted to ask the point you had made on what is Congress

doing on this.

Let me go back to the reverse of what I was going from Ms. Taylor back to Mr. Gotbaum. Starting with Mr. Gotbaum, please name

the Federal departments and agencies that have been unsuccessful

in their implementation of the Results Act. Can you give me three

or four?

Mr. GOTBAUM. As we have discussed before, usually Mr. Ose

asks this question but he always asks it, and I know it is a concern.

Mr. HORN. So you came prepared?

Mr. GOTBAUM. I came prepared with the same response, unfortunately, I gave each of the two times he asked. I think in order for

OMB to be effective in its role as supervisor, encourager, combination cheerleader and sanctioner of agency performance, we need to

use a combination of public praise and private criticism. So I have

to resist the temptation to mention by name any of the agencies

that disappoint. There certainly are several agencies whose performance reports look like they haven’t taken the time to think

through what they are trying to do and whose performance reports

look an awful lot like they are describing their programs instead

of describing their results and performance.

There are certainly agencies whose performance reports look exactly like their organizational chart and their measures don’t appear to have been linked to programs, which obviously is a problem. There are agencies whose performance reports don’t include

what intermediate output measures, efficiency measures, we think

matter. There are plenty of grantmaking agencies that don’t include information and don’t even collect information on what is the

turnaround time from the time a grant is applied for to the time

a decision is made, and what is the turnaround time from the time

a decision is made to actually delivering the check.

I mention those as shortcomings in a range of agencies reports.

I would, with the committee’s forbearance, like to avoid naming the

names but instead naming the sins because I think the sins are

pretty clear.

Mr. HORN. Did you read Mr. McTigue’s study on who was ahead

and who was behind?

Mr. GOTBAUM. I did.

Mr. HORN. Would you say he gave a fair appraisal there?

Mr. GOTBAUM. I think he gave a fair appraisal of part of the

things that we would like to look for. As I mentioned, clarity matters, linkage matters, and those are some of the things that Mr.

McTigue’s review focused on.

119

We think there are other things. I view those in this process as

outcome measures. What he was doing and was forced to do was

evaluate the performance reports. What we are trying to do, we

hope, is implement what we think is the outcome of GPRA, which

is the extent to which these agencies are developing performance

measures and using them in management and budget. For example, I give very high marks to the Department of Veterans Affairs,

not just for the fact that they have clear measures in health but,

that they are actually trying to realign programs and information

systems. For me that is a very substantial task.

That is not something which would necessarily be evident from

reading their report. So I would say Mr. McTigue’s report is an incomplete measure of what agencies are doing. The fact is that moving beyond reports to implementing this is a harder job and it is

a job at which we are still at the initial steps. So his analysis covers most of the things you can see right now.

I wouldn’t want it to be seen as the complete measure because

the best reports in the world, the clearest reports in the world with

the finest measures in the world, if they are not actually used, are

just paper. So we hope we in our analysis, and you in your oversight, will not stop at judging the quality of reports, that you will

continually ask agencies, ‘‘This is great, you got a good report, but

what are you doing with this information? Are you managing to it?

Are you changing your management systems? Are you changing

your information systems? Are you really doing what GPRA was

supposed to do?’’ Mr. HORN. We went through this with Y2K. Nothing was being

done by OMB, period. Nothing was being done by the administration in April 1996. We had to just get them in here and say, what

are you doing, started the grading aspect and all that, and that finally shook them up a little. Two Cabinet office friends of mine

said keep at it. It is the only way I can get this bureaucracy working. It worked.

I am not a Mr. Fuzzy type. I am anything but that. All I can say

is the question has been asked, it should be answered, you are

under oath and we want the information. I want to know what are

the ones that have not done as good a job as they should have.

That ought to help you, unless they cry too much and say, I won’t

do it. That is nonsense. Tell us which ones aren’t producing.

Mr. GOTBAUM. I think that this is a case that is in some respects

different from Y2K for a bunch of reasons. Frankly, it is a harder,

more complicated job. As I mentioned in my testimony, I think this

is a case in which we at OMB have turned on the heat progressively, I would hope progressively more effectively. We started by

saying send us reports, then saying send us information but these

are, as Mr. Turner mentioned, as Mr. Armey mentioned and Mr.

Sessions mentioned, sufficiently early days in that process so that

I don’t think we can say and I wouldn’t pretend that we are there.

We are not at the promised land. I kind of think of this in biblical

terms as maybe we have crossed the Red Sea but we have a long

time in the desert yet.

I really do think that we can be most effective not by dropping

the dime on people but by talking about what are the standards

we think they should meet, hoping you will agree or disagree.

120

Mr. HORN. People have had 8 years and you don’t say they

shouldn’t be noted if they haven’t produced much after 8 years?

Mr. GOTBAUM. The issue is not whether agencies are producing

plans and reports. They are. This is not a case in which any significant agency has just dropped the ball entirely and said, I am not

going to implement GPRA. That is not what is going on here.

Every significant agency—we have 100 strategic plans, 100 performance plans, almost 100 performance reports. The issue is a little more subtle than that which is, when you read these things, are

they picking measures that are relevant, then getting to the point

that Chris mentioned and Ellen mentioned, are they picking measures, are they picking goals that are either too high or too low. We

get a lot of that.

I guess if I wanted to be a cheerleader, I could say the good news

is we have 100 agencies complying with the law, they are turning

out reports but I think and I hope your oversight, like our oversight, goes beyond that and says, are they picking the right measures. We have a huge range. We have agencies like DOT that did

pretty well the first time and are doing OK and we have agencies

like Education that didn’t do so well the first time and SSA that

didn’t do so well the first time and are getting better, and we have

agencies where I think it is clear they have a ways to go in terms

of their measures.

