U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

26–127 PDF 2006

THE PRESIDENT’S FISCAL YEAR 2007

DISCRETIONARY BUDGET PERFORMANCE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, FEBRUARY 16, 2006

Serial No. 109–15

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Budget

(

Available on the Internet: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house/house04.html 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET 

JIM NUSSLE, Iowa, Chairman 

JIM RYUN, Kansas 

ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida 

ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

KENNY C. HULSHOF, Missouri 

JO BONNER, Alabama 

SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

THADDEUS G. MCCOTTER, Michigan 

MARIO DIAZ–BALART, Florida 

JEB HENSARLING, Texas 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

PETE SESSIONS, Texas 

PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin 

MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho 

JEB BRADLEY, New Hampshire 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas4

CHRIS CHOCOLA, Indiana 

JOHN CAMPBELL, California 

JOHN M. SPRATT, JR., South Carolina, 

Ranking Minority Member 

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas 

RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts 

ROSA L. DELAURO, Connecticut 

CHET EDWARDS, Texas 

HAROLD E. FORD, JR., Tennessee 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, Louisiana 

THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine 

ED CASE, Hawaii 

CYNTHIA MCKINNEY, Georgia 

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas 

ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania 

RON KIND, Wisconsin 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

JAMES T. BATES, Chief of Staff 

THOMAS S. KAHN, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page 

Hearing held in Washington, DC, March 16, 2006 ............................................... 1

Statement of: 

Hon. Clay Johnson III, Deputy Director for Management, Office of Management and Budget ..................................................................................... 4

Brian M. Riedl, Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs, the Heritage Foundation ............................................................................................................. 46

Robert Greenstein, Executive Director, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities ............................................................................................................. 52

Prepared statements, additional materials submitted by: 

Mr. Nussle ......................................................................................................... 2

Mr. Johnson: 

Prepared statement ................................................................................... 6

PART Tables .............................................................................................. 25

Mr. Riedl ........................................................................................................... 48

Mr. Greenstein .................................................................................................. 55

(1)

THE PRESIDENT’S FISCAL YEAR 2007 

DISCRETIONARY BUDGET PERFORMANCE 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2006

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:50 a.m., in room 210, 

Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Jim Nussle (chairman of the 

committee) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Nussle, Ryun, Crenshaw, 

Hulshof, Garrett, Barrett, Diaz-Balart, Hensarling, Sessions, Bradley, McHenry, Mack, Conaway, Chocola, Spratt, Moore, Baird, Cooper, and Cuellar. 

Chairman NUSSLE. Committee on the Budget will come to order. 

This is a hearing on the President’s fiscal year 2007 discretionary 

budget. 

Yesterday we had a hearing with regard to some of the mandatory accounts, and today we would like to talk about the performance evaluation and spending trends that we have. 

We have before us once again Clay Johnson, who is the Deputy 

Director for Office of Management and Budget (OMB)—we appreciate his leadership; he has been before our committee before—as 

our first panel. 

Our second panel will include witnesses Brian Riedl from the 

Federal Budget Affairs for the Heritage Foundation and Robert 

Greenstein from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. 

I apologize for the tardiness for which this hearing is starting. 

I have a statement that I will put in the record. Let me just summarize by saying that we certainly understand—and yesterday was 

again another hearing in a long line of hearings where we recognize that only about a third of the budget is made up the discretionary accounts. 

I will say, however, that those discretionary accounts tend to be 

the ones, the kinds of things that we see on television. We will 

argue today about $870 billion and how the President’s budget 

carves that up from one way or another. 

But I will tell you that eight straight nights of watching rotting 

trailers on a runway in Hope, AR, is to my constituents much more 

relevant than whether or not we are putting a percent increase in 

this line item or a couple percent decrease in another line item. 

It seems that we are getting to a point with some of these challenges where we have simply thrown money at issues and they 

have not either been spent wisely or it appears as the sensationalism of the news sometimes reports, that they rot on a runway 

2

in Hope, AR. This can seemingly take over the sometimes good 

work that is done, particularly in your office as you look top to bottom, many of these programs for their results and their effectiveness. 

And so I understand that discretionary, while it is only a third 

of the budget, still has a huge impact on our constituents and on 

the bottom line in defense and homeland security and very important domestic accounts, and this is what we want to talk about 

today. 

I will put my statement in the record, and I will ask unanimous 

consent that all members be allowed to put statements in the 

record at this point. And I will turn to Mr. Spratt for any comments he would like to make. 

[The prepared statement of Jim Nussle follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JIM NUSSLE, CHAIRMAN, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE

BUDGET

Good morning, and welcome, everyone. 

Over the past few years, it’s become more and more common to hear budget ‘‘experts’’ argue that since our annually appropriated or ‘‘discretionary’’ spending isn’t 

the biggest budgetary problem we have the extent to which we control this spending 

is relatively insignificant in the big scheme of things. The real problem, they say, 

is mandatory, entitlement spending which we discussed here yesterday. 

But that line of reasoning is only partly correct. It’s true that mandatory spending 

takes up over half our total budget, is growing at unsustainable rates, and will 

eventually swamp the rest of the budget if we don’t get a handle on it. 

But that doesn’t make discretionary spending insignificant. Since 2000, including 

emergency spending, the discretionary portion of Federal spending has grown about 

11% per year. Excluding emergency spending, non-security accounts which we held 

to a near-freeze last year have grown about 3.9% per year in the last 5 years markedly more than inflation. In the coming year, our discretionary spending will exceed $900 billion. So while 

it may not be at the level of our mandatory spending, that is still an enormous 

amount of money by what I hope would be anyone’s standards. And we cannot control the budget if we don’t control both the mandatory and the discretionary sides 

of the ledger. 

So that’s what we’re here to discuss today. 

As I mentioned yesterday, our priorities have shifted considerably in the past several years, and much of the effect has fallen on discretionary accounts. The terrorist 

attacks of 9-11 and ensuing war on terror and necessary build up of our homeland 

security also fundamentally changed the way we think and talk about discretionary 

spending. Today, we separate our discussions of this spending into three categories: 

1) Department of Defense military discretionary spending, 2) homeland security discretionary spending; and 3) ‘‘non-defense, non-security discretionary spending,’’ 

which we use to refer to everything else education, science, agriculture, the environment, etc. 

We’ve also seen a substantial upswing in our ‘‘emergency’’ spending in recent 

years for the war on terror, and most recently for the costs resulting from Hurricane 

Katrina on which we spent about $65 billion outside and obviously in addition to 

the discretionary spending that was planned for in the budget. 

So even getting a accurate picture of our discretionary spending needs isn’t a simple thing to do let alone trying to determine how to best ‘‘control’’ this spending. 

Today, we’re glad to welcome our witnesses: Mr. Clay Johnson, Deputy Director 

for Management of the Administration’s Office of Management and Budget; Mr. 

Brian Riedl, Fellow in Budgetary Affairs with the Heritage Foundation; and Mr. 

Robert Greenstein, Executive Director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. 

One of the important efforts the administration has been making since 2001 has 

been to evaluate government programs to help determine whether they’re truly effective or useful. Deputy Director Johnson will discuss this process, and how it is 

applied to help make decisions about the allocation of limited resources. 

Nevertheless, we’ve got to remember that choosing priorities is a matter of judgment, and we have an obligation to make those kinds of choices. 

So for that reason, I hope Mr. Riedl and Mr. Greenstein, on our second panel, will 

discuss in part the kinds of considerations that should go into these judgments. The 

3

two of them represent differing philosophical views, and I believe the exchange will 

provide some valuable input. 

I welcome all of you today, and look forward to receiving your testimony. 

With that, I’ll turn it over to Mr. Spratt for any opening comments he might have, 

and then we’ll hear from our witnesses.

Mr. SPRATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And quickly, first of all, let me also welcome Mr. Johnson back 

again. Thank you very much. What you are doing is very important. 

For the record, I would like to note that this is bipartisan. We 

want government to do more for less cost. And this emphasis was 

renewed by President Clinton, among others, when he signed into 

law the Government Performance and Results Act and then instituted the National Performance Review. 

For the first time under that act, every agency is required to set 

clear goals for each program it administers and to establish standards for measuring success. So it began some time ago and it is an 

ongoing quest because—and it always will be if you are in earnest 

about doing this—no question about it. 

This is no reflection on Mr. Johnson, but we have some major 

cuts in the discretionary spending, some specified, others unspecified, but clearly in the danger path as they clamp down on discretionary spending and continues over the next 5 years. 

We should have, as we have had in the past, I think, witnesses 

from HHS to defend the requests there. It is a $35 billion hit on 

Medicare, and a $17 billion decrease in Medicaid, we should have 

the Secretary of HHS. We should also have the Secretary of Treasury, as we normally do. It would be good if we could have the 

Chairman of the Fed, Mr. Bernanke. 

We have had before the Deputy Security of Defense, and Secretary of State Colin Powell came over here. This year, we are not 

doing that. We have got a panel of witnesses who are outside experts, and they are all helpful. Glad to have Mr. Johnson, and he 

will be helpful, I am sure. 

But I think we need to give more scrutiny to the budget than we 

are giving with the witnesses that we are calling in the hearings 

that we are holding on a budget that could have serious consequences out in time. 

This administration has created two that OMB uses to separately 

assess the performance of programs called the Program Assessment 

Rating Tool (PART). The President’s budget sometimes uses PART, 

scores his justification for cutting a program and sometimes it does 

not. It ignores the PART results. 

In fact, there are many programs that had pluses, positive PART 

ratings that the President eliminates altogether in his budget. For 

instance, the National Nuclear Securities and Global Initiatives for 

Proliferation Prevention. I know something about that program, 

and I can tell you it is very, very effective. 

And if you want to determine whether or not it is important, look 

at what ground of agreement the President, Mr. Bush, and Senator 

Kerry found in their presidential debates. When they were asked 

what do you regard as the single-most significant threat to the security of the United States today, both answered terrorists armed 

with nuclear weapons. 

4

And the single-best answer we have to that threat is our constellation of nuclear non-proliferation programs. And this is one of 

the most important because it keeps busy gainfully employed in 

other pursuits the enormous infrastructure of scientists who otherwise can go sell their talents to Pakistan, to North Korea, to Iran, 

and to places like that. That is exactly what this program is doing, 

and we are seeing the consequences right now in places like Iran 

and we are cutting it out. 

So, I have to wonder if this PART analysis, this PART assessment, if it produces a result, is geared up to adequately deal with 

what is good and what is bad, what is needed and what is not. 

So, we would like to explore that with you after you have made 

your testimony in further question. We do appreciate your coming. 

We do regard what you are doing as important, and we would like 

to understand it much better. 

We are very concerned, very concerned, with the hits on what we 

regard as very, very effective programs, notwithstanding what the 

PART assessment may be, and we would like to discuss that with 

you. 