If the question is, are they complying with the law, they are complying with the law, but I know our goal and I believe your goal

as well is that they do more than comply with the law, that they

use the stuff and incorporate it, that they are working on it.

Mr. HORN. Have you got a unit under your control in OMB that

is working on types of measurement across the various parts of the

executive branch?

Mr. GOTBAUM. We have some efforts and I don’t want to mislead

the committee. We have some efforts that are cross-cutting efforts.

For example, on the procurement side, the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, which is in OMB, developed a set of Governmentwide measures for efficacy on the procurement side which they are

now putting out which will enable people to benchmark procurement.

On the grant side, partly as a result of pressure under a different

law, Public Law 106–107, an act out of this committee, that said

review grants. We have set up a process where we are trying to get

agencies to come together and talk about where grant programs are

on either a common constituency or for a common purpose, how we

can simplify and consolidate and measures will be part of that effort.

I can say yes, we are making some efforts in that area.

Mr. HORN. So there is a unit that you can count on in terms of

developing measurements for various programs?

Mr. GOTBAUM. Yes.

Mr. HORN. Mr. Mihm, since the witness from the administration

refuses to answer the question, will you answer the question and

we will follow your advice and have them all in here. Please tell

us what you think are the ones that aren’t really conforming and

have been unsuccessful in implementation.

121

Mr. MIHM. If I was going to pick out of the 24 CFO Act agencies

a handful of agencies having the biggest trouble with this, I would

include the Office of Personnel Management, the Department of

State and the Small Business Administration.

One of the things that brings the three of them together is that

they are agencies that have real challenges to try to determine that

critical point of how what they do makes a difference. All of them

are really struggling with that.

In the case of OPM and SBA, it is an even larger issue as to

their relevance and it is something that is beginning to be raised

and questioned. Those are the agencies that are really having a

real struggle.

I would agree with one thing Mr. Gotbaum raised and that is

there is no agency that has got this entirely licked and no agency

that hasn’t made improvement over the last couple of years. Everyone is moving and moving in the right direction but clearly there

are some agencies that are lagging the rest. I think those three are

among them.

Mr. HORN. What do you think is the reason on the three you

picked?

Mr. MIHM. I think in part it deals with the difficult in connecting

what they do on a day to day basis to a larger result; in some cases

it was because of that difficulty I think senior leadership at the

agency was slow to embrace GPRA and understand the seriousness

of the Congress. The first couple of annual performance plans from

the Department of State, I hope senior management wasn’t too involved in putting those together. The most recent one does reflect

the use of qualitative goals which is allowed by the Act with OMB’s

authorization. As a result, you now have a far more sophisticated

discussion of what State is trying to achieve and how it will hold

itself accountable.

In the case of SBA, we have seen a couple of years in a row

where their mission statement is right in the sense that it is based

on statute and the goals are now outcome oriented goals. The performance measures for those goals are things like contacts to small

businesses, numbers of loans made. This is little connection between those performance measures and the results they are trying

to achieve.

In the case of the Office of Personnel Management, there is an

agency whose relevance and real fundamental mission is now

under question. It is not as though the annual performance plan

is going to resolve that but the annual performance plan I don’t

think gives a real indication of the struggle or how they are trying

to work their way out of that.

Mr. HORN. Mr. McTigue, do you agree with Mr. Mihm’s OPM,

State, SBA? Is that what your study would confirm?

Mr. MCTIGUE. I couldn’t actually confirm that. I suspect that

what he is saying is correct because we haven’t actually conducted

a study of who are those organizations that missed their goals by

the most. Even that may not be very informative because in the

first instance, some organizations set really strict goals and 95 percent of that goal might be very good performance where others set

fairly easy goals and 100 percent performance may not be very adequate.

122

I think we have been able to note what I would call the conglomerate organizations, like Agriculture, Justice and Labor, those that

have a huge number of stovepipes have found it more difficult to

implement GPRA because there is not a common mission. Some of

that is due to mission creep over a long period of time inside the

government, so they are doing some odd things that don’t really belong in their portfolio.

The other is that it is quite difficult to get a single purpose or

an imperative for that organization and they are still battling with

what is the imperative that drives us as the Department of Agriculture or the Department of Commerce. I think you will find that

is one of the missing factors with those organizations. They are trying but they are finding it more difficult. It’s easy to write a mission statement, it is easy to have an imperative if you are NASA,

FEMA or Transportation or something like that. It is much more

difficult if you are the Department of Agriculture with 78 different

stovepipes that you have to account for.

Mr. HORN. Mr. Gotbaum, would you agree with what Mr. Mihm

has selected there in terms of the three agencies.

Mr. GOTBAUM. Actually, no, I wouldn’t. The State Department

has conceded publicly that they were late to the party and that

they are now paying more attention, that they have a ways to go

and I agree with that.

On SBA and OPM, I guess everything in life is relative but I

can’t remember personally the OPM report but in the SBA report,

they were clearly making efforts to link their programs to results

and to benchmark them, so let us just say there are other agencies

which as I say I would prefer not to name, that have not, as far

as I am concerned, made that attempt, made that basic linkage,

whereas SBA I know has and I think OPM too, at least attempted

to make the linkage.

So I allow the State example and I would suggest there are some

other places that GAO might want to look.

Mr. MIHM. We will take your suggestions off-line.

Mr. HORN. The gentleman from Texas?

Mr. TURNER. Nothing else, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Mr. HORN. Thank you very much.

We appreciate your coming. We do expect the answer to that

question.

With that, we are in adjournment.

[Whereupon, at 12 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:]

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

Æ