Thank you again for coming. 

Chairman NUSSLE. All statements will be placed in the record at 

this point. 

Director Johnson, welcome back to the Budget Committee, and 

we are pleased to also include your full testimony in the record. 

And you may summarize as you see fit. Thank you. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Spratt, members 

of the Committee, thank you very much for having me back. 

Briefly let me say that we—to state the obvious—that the Federal Government spends a lot of money. We spend it on weapon 

systems. We spend it on cures for diseases. We spend it on improving the education of our young people. We spend it to reduce crime 

rates. We spend a lot of money and we need to spend it well. We 

are not as good as we need to be and can be. 

Americans deserve to have us spend their money well and they 

deserve to have us spend their money better every year. Every 

President, every Member of Congress, every Federal employee 

should be held accountable—and I know you all would agree with 

this—should be held accountable for getting results with the money 

we spend. We are not as results oriented today as we can and 

should be. 

The two key messages in what I have just said apply to budgeteers, appropriators, Members of Congress, members of the executive branch. We have to get better at focusing on results. We have 

to get better at being accountable for how we spend the taxpayers’ 

money. 

The President’s management agenda (PMA), which is the thing 

that I am primarily involved in spearheading in the Federal Government, is designed to help us do that. It is designed to help us 

equip Federal agencies with financial management, people management, cost management, and program management tools that if 

they are so inclined to increase the results of their program, they 

will have the tools and the discipline to do that. 

A big part of the PMA is the transparency and the candor and 

the specificity about what each program is supposed to do. OftenVerDate 0ct 09 2002 18:00 May 30, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 F:\DOCS\HEARINGS\109TH\109-15\HBU047.000 HBUD1 PsN: DICK
5

times it is not clear what each program is supposed to do, and if 

it is clear, it is oftentimes difficult for them to demonstrate that 

they are, in fact, doing what they are supposed to do. 

The PART primarily is an attempt to, for every program, create 

clear performance goals, and clear cost goals which they then can 

be held accountable for achieving or exceeding. It is also a process 

by which they identify for all the world to see what they are doing 

to drive performance. This is important whether you are a budgeteer, appropriator, member of the executive branch, or member of 

the public. 

It is important that we focus in our budgeting and in everything 

else we do, we focus on what it is we are trying to accomplish more 

so than the amount of money we are spending. 

If you say, well, I like to teach illiterate adults how to read, I 

like it $500 million worth, and someone else says, well, I like it 

$600 million worth, the $600 million person does not necessarily 

care more about adult literacy than the $500 million person. The 

person that says how many people are we teaching to read and at 

what cost per person and what are we doing to find more effective 

ways of teaching illiterate adults how to read, that is the person, 

I would suggest, that cares most about adult literacy. 

What I encourage your Committee to do as you consider the 2007 

budget going forward is to focus on outcomes as opposed to the dollars being spent. Focus on what we hope to get for the money that 

we are spending. 

I also encourage you all to make us tell you what we are going 

to deliver for the money that we propose spending—be demanding. 

Demand the executive branch demonstrate results from every program and every agency. We are saying, for this amount of money, 

here is what we are going to deliver and hold us accountable. You 

and the authorizers hold us accountable for actually delivering that 

as you consider the following year’s budget. How programs work, 

how the executive branch currently spends the money should be a 

significant factor in determining what the going-forward budget 

ought to be. 

The last time we were here, sir, we talked about a Web site we 

were developing where we were going to try to significantly increase the transparency of what works and what does not, and in 

every case, what we are doing to make every program work better. 

We have launched a week ago, 2 weeks ago that Web site. And 

if I can take just 2 minutes, 3 minutes to show you that. The Web 

site is called expectmore.gov. It allows taxpayers to review the assessments of nearly 800 programs. As it says, we want you to know 

how we are doing, where we are doing well, where we are not doing 

so well, and, in every case, what we are doing to get better. 

This site shows programs that account for about 80 percent of 

the budget. The remaining 20 percent of the budget will be added 

to this group this year, the end of this year. 

Want to go to the next page. Each program is categorized. You 

can search by rating, whether it is effective, adequate, or ineffective, as well as by topic or by using a simple key word search. You 

can go to all categories even with the same subject or all the ineffective programs. 

6

We have chosen the category of programs marked effective and 

specifically Health Centers Program. This gives you an idea of—for 

each of these programs, it describes a little bit about what the program does. It describes why we think it is working the way it is 

or is not working the way it is. And it explains down at the bottom 

what the program management is doing to improve program performance. 

At the bottom are links to more detailed information, budgetary 

information, more detailed information about the performance over 

the last several years for those that want to dig a little deeper. 

There is lots of transparency, lots of candor, lots of check and balance, a lot of quality control. 

The belief is, our belief is that with transparency, you have the 

opportunity for accountability. If you have transparency about how 

we are doing, what we are doing well, what we are not doing well, 

and you have people in agencies with tools to cause program performance to improve, you have the opportunity to hold that program manager accountable. And only when you are able to hold 

him accountable do you have the opportunity to deliver a specific 

goal at a preferred cost every year and improve that performance 

every year. 

Thank you very much for having me back, and I welcome your 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Clay Johnson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CLAY JOHNSON III, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR

MANAGEMENT, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

EXPECT MORE

The President’s 2006 budget set several major goals. The President proposed to 

hold growth in overall discretionary spending below the rate of inflation. He proposed an actual cut in the non-security portion of discretionary spending, the first 

such proposal since the Reagan administration. And he proposed major reductions 

or eliminations in 154 government programs that were not getting results or not fulfilling essential priorities. The Congress substantially delivered on those goals. 

The 2007 budget follows a similar course. It again holds overall discretionary 

spending growth below the rate of inflation. It again proposes an actual cut in nonsecurity discretionary spending. It also calls for major reductions in, or total eliminations of 141 Federal programs, saving nearly $15 billion. 

Reductions in these areas do not mean Americans should expect less from Federal 

agencies or programs. On the contrary, they should expect the government to give 

them more for their tax dollars. They should expect the government to become more 

effective and efficient each year. 

HOW WE ARE GETTING MORE FOR OUR MONEY

With the help of the President’s Management Agenda, Federal employees are 

doing more to improve the way we spend the taxpayers’ money. We want to and 

can be held accountable for: 

• Significantly, quantifiably and annually improving the way the government 

works. 

• Being very candid and forthcoming at all times about where we’re successful 

and where we fall short, and in both situations, what we’re doing to improve performance. 

• Providing better levels of service, comparable to the private sector. 

• Properly accounting for where we spend the taxpayers’ money. 

As part of the President’s Management Agenda, Federal employees have already 

eliminated $7.8 billion in improper payments in Fiscal Year 2005, reducing the government-wide improper payment total by 17 percent. Agencies the past 3 years conducted competitive sourcing studies of their commercial activities that, upon implementation will produce savings of $900 million per year. Agencies have completed 

an exhaustive inventory of real property assets and anticipate disposing of $9 billion 

7

in unneeded assets by 2009. Almost 800 programs are implementing plans to improve their performance and have made them public so as to increase the level of 

their accountability for the results. 

Common among these initiatives was a clear definition of success, an aggressive 

plan for improvement, unambiguous accountability; and then because leadership 

deemed success important, everyone involved was held responsible for doing what 

they said they were going to do. We were transparent about what we were trying 

to do and how we were performing relative to our goals. This transparency and candor produced strong accountability, which in turn, has produced results. 

PROGRAM ASSESSMENTS AND THE FEDERAL BUDGET

This year, the Administration assessed an additional 20 percent of the government’s programs, marking the fourth year in our effort to find out what works, what 

doesn’t, and what we need to do to improve. Program assessments are a factor in 

budgeting, but they are one among many factors. No budget decision is made automatically based on a program’s rating. It may be that a highly rated program is not 

a priority for this Administration; therefore the President may propose to decrease 

funding for the program. A poorly rated program may need additional funds to address a weakness uncovered in the assessment. If we believe a program has been 

demonstrated to be ineffective and can’t be fixed, or has outlived its usefulness, the 

Administration may recommend Congress spend the money on higher priority programs. The attached table shows the funding recommendation by program rating 

and by program. 

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WANTS TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE

Americans deserve to have the government spend their hard earned tax dollars 

effectively, and better every year. The President, every Member of Congress and all 

Federal employees need to be held accountable for getting results with the money 

they spend. A new OMB Web site, ExpectMore.gov, promotes accountability by posting candid information about programs that are successful and programs that fall 

short, and in both cases, what the government is doing to improve performance next 

year. 

Currently, the ratings on ExpectMore.gov show that more than 70 percent of Federal programs are performing. A program which enhances highway safety provides 

a clear example of a program that demonstrates improved results. To reduce fatalities from automobile accidents, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

promoted greater seat belt use among high-risk groups such as younger drivers, 

rural populations, pick-up truck occupants, 8-15 year-old passengers, occasional 

safety belt users, and motor vehicle occupants in states with secondary safety belt 

use laws. As a result, nationwide seat belt use increased from 73 percent in 2001 

to 82 percent in 2005, an all-time high. 

However, almost 30 percent of all programs are either ineffective or cannot demonstrate their success. A youth employment program created under the Workforce 

Investment Act demonstrates the need for improvement. The program awards 

grants for America’s neediest youth to successfully transition to the workplace. The 

program is currently rated as ineffective. It does not provide services in a cost-effective manner and does not have authority to target or reallocate resources to areas 

of greatest need. To remedy this problem, the Administration is working with Congress to gain increased authority to reallocate resources to areas of need. The Administration has also proposed legislation to consolidate this program with other Department of Labor job training grants. This will reduce overhead, ensure that more 

funds go directly to participants, and give States the flexibility to design processes 

that best serve their citizens. 

We hope that the transparency provided by ExpectMore.gov will make us even 

more accountable to the American people. By making program performance information readily available, we hope that Congressional and public attention can provide 

additional motivation and means for programs to improve their performance. 

ExpectMore.gov is not targeted to Democrats or Republicans, liberals or conservatives. Its audience is all Americans. 

The message is simply that we want our citizens to expect more from their Federal Government, and we want to be held accountable for how programs perform 

and how aggressively they improve. Of course, we do. 

OUR FUTURE COMMITMENTS

With the structure and discipline of the President’s Management Agenda, Federal 

employees are committed, by 2015, to: 

• Improving annual program efficiency by $30 billion; 

8

• Reducing annual improper payments by $50 billion; 

• Reducing annual commercial activity costs by $6+ billion; and 

• Disposing of $15B of unneeded Federal real property assets. 

The American people can and should expect the executive branch and Congress 

to make these commitments a reality.

PART RATINGS AND PROGRAM FUNDING LEVELS SUMMARY 

(Dollars in millions) 

2006 Enacted 2007 Budget 

Change from 2006

Dollars Percent 

Effective (124) ....................................................................................... 231,853 231,968 115 0.0%

Moderately Effective (231) ..................................................................... 433,843 443,435 9,592 2.2%

Adequate (219) ...................................................................................... 335,470 334,744 ¥726 ¥0.2%

Ineffective (28) ....................................................................................... 16,930 14,105 ¥2,825 ¥16.7%

Results Not Demonstrated (191) ........................................................... 139,147 135,991 ¥3,156 ¥2.3%

*The Medicare program is excluded in the Moderately Effective category calculation above. When it is included in the calculations, the percentage change in funding is 6.7%. 

PART RATINGS AND PROGRAM FUNDING LEVELS

EFFECTIVE PROGRAMS 

(Dollars in millions) 

Program Name Agency 2006 Enacted 

2007 

Budget 

Change from 2006

Dollars Percent 

1 Engineering and Technical Services for International 

Broadcasting ............................................................. BBG 138 133 ¥5 ¥3.6%

2 Inspector General Oversight of Federal Health Benefits 

Program ..................................................................... OPM 11 15 4 36.4%

3 Smithsonian Institution Facilities Capital ..................... Smithsonian 99 114 15 15.2%

4 Capital Security Construction Program ......................... State 1,000 1,165 165 16.5%

5 Educational and Cultural Exchange Programs in Near 

East Asia and South Asia ......................................... State 177 194 17 9.6%

6 Global Educational and Cultural Exchanges ................. State 426 474 48 11.3%

7 Secret Service: Domestic Protectees ............................. DHS 819 903 84 10.3%

8 National Nuclear Security Administration: Naval Reactors ............................................................................ DOE 782 795 13 1.7%

9 National Institutes of Health—Buildings and Facilities HHS 89 89 0 0.0%

10 Migration and Refugee Assistance Protection .............. State 125 123 ¥2 ¥1.6%

11 United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees ......... State 250 253 3 1.2%

12 New Currency Manufacturing ........................................ Treasury 276 375 99 35.9%

13 Secret Service: Protective Intelligence .......................... DHS 355 73 ¥282 ¥79.4%

14 Maritime Security Program ............................................ DOT 155 155 0 0.0%

15 GSA—New Construction ................................................ GSA 1,060 893 ¥167 ¥15.8%

16 Construction and Operations of Research Facilities .... NSF 514 579 65 12.6%

17 Information Technology Research .................................. NSF 160 160 0 0.0%

18 Nanoscale Science and Engineering Research ............. NSF 245 229 ¥16 ¥6.5%

19 Polar Research Tools, Facilities and Logistics ............. NSF 307 345 38 12.4%

20 Air Force Depot Maintenance ......................................... DOD 3,533 3,772 239 6.8%

21 National Nuclear Security Administration: Global Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention .......................... DOE 38 0 ¥38 ¥100.0%

22 National Assessment for Educational Progress ............ ED 89 93 4 4.5%

23 Research on Biocomplexity in the Environment ............ NSF 83 58 ¥25 ¥30.1%

24 Basic Energy Sciences ................................................... DOE 1,135 1,421 286 25.2%

25 Asset Management of GSA-Owned Real Property ......... GSA 2,780 2,670 ¥110 ¥4.0%

26 Nuclear Materials Users Licensing & Inspection .......... NRC 66 74 8 12.1%

27 Fundamental Science and Engineering Research ......... NSF 2,240 2,387 147 6.6%

28 Humanitarian Demining ................................................. State 55 64 9 16.4%

29 Migration and Refugee Assistance Other Population, 

Refugee and Migration Programs ............................. State 103 83 ¥20 ¥19.4%

30 South Asia Military Assistance ...................................... State 316 319 3 0.9%

31 Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau Collect 

the Revenue Program ................................................ Treasury 44 45 1 2.3%

32 Financial Management Service Payments ..................... Treasury 271 282 11 4.1%

9

PART RATINGS AND PROGRAM FUNDING LEVELS

EFFECTIVE PROGRAMS—Continued

(Dollars in millions) 

Program Name Agency 2006 Enacted 

2007 

Budget 

Change from 2006

Dollars Percent 

33 U.S. Mint: Protection Program ....................................... Treasury 37 36 ¥1 ¥2.7%

34 Bureau of Economic Analysis ........................................ DOC 76 76 0 0.0%

35 Strategic Petroleum Reserve ......................................... DOE 875 172 ¥703 ¥80.3%

36 Bureau of Reclamation—Hydropower ........................... DOI 69 71 2 2.9%

37 FAA Research, Engineering & Development .................. DOT 137 130 ¥7 ¥5.1%

38 Federal Transit Administration—Formula Grant Programs ........................................................................ DOT 5,086 5,395 309 6.1%

39 Indian Health Service Health Care Facilities Construction ............................................................................ HHS 38 18 ¥20 ¥52.6%

40 Federally Funded Research and Development Centers NSF 187 193 6 3.2%

41 Visa and Consular Services ........................................... State 1,035 1,139 104 10.0%

42 Worldwide Security Upgrades ........................................ State 808 914 106 13.1%

43 Financial Management Service Collections ................... Treasury 17 17 0 0.0%

44 Military Force Management ........................................... DOD 113,649 110,776 ¥2,873 ¥2.5%

45 National Center for Education Statistics ...................... ED 91 94 3 3.3%

46 Regulation of Federal Credit Unions ............................. NCUA 89 91 2 2.2%

47 Peace Corps: International Volunteerism ...................... Peace Corps 338 343 5 1.5%

48 Contribution to the United Nations Development Programme ..................................................................... State 95 95 0 0.0%

49 Humanitarian Migrants to Israel ................................... State 40 40 0 0.0%

50 Financial Management Service Debt Collection ............ Treasury 50 66 16 32.0%

51 Thrift Institution and Savings Association Supervision Treasury 216 221 5 2.3%

52 Census Bureau: Economic Census ................................ DOC 68 82 14 20.6%

53 Air Force Aircraft Operations ......................................... DOD 6,455 7,755 1,300 20.1%

54 Army Land Forces Operations ........................................ DOD 10,649 10,426 ¥223 ¥2.1%

55 Energy Conservation Investment ................................... DOD 50 60 10 20.0%

56 Navy/Marine Corps Air Operations ................................ DOD 5,795 5,689 ¥106 ¥1.8%

57 US Geological Survey—Geographic Research, Investigations, and Remote Sensing ................................. DOI 129 142 13 10.1%

58 United States Trustees .................................................. DOJ 212 236 24 11.3%

59 Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation—

Operations and Maintenance .................................... DOT 47 40 ¥7 ¥14.9%

60 National Institutes of Health—Intramural Research ... HHS 2,956 2,946 ¥10 ¥0.3%

61 Office of Child Support Enforcement ............................ HHS 3,322 3,953 631 19.0%

62 NASA Astronomy and Astrophysics Research ................ NASA 378 1,516 1,138 301.1%

63 Fuel Facilities Licensing & Inspection .......................... NRC 38 38 0 0.0%

64 Reactor Inspection and Performance Assessment ........ NRC 204 222 18 8.8%

65 Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation Licensing and 

Inspection .................................................................. NRC 24 27 3 12.5%

66 Support for Individual Researchers ............................... NSF 496 519 23 4.6%

67 Export Control Assistance .............................................. State 43 45 2 4.7%

68 US Trade and Development Agency ............................... TDA 61 51 ¥10 ¥16.4%

69 National Bank Supervision ............................................ Treasury 579 605 26 4.5%

70 Coast Guard: Domestic Icebreaking Program ............... DHS 67 58 ¥9 ¥13.4%

71 Secret Service: Foreign Protectees and Foreign Missions .......................................................................... DHS 130 132 2 1.5%

72 Department of Defense Depot Maintenance: Ship ........ DOD 4,042 3,882 ¥160 ¥4.0%

73 Bureau of Justice Statistics .......................................... DOJ 35 59 24 68.6%

74 Maritime Administration—State Maritime Schools ...... DOT 11 10 ¥1 ¥9.1%

75 National Institutes of Health—Extramural Research 

Programs ................................................................... HHS 21,223 21,249 26 0.1%

76 Support for Research Institutions ................................. NSF 147 147 0 0.0%

77 Support for Small Research Collaborations .................. NSF 388 404 16 4.1%

78 Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund ...................... State 37 38 1 2.7%

79 Rural Water and Wastewater Grants and Loans .......... USDA 1,604 1,414 ¥190 ¥11.8%

80 Broadcasting to Latin America ...................................... BBG 42 42 0 0.0%

81 Navy Ship Operations .................................................... DOD 5,186 5,536 350 6.7%

82 Advanced Simulation and Computing (ASCI) ............... DOE 660 630 ¥30 ¥4.5%

83 Elimination of Weapons-Grade Plutonium Production 

Program ..................................................................... DOE 174 207 33 19.0%

10

PART RATINGS AND PROGRAM FUNDING LEVELS

EFFECTIVE PROGRAMS—Continued

(Dollars in millions) 

Program Name Agency 2006 Enacted 

2007 

Budget 

Change from 2006

Dollars Percent 

84 Bureau of Reclamation—Safety of Dams Program ...... DOI 65 70 5 7.7%

85 Minerals Management Service—Outer Continental 

Shelf Minerals Regulation and Compliance ............. DOI 51 54 3 5.9%

86 Bureau of Labor Statistics ............................................ DOL 537 563 26 4.8%

87 Indian Health Service Resource and Patient Management System .............................................................. HHS 45 55 10 22.2%

88 Support for East European Democracy/Freedom Support Act ...................................................................... State 864 715 ¥149 ¥17.2%

89 Customs and Border Protection: Security Inspections 

and Trade Facilitation ............................................... DHS 2,273 2,343 70 3.1%

90 Science and Technology: Biological Countermeasures DHS 372 337 ¥35 ¥9.4%

91 Census Bureau: Current Demographic Statistics ......... DOC 77 52 ¥25 ¥32.5%

92 Depot Maintenance—Naval Aviation ............................ DOD 977 991 14 1.4%

93 National Nuclear Security Administration: Weapons Activities—Readiness Campaign ................................. DOE 217 211 ¥6 ¥2.8%

94 Nonproliferation and International Security .................. DOE 74 127 53 71.6%

95 Bureau of Reclamation—Science and Technology Program .......................................................................... DOI 17 10 ¥7 ¥41.2%

96 Refugee Transitional and Medical Services .................. HHS 268 282 14 5.2%

97 Homeless Assistance Grants (Competitive) .................. HUD 1,327 1,536 209 15.7%

98 Solar System Exploration ............................................... NASA 1,582 1,603 21 1.3%

99 Disaster Loan Program .................................................. SBA 1,261 218 ¥1,043 ¥82.7%

100 Administering the Public Debt ...................................... Treasury 175 178 3 1.7%

101 U.S. Mint: Numismatic Program .................................... Treasury 1,282 1,321 39 3.0%

102 Economic Research Service ........................................... USDA 75 83 8 10.7%

103 Plant and Animal Health Monitoring Programs ............ USDA 286 346 60 21.0%

104 African Development Foundation ................................... ADF 46 52 6 13.0%

105 Census Bureau: Survey Sample Redesign ..................... DOC 11 11 0 0.0%

106 Defense Basic Research ................................................ DOD 1,476 1,420 ¥56 ¥3.8%

107 Biological and Environmental Research ....................... DOE 580 510 ¥70 ¥12.1%

108 Contributions For International Peacekeeping Activities State 1,022 1,135 113 11.1%

109 Non-Security Embassy Construction Program ............... State 0 0 0 0.0%

110 Refugee Admissions to the US ...................................... State 159 223 64 40.3%

111 Pest and Disease Exclusion ........................................... USDA 156 182 26 16.7%

112 Preparedness Grants and Training Office National Exercise Program .......................................................... DHS 52 42 ¥10 ¥19.2%

113 National Institute for Standards and Technology Laboratories ..................................................................... DOC 569 535 ¥34 ¥6.0%

114 Department of Defense Training and Education Programs—Basic Skills and Advanced Training .......... DOD 4,957 4,984 27 0.5%

115 International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation .................................................................... DOE 423 413 ¥10 ¥2.4%

116 Nuclear Physics .............................................................. DOE 367 454 87 23.7%

117 Department of Justice General Legal Activities ............ DOJ 767 795 28 3.7%

118 CDC: Global Immunizations ........................................... HHS 138 138 0 0.0%

119 Health Centers ............................................................... HHS 1,782 1,963 181 10.2%

120 Medicare Integrity Program ........................................... HHS 820 829 9 1.1%

121 Anti-Terrorism Assistance .............................................. State 122 136 14 11.5%

122 Terrorist Interdiction Program ....................................... State 5 12 7 140.0%

123 U.S. Mint: Coin Production ............................................ Treasury 567 573 6 1.1%

124 TVA Resource Stewardship ............................................ TVA 83 84 1 1.2%

Total funding for Effective programs1 ................. ................... 231,853 231,968 115 0.0%

1 Funding levels represent program level and include BA, obligations, user fees, loan levels, etc. as appropriate 

11

PART RATINGS AND PROGRAM FUNDING LEVELS

MODERATELY EFFECTIVE PROGRAMS 

(Dollars in millions) 

Program Name Agency 2006 Enacted 

2007 

Budget 

Change from 2006

Dollars Percent 

1 Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program ......... Corps 139 130 ¥9 ¥6.5%

2 Advanced Scientific Computing Research ..................... DOE 235 319 84 35.7%

3 Directed Stockpile Work (DSW) ...................................... DOE 1,372 1,380 8 0.6%

4 High Energy Physics ...................................................... DOE 717 775 58 8.1%

5 National Criminal History Improvement Program ......... DOJ 10 39 29 290.0%

6 EPA Acid Rain Program ................................................. EPA 19 20 1 5.3%

7 NASA Earth-Sun System Research ................................ NASA 2,164 2,211 47 2.2%

8 Internal Revenue Service Taxpayer Advocate Service ... Treasury 164 164 0 0.0%

9 TVA Power ...................................................................... TVA 8,632 8,946 314 3.6%

10 Corps of Engineers: Regulatory Program ...................... Corps 158 173 15 9.5%

11 Census Bureau: Current Economic Statistics and Census of Governments .................................................. DOC 140 156 16 11.4%

12 National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration: Navigation Services .......................................................... DOC 93 91 ¥2 ¥2.2%

13 Vehicle Technologies ...................................................... DOE 182 166 ¥16 ¥8.8%

14 Bureau of Indian Affairs—Dam Safety and Dam 

Maintenance .............................................................. DOI 22 22 0 0.0%

15 National Park Service—National Historic Preservation DOI 96 89 ¥7 ¥7.3%

16 National Park Service—Natural Resource Stewardship DOI 210 215 5 2.4%

17 US Geological Survey—Energy Resource Assessments DOI 24 26 2 8.3%

18 Hazardous Materials Transportation Safety—Emergency Preparedness Grants ....................................... DOT 14 28 14 100.0%

19 Highway Research and Development/Intelligent Transportation Systems ...................................................... DOT 430 430 0 0.0%

20 Maritime Administration—Merchant Marine Academy DOT 64 62 ¥2 ¥3.1%

21 GSA—Real Property Leasing ......................................... GSA 4,443 4,483 40 0.9%

22 HIV/AIDS Research ......................................................... HHS 2,904 2,988 84 2.9%

23 Peace Keeping Operations—Organization for Security 

and Cooperation in Europe Programs ....................... State 30 30 0 0.0%

24 Emergency Pest and Disease Management Programs .. USDA 267 284 17 6.4%

25 Broadcasting to Near East Asia and South Asia ......... BBG 149 159 10 6.7%

26 Coast Guard Marine Environmental Protection ............. DHS 374 332 ¥42 ¥11.2%

27 Census Bureau: Intercensal Demographic Estimates ... DOC 9 10 1 11.1%

28 Fusion Energy Sciences ................................................. DOE 288 319 31 10.8%

29 National Nuclear Security Administration: Weapons Activities—Science Campaign ..................................... DOE 277 265 ¥12 ¥4.3%

30 Weatherization Assistance ............................................. DOE 243 160 ¥83 ¥34.2%

31 Minerals Management Service—Outer Continental 

Shelf Environmental Studies ..................................... DOI 16 20 4 25.0%

32 US Geological Survey—Geologic Hazard Assessments DOI 81 82 1 1.2%

33 Arson and Explosives Program ...................................... DOJ 188 196 8 4.3%

34 Federal Lands Highway Program ................................... DOT 806 903 97 12.0%

35 Federal Transit Administration New Starts ................... DOT 1,488 1,466 ¥22 ¥1.5%

36 Export Import Bank—Long Term Guarantees ............... EX-IM 474 203 ¥271 ¥57.2%

37 GSA—Vehicle Leasing ................................................... GSA 1,000 1,030 30 3.0%

38 National Center for Health Statistics ............................ HHS 109 109 0 0.0%

39 Inter-American Foundation ............................................ IAF 37 37 0 0.0%

40 Military Assistance to New NATO and NATO Aspirant 

Nations ...................................................................... State 155 154 ¥1 ¥0.6%

41 Research on Protection and Safety of Agricultural 

Food Supply ............................................................... USDA 392 388 ¥4 ¥1.0%

42 Snow Survey Water Supply Forecasting ........................ USDA 11 11 0 0.0%

43 Coast Guard Migrant Interdiction Program ................... DHS 464 488 24 5.2%

44 Immigration and Customs Enforcement: Detention and 

Removal ..................................................................... DHS 1,450 2,076 626 43.2%

45 Department of Defense Training and Education Programs—Accession Training ...................................... DOD 829 878 49 5.9%

46 Secure Transportation Asset (STA) ................................ DOE 210 210 0 0.0%

47 Fish and Wildlife Service—National Fish Hatchery 

System ....................................................................... DOI 60 61 1 1.7%

12

PART RATINGS AND PROGRAM FUNDING LEVELS

MODERATELY EFFECTIVE PROGRAMS—Continued

(Dollars in millions) 

Program Name Agency 2006 Enacted 

2007 

Budget 

Change from 2006

Dollars Percent 

48 US Geological Survey—National Cooperative Geological Mapping .............................................................. DOI 25 26 1 4.0%

49 DOT Pipeline Safety ....................................................... DOT 72 76 4 5.6%

50 Mobile Source Air Pollution Standards and Certification ......................................................................... EPA 62 71 9 14.5%

51 Administration on Aging ................................................ HHS 1,363 1,335 ¥28 ¥2.1%

52 Child Care and Development Fund ............................... HHS 4,979 4,979 0 0.0%

53 National Community Development Initiative ................. HUD 30 0 ¥30 ¥100.0%

54 Veterans Health Research and Development ................ VA 786 765 ¥21 ¥2.7%

55 US Geological Survey—Mineral Resource Assessments DOI 53 31 ¥22 ¥41.5%

56 Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration—Operations and Programs ................................................. DOT 211 223 12 5.7%

57 Railroad Safety Program ................................................ DOT 143 143 0 0.0%

58 Maternal and Child Health Block Grant ....................... HHS 693 693 0 0.0%

59 Office of Transition Initiatives ...................................... USAID 40 50 10 25.0%

60 Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund—Guaranteed 

Loans ......................................................................... USDA 2,796 2,498 ¥298 ¥10.7%

61 Mutual Self-Help Housing Technical Assistance Grants USDA 34 38 4 11.8%

62 Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Initiative .......... DOE 55 32 ¥23 ¥41.8%

63 Criminal Justice Services .............................................. DOJ 286 411 125 43.7%

64 Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation .......................... DOL 374 398 24 6.4%

65 EPA Lead-Based Paint Risk Reduction Program .......... EPA 23 25 2 8.7%

66 Indian Health Service Sanitation Facilities Construction Program .............................................................. HHS 92 94 2 2.2%

67 Center for Talent Services—HR Products and Services 

for Federal Agencies .................................................. OPM 159 167 8 5.0%

68 Federal Crop Insurance .................................................. USDA 3,365 4,212 847 25.2%

69 National Agricultural Statistics Service ........................ USDA 139 153 14 10.1%

70 Protection and Safety of Agricultural Food Supply 

(Grants) ..................................................................... USDA 238 207 ¥31 ¥13.0%

71 Veterans Burial Benefits ................................................ VA 153 161 8 5.2%

72 Broadcasting to Africa ................................................... BBG 12 13 1 8.3%

74 Federal Protective Service ............................................. DHS 1,648 1,706 58 3.5%

75 Science and Technology: Homeland Security University 

Fellowships ................................................................ DHS 62 52 ¥10 ¥16.1%

76 National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration: Climate Program ............................................................ DOC 156 180 24 15.4%

77 Air Combat Program ...................................................... DOD 13,737 11,784 ¥1,953 ¥14.2%

78 Defense Housing ............................................................ DOD 17,047 16,545 ¥502 ¥2.9%

79 Department of Defense Recruiting ................................ DOD 3,973 4,060 87 2.2%

80 Bonneville Power Administration ................................... DOE ¥19 ¥11 8 ¥42.1%

81 Facilities and Infrastructure .......................................... DOE 283 294 11 3.9%

82 US Geological Survey—Biological Research and Monitoring ......................................................................... DOI 140 136 ¥4 ¥2.9%

83 H-1B Work Visa for Specialty Occupations—Labor 

Condition Application Program ................................. DOL 5 6 1 20.0%

84 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Grant 

Program ..................................................................... DOT 572 584 12 2.1%

85 GSA—Real Property Disposal ........................................ GSA 55 52 ¥3 ¥5.5%

86 NASA Aeronautics Technology ........................................ NASA 884 724 ¥160 ¥18.1%

87 Child Survival and Health—Population ........................ USAID 440 295 ¥145 ¥33.0%

88 Economic Development Administration ......................... DOC 250 297 47 18.8%

89 Airlift Program ............................................................... DOD 5,771 5,367 ¥404 ¥7.0%

90 Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield 

Campaign/NIF Construction Project .......................... DOE 544 451 ¥93 ¥17.1%

91 National Nuclear Security Administration: Nonproliferation and Verification Research and Development .... DOE 319 269 ¥50 ¥15.7%

92 Safeguards and Security ............................................... DOE 766 721 ¥45 ¥5.9%

93 Western Area Power Administration .............................. DOE 1,117 1,283 166 14.9%

13

PART RATINGS AND PROGRAM FUNDING LEVELS

MODERATELY EFFECTIVE PROGRAMS—Continued

(Dollars in millions) 

Program Name Agency 2006 Enacted 

2007 

Budget 

Change from 2006

Dollars Percent 

94 US Geological Survey—Biological Information Management and Delivery ............................................... DOI 24 22 ¥2 ¥8.3%

95 Firearms Programs Integrated Violence Reduction 

Strategy ..................................................................... DOJ 663 765 102 15.4%

96 Railroad Research and Development ............................ DOT 55 35 ¥20 ¥36.4%

97 Food and Drug Administration ...................................... HHS 1,876 1,947 71 3.8%

98 Pharmaceutical Outcomes ............................................. HHS 26 26 0 0.0%

99 Homeownership Voucher ................................................ HUD 5 14 9 180.0%

100 Security Assistance to Sub-Saharan Africa .................. State 113 148 35 31.0%

101 Development Credit Authority ........................................ USAID 38 53 15 39.5%

102 Single Family Housing Direct Loans .............................. USDA 1,131 1,237 106 9.4%

103 Corps of Engineers: Emergency Management ............... Corps 4 85 81 2025.0%

104 Federal Emergency Management Agency—Mitigation 

Programs ................................................................... DHS 5,481 5,526 45 0.8%

105 Science and Technology: Rapid Prototyping of Countermeasures ............................................................... DHS 31 10 ¥21 ¥67.7%

106 Census Bureau: Decennial Census ................................ DOC 454 512 58 12.8%

107 National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration: 

Weather and Related Programs ................................ DOC 1,779 1,908 129 7.3%

108 Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative ...................................... DOE 80 250 170 212.5%

109 Veterans’ Employment and Training State Grants ....... DOL 161 161 0 0.0%

110 FAA Grants-in-Aid for Airports ....................................... DOT 3,415 3,000 ¥415 ¥12.2%

111 TRIO Student Support Services ...................................... ED 273 273 0 0.0%

112 HOME (Affordable Housing Block Grant) ....................... HUD 1,757 1,917 160 9.1%

113 Nonproliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction Expertise ........................................................................ State 52 56 4 7.7%

114 Bank Secrecy Act Data Collection, Retrieval and Sharing ............................................................................. Treasury 17 29 12 70.6%

115 Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigations ........ Treasury 718 728 10 1.4%

116 Internal Revenue Service Examinations ........................ Treasury 3,598 3,658 60 1.7%

117 Internal Revenue Service Submission Processing ......... Treasury 1,117 1,112 ¥5 ¥0.4%

118 Agricultural Export Credit Guarantee Programs ............ USDA 133 117 ¥16 ¥12.0%

119 Food Stamp Program ..................................................... USDA 33,890 36,003 2,113 6.2%

120 Forest Service: Forest Legacy Program ......................... USDA 57 62 5 8.8%

121 Small Business Development Centers ........................... SBA 107 109 2 1.9%

121 Manufacturing Extension Partnership ........................... DOC 105 46 ¥59 ¥56.2%

122 Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF), 

Operations ................................................................. DOE 1,161 1,220 59 5.1%

123 Wind Energy ................................................................... DOE 39 44 5 12.8%

124 Minerals Management Service—Outer Continental 

Shelf Minerals Evaluation and Leasing .................... DOI 51 55 4 7.8%

125 National Park Service—Visitor Services ....................... DOI 465 502 37 8.0%

126 Federal Employees Compensation Act ........................... DOL 2,719 2,775 56 2.1%

127 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration—Operations and Research .............................................. DOT 235 231 ¥4 ¥1.7%

128 Improving Teacher Quality State Grants ....................... ED 2,887 2,887 0 0.0%

129 EPA New Chemicals Program ........................................ EPA 15 14 ¥1 ¥6.7%

130 Health—Data Collection and Dissemination ................ HHS 63 66 3 4.8%

131 Indian Health Service Federally-Administered Activities HHS 1,886 1,979 93 4.9%

132 National Bone Marrow Donor Registry .......................... HHS 25 23 ¥2 ¥8.0%

133 Projects for Assistance in Transition from Homelessness ........................................................................... HHS 54 54 0 0.0%

134 Manufactured Housing and Standards ......................... HUD 13 13 0 0.0%

135 Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation ...................... NR Corp. 117 120 3 2.6%

136 Service Corps of Retired Executives Small Business 

Assistance ................................................................. SBA 19 21 2 10.5%

137 Security Assistance for the Western Hemisphere ......... State 125 118 ¥7 ¥5.6%

138 Child Survival and Health for Latin America and the 

Caribbean .................................................................. USAID 141 128 ¥13 ¥9.2%

14

PART RATINGS AND PROGRAM FUNDING LEVELS

MODERATELY EFFECTIVE PROGRAMS—Continued

(Dollars in millions) 

Program Name Agency 2006 Enacted 

2007 

Budget 

Change from 2006

Dollars Percent 

139 Development Assistance to Latin America and the 

Caribbean .................................................................. USAID 257 167 ¥90 ¥35.0%

140 Forest Service: Recreation ............................................. USDA 275 250 ¥25 ¥9.1%

141 Research/Extension Grants: Economic Opportunities for 

Producers ................................................................... USDA 435 354 ¥81 ¥18.6%

142 USDA Foreign Market Development Programs ............... USDA 249 149 ¥100 ¥40.2%

143 Broadcasting to East Asia and Eurasia ........................ BBG 91 91 0 0.0%

144 Coast Guard Fisheries Enforcement .............................. DHS 815 808 ¥7 ¥0.9%

145 Southwestern Power Administration .............................. DOE 55 63 8 14.5%

146 Prisons Operations ......................................................... DOJ 4,830 4,987 157 3.3%

147 Unemployment Insurance Administration State Grants DOL 2,549 2,650 101 4.0%

148 GSA—Personal Property Management .......................... GSA 32 33 1 3.1%

149 Health and Human Services—Office for Civil Rights .. HHS 35 36 1 2.9%

150 Medicare ......................................................................... HHS 407,249 453,890 46,641 11.5%

151 Lead Hazard Grants ....................................................... HUD 76 92 16 21.1%

152 Examining Compliance with Securities Laws ............... SEC 223 228 5 2.2%

153 Agricultural Marketing Loan Payments ......................... USDA 5,124 4,444 ¥680 ¥13.3%

154 USDA Research: Economic Opportunities for Producers USDA 392 314 ¥78 ¥19.9%

155 Department of Veterans Affairs- General Administration ............................................................................ VA 296 313 17 5.7%

156 Distributed Energy Resources ........................................ DOE 56 30 ¥26 ¥46.4%

157 Hydrogen Technology ...................................................... DOE 156 196 40 25.6%

158 Solar Energy ................................................................... DOE 83 148 65 78.3%

159 Southeastern Power Administration ............................... DOE 38 40 2 5.3%

160 Bureau of Indian Affairs—Job Placement and Training DOI 8 8 0 0.0%

161 Bureau of Reclamation—Site Security ......................... DOI 50 50 0 0.0%

162 US Geological Survey—Water Information Collection 

and Dissemination .................................................... DOI 64 66 2 3.1%

163 US Geological Survey—Water Resources Research ...... DOI 141 138 ¥3 ¥2.1%

164 Hazardous Materials Transportation Safety .................. DOT 26 27 1 3.8%

165 Adoption Assistance ....................................................... HHS 1,883 2,044 161 8.6%

166 Reactor Licensing .......................................................... NRC 264 341 77 29.2%

167 President’s Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief: Focus 

Countries ................................................................... State 1,774 2,776 1,002 56.5%

168 Natural Resources Conservation Service: Plant Materials Research Centers .............................................. USDA 10 11 1 10.0%

169 Veterans Life Insurance ................................................. VA 4 4 0 0.0%

170 Corps of Engineers: Recreation Management ............... Corps 283 267 ¥16 ¥5.7%

171 Preparedness Infrastructure Protection National Communications Service .................................................. DHS 286 286 0 0.0%

172 Bureau of Industry and Security ................................... DOC 75 79 4 5.3%

173 U.S. Patent and Trademark Office—Trademarks ......... DOC 188 203 15 8.0%

174 Department of Defense Education Activity ................... DOD 1,776 1,821 45 2.5%

175 Federal Energy Management Program .......................... DOE 19 17 ¥2 ¥10.5%

176 Bureau of Indian Affairs—Indian Land Consolidation DOI 34 59 25 73.5%

177 Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Grant Program .......................................................................... DOT 279 294 15 5.4%

178 TRIO Talent Search ........................................................ ED 143 0 ¥143 ¥100.0%

179 EPA Support for Cleanup of Federal Facilities ............. EPA 31 31 0 0.0%

180 Superfund Removal ........................................................ EPA 240 250 10 4.2%

181 Family Planning ............................................................. HHS 283 283 0 0.0%

182 Human Trafficking ......................................................... HHS 10 15 5 50.0%

183 Strategic National Stockpile .......................................... HHS 525 592 67 12.8%

184 Fair Housing Assistance Program ................................. HUD 20 25 5 25.0%

185 Housing Vouchers .......................................................... HUD 15,418 15,920 502 3.3%

186 Human Systems Research and Technology ................... NASA 624 275 ¥349 ¥55.9%

187 Historically Underutilized Business Zone—HUBZone ... SBA 7 10 3 42.9%

188 Protection of Foreign Missions and Officials ................ State 9 9 0 0.0%

189 Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Direct Loans ......... USDA 951 930 ¥21 ¥2.2%

190 Environmental Quality Incentives Program ................... USDA 1,017 1,000 ¥17 ¥1.7%

15

PART RATINGS AND PROGRAM FUNDING LEVELS

MODERATELY EFFECTIVE PROGRAMS—Continued

(Dollars in millions) 

Program Name Agency 2006 Enacted 

2007 

Budget 

Change from 2006

Dollars Percent 

191 Multi-Family Housing Programs .................................... USDA 899 745 ¥154 ¥17.1%

192 Natural Resource Base & Environment (Grants) .......... USDA 191 162 ¥29 ¥15.2%

193 Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act ...................... USDA 10 10 0 0.0%

194 Corps of Engineers: Coastal Ports and Harbors ........... Corps 1,136 1,061 ¥75 ¥6.6%

195 District of Columbia: Pretrial Services Agency ............. DC Court 42 46 4 9.5%

196 Defense Air Transportation System ............................... DOD 7,482 6,820 ¥662 ¥8.8%

197 Geothermal Technology .................................................. DOE 23 0 ¥23 ¥100.0%

198 Bureau of Land Management—Wildlife Habitat Restoration ...................................................................... DOI 148 150 2 1.4%

199 FBI Counterintelligence Program ................................... DOJ Class. Class. .............. ..................

200 Black Lung Benefits Program ........................................ DOL 1,401 1,374 ¥27 ¥1.9%

201 Employee Benefits Security Administration ................... DOL 134 144 10 7.5%

202 EPA Indoor Air Quality ................................................... EPA 37 39 2 5.4%

203 Surface Water Protection ............................................... EPA 189 192 3 1.6%

204 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) ......... HHS 17,058 17,158 100 0.6%

205 Universal Newborn Hearing Screening and Intervention 

Program ..................................................................... HHS 10 0 ¥10 ¥100.0%

206 International Space Station ........................................... NASA 1,753 1,812 59 3.4%

207 Supplemental Security Income ...................................... SSA 41,108 40,702 ¥406 ¥1.0%

208 Economic Support Fund for the Western Hemisphere .. State 122 152 30 24.6%

209 Conservation Reserve Program ...................................... USDA 2,021 2,192 171 8.5%

210 Soil Survey Program ....................................................... USDA 87 89 2 2.3%

211 Immigration Services ..................................................... DHS 1,889 1,986 97 5.1%

212 Science and Technology: Emerging Homeland Security 

Threat Detection ........................................................ DHS 8 9 1 12.5%

213 Defense Applied Research Program .............................. DOD 5,188 4,478 ¥710 ¥13.7%

214 DoD Unmannned Aircraft Systems (UAS) ...................... DOD 1,588 1,785 197 12.4%

215 Future Combat Systems/Modularity Land Warfare ........ DOD 9,623 10,349 726 7.5%

216 High Temperature Superducting (HTS) Research and 

Development .............................................................. DOE 50 45 ¥5 ¥10.0%

217 Bureau of Reclamation—Water Reuse and Recycling DOI 20 10 ¥10 ¥50.0%

218 Job Corps ....................................................................... DOL 1,586 1,531 ¥55 ¥3.5%

219 FAA Aviation Safety ........................................................ DOT 941 1,007 66 7.0%

220 Highway Emergency Relief Program .............................. DOT 2,850 100 ¥2,750 ¥96.5%

221 Highway Infrastructure .................................................. DOT 34,215 37,650 3,435 10.0%

222 Advanced Placement ...................................................... ED 32 122 90 281.3%

223 Childrens Mental Health Services ................................. HHS 104 104 0 0.0%

224 National Health Service Corps ....................................... HHS 126 126 0 0.0%

225 Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental 

Illness ........................................................................ HHS 34 34 0 0.0%

226 Substance Abuse Prevention Projects of Regional and 

National Significance ................................................ HHS 193 181 ¥12 ¥6.2%

227 Social Security Disability Insurance .............................. SSA 92,989 100,051 7,062 7.6%

228 US Agency for International Development Administration and Capital Investment ..................................... USAID 770 836 66 8.6%

229 Federal Grain Inspection Services ................................. USDA 60 66 6 10.0%

230 School Breakfast Program ............................................. USDA 2,076 2,204 128 6.2%

231 USDA Food Aid Programs ............................................... USDA 394 250 ¥144 ¥36.5%

I11 Total funding for Moderately Effective programs1 ....................................................................... ................... 841,092 897,325 56,233 6.7%

Total funding for Moderately Effective programs 

(excluding Medicare)1 ............................................... ................... 433,843 443,435 9,592 2.2%

1 Funding levels represent program level and include BA, obligations, user fees, loan levels, etc. as appropriate 

16

PART RATINGS AND PROGRAM FUNDING LEVELS

ADEQUATE PROGRAMS 

(Dollars in millions) 

Program Name Agency 2006 Enacted 

2007 

Budget 

Change from 2006

Dollars Percent 

1 Science and Technology: Standards Development for 

Homeland Security Technology .................................. DHS 33 22 ¥11 ¥33.3%

2 Missile Defense .............................................................. DOD 7,695 9,318 1,623 21.1%

3 Nuclear Power 2010 ....................................................... DOE 66 55 ¥11 ¥16.7%

4 Department of the Interior—Central Utah Project ....... DOI 34 40 6 17.6%

5 National Institute of Justice .......................................... DOJ 54 56 2 3.7%

6 Federal Pell Grants ........................................................ ED 13,045 12,739 ¥306 ¥2.3%

7 GSA—Vehicle Acquisition .............................................. GSA 1,213 1,233 20 1.6%

8 Tribally-Operated Health Programs ............................... HHS 1,648 1,720 72 4.4%

9 Urban Indian Health Program ....................................... HHS 33 0 ¥33 ¥100.0%

10 Section 7 (a) Guaranteed Loan Program ...................... SBA 97 83 ¥14 ¥14.4%

11 Agricultural Crops Counter Cyclical Payments ............. USDA 5,893 6,661 768 13.0%

12 Single Family Housing Loan Guarantees ...................... USDA 3,745 3,564 ¥181 ¥4.8%

13 National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration: Protected Areas .............................................................. DOC 56 42 ¥14 ¥25.0%

14 Space Launch ................................................................ DOD 1,175 1,255 80 6.8%

15 Industrial Technologies Program ................................... DOE 57 46 ¥11 ¥19.3%

16 Charter Schools Grant ................................................... ED 215 215 0 0.0%

17 National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research ........................................................................ ED 107 107 0 0.0%

18 EPA Climate Change Programs ..................................... EPA 111 105 ¥6 ¥5.4%

19 Leaking Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Program EPA 68 69 1 1.5%

20 CDC: Environmental Health ........................................... HHS 146 141 ¥5 ¥3.4%

21 Poison Control Centers .................................................. HHS 23 13 ¥10 ¥43.5%

22 Overseas Private Investment Corporation—Finance .... OPIC 48 50 2 4.2%

23 Overseas Private Investment Corporation—Insurance OPIC ¥211 ¥209 2 ¥0.9%

24 Appalachian Regional Commission ............................... ARC 65 65 0 0.0%

25 U.S. Patent and Trademark Office—Patents ................ DOC 1,495 1,640 145 9.7%

26 National Security Space Weather Programs .................. DOD 394 437 43 10.9%

27 Fish and Wildlife Service—Partners for Fish and Wildlife ............................................................................. DOI 50 43 ¥7 ¥14.0%

28 National Park Service—Facility Maintenance ............... DOI 1,034 933 ¥101 ¥9.8%

29 Criminal Enterprises ...................................................... DOJ 788 750 ¥38 ¥4.8%

30 Stratospheric Ozone Protection ...................................... EPA 15 19 4 26.7%

31 GSA—Global Supply ...................................................... GSA 1,032 1,051 19 1.8%

32 CDC: Infectious Diseases .............................................. HHS 227 245 18 7.9%

33 Ryan White HIV/AIDS ...................................................... HHS 2,083 2,158 75 3.6%

34 FHA Single-Family Mortgage Insurance ......................... HUD 414 414 0 0.0%

35 Section 504 Certified Development Company Guaranteed Loan Program .................................................... SBA 38 23 ¥15 ¥39.5%

36 Economic Support Fund for Africa ................................ State 123 164 41 33.3%

37 Farmland Protection Program ........................................ USDA 74 50 ¥24 ¥32.4%

38 Food Safety and Inspection Service .............................. USDA 829 863 34 4.1%

39 Coast Guard: Marine Safety .......................................... DHS 685 678 ¥7 ¥1.0%

40 Advanced Technology Program ...................................... DOC 79 0 ¥79 ¥100.0%

41 National Park Service—Cultural Resource Stewardship DOI 96 99 3 3.1%

42 US Marshals Service- Protection of the Judicial Process ............................................................................. DOJ 340 343 3 0.9%

43 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry ..... HHS 75 75 0 0.0%

44 State Children’s Health Insurance Program ................. HHS 4,316 5,040 724 16.8%

45 Space and Flight Support .............................................. NASA 339 367 28 8.3%

46 Economic Support Fund—Human Rights and Democracy Fund ................................................................... State 63 35 ¥28 ¥44.4%

47 USAID’s Development Assistance for Sub-Saharan Africa ............................................................................ USAID 594 563 ¥31 ¥5.2%

48 Rural Electric Utility Loans and Guarantees ................ USDA 3,893 3,842 ¥51 ¥1.3%

49 Wetlands Reserve Program ............................................ USDA 250 403 153 61.2%

50 Office of Federal Contract Compliance ......................... DOL 81 84 3 3.7%

51 FAA Air Traffic Services ................................................. DOT 6,575 6,748 173 2.6%

52 Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Grants ..................... EPA 204 194 ¥10 ¥4.9%

17

PART RATINGS AND PROGRAM FUNDING LEVELS

ADEQUATE PROGRAMS—Continued

(Dollars in millions) 

Program Name Agency 2006 Enacted 

2007 

Budget 

Change from 2006

Dollars Percent 

53 CDC: Sexually Transmitted Diseases and Tuberculosis HHS 296 294 ¥2 ¥0.7%

54 National Archives and Records Administration: 

Records Services Program ......................................... NARA 413 430 17 4.1%

55 Small Business Surety Bonds ........................................ SBA 9 11 2 22.2%

56 Interagency Cooperative Administrative Support Services ............................................................................ State 1,269 1,359 90 7.1%

57 President’s Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief: Global 

Fund ........................................................................... State 545 299 ¥246 ¥45.1%

58 Treasury Technical Assistance ....................................... Treasury 60 48 ¥12 ¥20.0%

59 Agricultural Commodity Grading and Certification Programs ........................................................................ USDA 195 191 ¥4 ¥2.1%

60 Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention .................. USDA 111 15 ¥96 ¥86.5%

61 AmeriCorps State and National Grants ......................... CNCS 268 259 ¥9 ¥3.4%

62 Bureau of Indian Affairs—Forestry Management ......... DOI 52 52 0 0.0%

63 Permanent Labor Certification Program ........................ DOL 38 40 2 5.3%

64 Howard University .......................................................... ED 237 237 0 0.0%

65 EPA Enforcement of Environmental Laws (Criminal) .... EPA 51 51 0 0.0%

66 EPA Existing Chemicals Program .................................. EPA 17 17 0 0.0%

67 CDC: Occupational Safety and Health .......................... HHS 255 250 ¥5 ¥2.0%

68 Animal Welfare ............................................................... USDA 17 19 2 11.8%

69 Corps of Engineers: Hydropower .................................... Corps 296 285 ¥11 ¥3.7%

70 Immigration and Customs Enforcement: Office of Investigations ............................................................... DHS 1,493 1,619 126 8.4%

71 Preparedness Grants and Training Office Training Program .......................................................................... DHS 210 92 ¥118 ¥56.2%

72 National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration: Ecosystem Research ....................................................... DOC 201 167 ¥34 ¥16.9%

73 Navy Shipbuilding .......................................................... DOD 13,778 13,280 ¥498 ¥3.6%

74 Bureau of Reclamation Water Management—Operation and Maintenance ............................................. DOI 338 346 8 2.4%

75 US Marshals Service—Apprehension of Fugitives ........ DOJ 242 260 18 7.4%

76 Childhood Immunization Program ................................. HHS 520 509 ¥11 ¥2.1%

77 Refugee Social Services ................................................. HHS 210 203 ¥7 ¥3.3%

78 Rural Health Activities ................................................... HHS 160 27 ¥133 ¥83.1%

79 Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Consumer Product 

Safety ......................................................................... Treasury 46 48 2 4.3%

80 Direct Crop Payments .................................................... USDA 5,237 5,237 0 0.0%

81 Rural Telecommunications Loan Programs ................... USDA 690 691 1 0.1%

82 Veterans Medical Care ................................................... VA 30,825 34,295 3,470 11.3%

83 Preparedness Grants and Training Office Technical 

Assistance Program ................................................... DHS 20 24 4 20.0%

84 National Telecommunications and Information 

Adminstration ............................................................ DOC 18 23 5 27.8%

85 FBI Counterterrorism Program ....................................... DOJ 1,245 1,336 91 7.3%

86 Weed and Seed .............................................................. DOJ 49 49 0 0.0%

87 Occupational Safety and Health Administration ........... DOL 472 484 12 2.5%

88 Assets for Independence ................................................ HHS 24 24 0 0.0%

89 CDC: Buildings and Facilities ....................................... HHS 158 30 ¥128 ¥81.0%

90 Organ Transplantation ................................................... HHS 23 23 0 0.0%

91 Drug-Free Communities Support Program .................... ONDCP 79 79 0 0.0%

92 Forest Service: Energy Resource Needs ......................... USDA 91 95 4 4.4%

93 Intermediary Relending Program ................................... USDA 34 34 0 0.0%

94 Defense Health Care ...................................................... DOD 20,021 21,025 1,004 5.0%

95 Bureau of Indian Affairs—Economic Development 

Guaranteed Loans ..................................................... DOI 6 6 0 0.0%

96 Bureau of Land Management—Recreation Management .......................................................................... DOI 65 64 ¥1 ¥1.5%

97 Cybercrime ..................................................................... DOJ 234 260 26 11.1%

98 Prison Construction ........................................................ DOJ 89 ¥25 ¥114 ¥128.1%

99 Drinking Water State Revolving Fund ........................... EPA 837 842 5 0.6%

18

PART RATINGS AND PROGRAM FUNDING LEVELS

ADEQUATE PROGRAMS—Continued

(Dollars in millions) 

Program Name Agency 2006 Enacted 

2007 

Budget 

Change from 2006

Dollars Percent 

100 EPA Human Health Research ........................................ EPA 61 61 0 0.0%

101 EPA’s Recycling, Waste Minimization, and Waste Management Program ...................................................... EPA 180 183 3 1.7%

102 Pesticide Reregistration ................................................. EPA 59 55 ¥4 ¥6.8%

103 Food Aid for Emergencies and Development (Public 

Law 480 Title II) ........................................................ USAID 1,138 1,218 80 7.0%

104 Corps of Engineers: Environmental Stewardship .......... Corps 94 89 ¥5 ¥5.3%

105 Federal Emergency Management Agency: Disaster Response ....................................................................... DHS 1,307 326 ¥981 ¥75.1%

106 Biomass and Biorefinery Systems ................................. DOE 91 120 29 31.9%

107 Vaccine Injury Compensation Program .......................... DOJ 10 10 0 0.0%

108 White Collar Crime ......................................................... DOJ 708 674 ¥34 ¥4.8%

109 American Indian Vocational Rehabilitation Services .... ED 0 0 0 0.0%

110 IDEA Special Education Grants to States ..................... ED 10,583 10,683 100 0.9%

111 Pesticide Registration .................................................... EPA 44 43 ¥1 ¥2.3%

112 Developmental Disabilities Grant Programs ................. HHS 155 155 0 0.0%

113 Health Care Patient Safety ............................................ HHS 84 84 0 0.0%

114 Bioenergy ........................................................................ USDA 60 0 ¥60 ¥100.0%

115 Rural Business and Industry Guaranteed Loan Program .......................................................................... USDA 953 1,000 47 4.9%

116 Department of Defense Facilities Sustainment, Restoration, Modernization, and Demolition ................... DOD 11,366 11,518 152 1.3%

117 Building Technologies .................................................... DOE 69 77 8 11.6%

118 Environmental Management .......................................... DOE 6,590 5,828 ¥762 ¥11.6%

119 Drug Enforcement Administration ................................. DOJ 2,285 2,276 ¥9 ¥0.4%

120 EPA Enforcement of Environmental Laws (Civil) .......... EPA 451 470 19 4.2%

121 Community Mental Health Services Block Grant .......... HHS 429 429 0 0.0%

122 Contributions to International Fisheries Commissions State 24 21 ¥3 ¥12.5%

123 Internal Revenue Service Taxpayer Service ................... Treasury 2,179 2,134 ¥45 ¥2.1%

124 Pesticide Data/Microbiological Data Programs ............. USDA 21 15 ¥6 ¥28.6%

125 District of Columbia: Community Supervision Program DC Court 130 135 5 3.8%

126 Federal Law Enforcement Training Center .................... DHS 280 245 ¥35 ¥12.5%

127 International Trade Administration: Market Access and 

Compliance ................................................................ DOC 39 39 0 0.0%

128 US Attorneys ................................................................... DOJ 1,580 1,637 57 3.6%

129 Trauma-EMS Systems Program ..................................... HHS 0 0 0 0.0%

130 President’s Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief: Other Bilateral Programs ........................................................ State 935 915 ¥20 ¥2.1%

131 Africa Child Survival and Health .................................. USAID 392 479 87 22.2%

132 US Agency for International Development Climate 

Change Program ........................................................ USAID **   ** 

133 Work Incentive Grants .................................................... DOL 20 0 ¥20 ¥100.0%

134 Impact Aid Construction ................................................ ED 18 18 0 0.0%

135 Student Aid Administration ........................................... ED 744 734 ¥10 ¥1.3%

136 Water Pollution Control Grants ...................................... EPA 216 222 6 2.8%

137 Chronic Disease—Diabetes ........................................... HHS 63 63 0 0.0%

138 Housing Counseling ....................................................... HUD 42 45 3 7.1%

139 International Disaster and Famine Account .................. USAID 365 .............. ¥365 ¥100.0%

140 National Forest Improvement and Maintenance ........... USDA 442 385 ¥57 ¥12.9%

141 Veterans Pension ........................................................... VA 3,640 3,718 78 2.1%

142 International Trade Administration: U.S. and Foreign 

Commercial Service ................................................... DOC 229 248 19 8.3%

143 Bureau of Indian Affairs—K-12 School Operations ..... DOI 535 519 ¥16 ¥3.0%

144 Bureau of Indian Affairs—Tribal Colleges ................... DOI 103 102 ¥1 ¥1.0%

145 Employment Service ....................................................... DOL 827 753 ¥74 ¥8.9%

146 Federal Family Education Loans .................................... ED 9,839 6,125 ¥3,714 ¥37.7%

147 William D. Ford Direct Student Loans ........................... ED 599 36 ¥563 ¥94.0%

148 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Regional 

Haze Programs .......................................................... EPA 97 97 0 0.0%

149 Family Self-Sufficiency Program .................................... HUD 48 48 0 0.0%

19

PART RATINGS AND PROGRAM FUNDING LEVELS

ADEQUATE PROGRAMS—Continued

(Dollars in millions) 

Program Name Agency 2006 Enacted 

2007 

Budget 

Change from 2006

Dollars Percent 

150 Indian Community Development Block Grant Program HUD 59 57 ¥2 ¥3.4%

151 International Development Association ......................... Treasury 2,820 2,850 30 1.1%

152 Denali Commission ........................................................ Denali 

Commission 

53 6 ¥47 ¥88.7%

153 National Marine Fisheries Service ................................. DOC 687 649 ¥38 ¥5.5%

154 Coal Energy Technology ................................................. DOE 376 345 ¥31 ¥8.2%

155 Bureau of Land Management—Energy and Minerals 

Management .............................................................. DOI 134 157 23 17.2%

156 Longshore and Harbor’s Workers Compensation Program .......................................................................... DOL 248 248 0 0.0%

157 Mine Safety and Health Administration ........................ DOL 278 288 10 3.6%

158 Javits Fellowships .......................................................... ED 10 10 0 0.0%

159 Transition to Teaching ................................................... ED 44 44 0 0.0%

160 Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants ......................... ED 2,693 2,837 144 5.3%

161 Drinking Water Research ............................................... EPA 45 49 4 8.9%

162 Ocean, Coastal, and Estuary Protection ....................... EPA 37 31 ¥6 ¥16.2%

163 Toxic Air Pollutants—Regulations and Federal Support EPA 97 99 2 2.1%

164 NASA Education Program ............................................... NASA 162 153 ¥9 ¥5.6%

165 Space Shuttle ................................................................. NASA 4,776 4,057 ¥719 ¥15.1%

166 Federal Employees Retirement ....................................... OPM 58,501 61,427 2,926 5.0%

167 Homeland Security Operations Center ........................... DHS 51 55 4 7.8%

168 Transportation Security Administration: Screener Training ............................................................................. DHS 88 88 0 0.0%

169 Bureau of Land Management—Realty and Ownership 

Management .............................................................. DOI 104 98 ¥6 ¥5.8%

170 National Park Service—Concessions Management ...... DOI 56 58 2 3.6%

171 Office of Labor Management Standards ....................... DOL 46 52 6 13.0%

172 Clean Water State Revolving Fund ................................ EPA 887 688 ¥199 ¥22.4%

173 Endocrine Disruptors ...................................................... EPA 19 17 ¥2 ¥10.5%

174 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Corrective 

Action ......................................................................... EPA 38 41 3 7.9%

175 Superfund Remedial Action ........................................... EPA 601 592 ¥9 ¥1.5%

176 U. S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure ..................... EPA 49 25 ¥24 ¥49.0%

177 Underground Injection Control Grant Program .............. EPA 11 11 0 0.0%

178 Children’s Hospitals Graduate Medical Education Payment Program ............................................................ HHS 297 99 ¥198 ¥66.7%

179 Chronic Disease—Breast and Cervical Cancer ............ HHS 204 204 0 0.0%

180 Foster Care ..................................................................... HHS 4,633 4,757 124 2.7%

181 Substance Abuse Treatment Programs of Regional and 

National Significance ................................................ HHS 399 375 ¥24 ¥6.0%

182 Tribal Housing Activities Loan Guarantees ................... HUD 2 2 0 0.0%

183 Merit System Compliance .............................................. OPM 17 17 0 0.0%

184 Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico ............................. USDA 1,518 1,559 41 2.7%

185 Federal Emergency Management Agency: Disaster Recovery ......................................................................... DHS 6,466 1,374 ¥5,092 ¥78.8%

186 National Park Service—Technical Assistance .............. DOI 12 12 0 0.0%

187 Workforce Investment Act—Adult Employment and 

Training ..................................................................... DOL 871 726 ¥145 ¥16.6%

188 Comprehensive School Reform ...................................... ED 8 0 ¥8 ¥100.0%

189 Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs .................................................... ED 303 0 ¥303 ¥100.0%

190 EPA Tribal General Assistance Program ....................... EPA 57 57 0 0.0%

191 National Ambient Air Quality Standards Research ....... EPA 67 66 ¥1 ¥1.5%

192 Federal Employees Group Life Insurance ...................... OPM 3,607 3,844 237 6.6%

193 International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement 

Programs, Africa/Asia ................................................ State 15 31 16 106.7%

194 International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement 

Programs, Western Hemisphere ................................ State 61 55 ¥6 ¥9.8%

195 Forest Service: Land Acquisition ................................... USDA 42 25 ¥17 ¥40.5%

196 Chemical Demilitarization .............................................. DOD 1,387 1,408 21 1.5%

20

PART RATINGS AND PROGRAM FUNDING LEVELS

ADEQUATE PROGRAMS—Continued

(Dollars in millions) 

Program Name Agency 2006 Enacted 

2007 

Budget 

Change from 2006

Dollars Percent 

197 Bureau of Reclamation—Recreation and Concessions DOI 16 15 ¥1 ¥6.3%

198 21st Century Community Learning Centers .................. ED 981 981 0 0.0%

199 EPA Oil Spill Control ...................................................... EPA 12 13 1 8.3%

200 Andean Counterdrug Initiative ....................................... State 735 722 ¥13 ¥1.8%

201 International Child Labor Program and Office of Foreign Relations ........................................................... DOL 73 12 ¥61 ¥83.6%

202 Workforce Investment Act—Native American Programs DOL 56 53 ¥3 ¥5.4%

203 National Technical Institute for the Deaf ..................... ED 56 55 ¥1 ¥1.8%

204 Brownfields Revitalization ............................................. EPA 162 163 1 0.6%

205 Public Water System Supervision Grant Program ......... EPA 98 99 1 1.0%

206 Adoption Opportunities .................................................. HHS 27 27 0 0.0%

207 Federal Employees Health Benefits ............................... OPM 32,126 34,625 2,499 7.8%

208 8(a) Business Development Program ............................ SBA 38 35 ¥3 ¥7.9%

209 Financial and Technical Assistance .............................. Treasury 35 0 ¥35 ¥100.0%

210 Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program: 

Yucca Mountain Project ............................................ DOE 495 544 49 9.9%

211 Workforce Investment Act—Dislocated Worker Assistance ........................................................................... DOL 1,200 976 ¥224 ¥18.7%

212 FAA Facilities and Equipment ....................................... DOT 2,555 2,503 ¥52 ¥2.0%

213 Education—State Assessment Grants .......................... ED 400 400 0 0.0%

214 Magnet Schools .............................................................. ED 107 107 0 0.0%

215 Projects with Industry for People with Disabilities ....... ED 20 0 ¥20 ¥100.0%

216 Troops-to-Teachers ......................................................... ED 15 15 0 0.0%

217 Adoption Incentives ........................................................ HHS 18 30 12 66.7%

218 Nursing Education Loan Repayment and Scholarship 

Program ..................................................................... HHS 31 31 0 0.0%

219 New Markets Tax Credit ................................................. Treasury 8 8 0 0.0%

Total funding for Adequate programs1 ................ ................... 335,470 334,744 ¥726 ¥0.2%

1 Funding levels represent program level and include BA, obligations, user fees, loan levels, etc. as appropriate 

PART RATINGS AND PROGRAM FUNDING LEVELS

INEFFECTIVE PROGRAMS 

(Dollars in millions) 

Program Name Agency 2006 Enacted 

2007 

Budget 

Change from 2006

Dollars Percent 

1 EPA Pesticide Enforcement Grant Program ................... EPA 19 19 0 0.0%

2 Oil Technology ................................................................ DOE 32 0 ¥32 ¥100.0%

3 EPA Ecological Research ............................................... EPA 85 80 ¥5 ¥5.9%

4 Workforce Investment Act—Youth Activities ................ DOL 951 851 ¥100 ¥10.5%

5 Trade Adjustment Assistance ........................................ DOL 966 939 ¥27 ¥2.8%

6 Internal Revenue Service Earned Income Tax Credit 

Compliance ................................................................ Treasury 167 168 1 0.6%

7 Natural Gas Technology ................................................. DOE 33 0 ¥33 ¥100.0%

8 Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block 

Grant .......................................................................... HHS 1,759 1,759 0 0.0%

9 TRIO Upward Bound ....................................................... ED 311 0 ¥311 ¥100.0%

10 HOPE VI (Severely Distressed Public Housing) ............. HUD 99 ¥99 ¥198 ¥200.0%

11 Health Professions ......................................................... HHS 295 159 ¥136 ¥46.1%

12 Gallaudet University ....................................................... ED 107 108 1 0.9%

13 Air Quality Grants and Permitting ................................. EPA 194 160 ¥34 ¥17.5%

14 Workforce Investment Act—Migrant and Seasonal 

Farmworkers .............................................................. DOL 81 2 ¥79 ¥97.5%

15 Project-Based Rental Assistance ................................... HUD 5,037 5,676 639 12.7%

16 Healthy Community Access Program ............................. HHS 0 0 0 0.0%

17 State Planning Grant Program ...................................... HHS 0 0 0 0.0%

21

PART RATINGS AND PROGRAM FUNDING LEVELS

INEFFECTIVE PROGRAMS—Continued

(Dollars in millions) 

Program Name Agency 2006 Enacted 

2007 

Budget 

Change from 2006

Dollars Percent 

18 Rural Housing and Economic Development .................. HUD 17 0 ¥17 ¥100.0%

19 Alaska Native Village Water Infrastructure ................... EPA 34 15 ¥19 ¥55.9%

20 Community Development Block Grant (Formula) .......... HUD 3,248 2,975 ¥273 ¥8.4%

21 AmeriCorps National Civilian Community Corps ........... CNCS 27 5 ¥22 ¥81.5%

22 Even Start ...................................................................... ED 99 0 ¥99 ¥100.0%

23 Community Service Employment for Older Americans .. DOL 432 388 ¥44 ¥10.2%

24 Safe and Drug Free Schools State Grants .................... ED 347 0 ¥347 ¥100.0%

25 Juvenile Accountability Block Grants ............................ DOJ 49 0 ¥49 ¥100.0%

26 Amtrak ............................................................................ DOT 1,294 900 ¥394 ¥30.4%

27 Vocational Education State Grants ............................... ED 1,182 0 ¥1,182 ¥100.0%

28 Federal Perkins Loans .................................................... ED 65 0 ¥65 ¥100.0%

Total funding for Ineffective programs1 .............. ................... 16,930 14,105 ¥2,825 ¥16.7%

1 Funding levels represent program level and include BA, obligations, user fees, loan levels, etc. as appropriate 

PART RATINGS AND PROGRAM FUNDING LEVELS

RESULTS NOT DEMONSTRATED PROGRAMS 

(Dollars in millions) 

Program Name Agency 2006 Enacted 

2007 

Budget 

Change from 2006

Dollars Percent 

1 Enforcement of Commodity Futures and Options Markets ............................................................................ CFTC 27 27 0 0.0%

2 Credit Union Loan and Technical Assistance Grant 

Program ..................................................................... NCUA 13 13 0 0.0%

3 Consumer Product Safety Commission ......................... CPSC 62 62 0 0.0%

4 Office of Surface Mining—State Managed Regulation 

of Surface Coal Mining ............................................. DOI 70 72 2 2.9%

5 Office of Surface Mining—State Managed Abandoned 

Coal Mine Land Reclamation .................................... DOI 152 151 ¥1 ¥0.7%

6 Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS ............... HUD 286 300 14 4.9%

7 Energy Information Administration ................................ DOE 86 91 5 5.8%

8 Drug Courts .................................................................... DOJ 10 69 59 590.0%

9 Flood Damage Reduction ............................................... Corps 1,492 1,197 ¥295 ¥19.8%

10 Natural Resources Conservation Service: National Resources Inventory ....................................................... USDA 0 0 0 0.0%

11 Border Patrol .................................................................. DHS 1,847 1,862 15 0.8%

12 Coast Guard: Aids to Navigation ................................... DHS 1,095 1,062 ¥33 ¥3.0%

13 Marine Corps Expeditionary Warfare ............................. DOD 10,223 9,234 ¥989 ¥9.7%

14 Agriculture Marketing Service—Research and Promotion Programs ....................................................... USDA 3 3 0 0.0%

15 Securities and Exchange Commission—Enforcement .. SEC 286 292 6 2.1%

16 Securities and Exchange Commission—Full Disclosure 

Program (Corporate Review) ..................................... SEC 74 75 1 1.4%

17 Coast Guard: Search and Rescue ................................. DHS 886 880 ¥6 ¥0.7%

18 Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia .. DC 30 32 2 6.7%

19 Office of Surface Mining—Federal Managed Regulation of Surface Coal Mining ...................................... DOI 67 67 0 0.0%

20 National School Lunch ................................................... USDA 7,415 7,667 252 3.4%

21 Fair Housing Initiatives Program ................................... HUD 26 20 ¥6 ¥23.1%

22 Forest Service: Invasive Species Program ..................... USDA 166 165 ¥1 ¥0.6%

23 Economic and Trade Sanctions Program—Office of 

Foreign Assets Control .............................................. Treasury 22 23 1 4.5%

24 Mentoring Children of Prisoners .................................... HHS 50 40 ¥10 ¥20.0%

25 Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program ............................. USDA 43 55 12 27.9%

26 African Development Fund ............................................. Treasury 134 136 2 1.5%

27 Conservation Technical Assistance ............................... USDA 723 643 ¥80 ¥11.1%

22

PART RATINGS AND PROGRAM FUNDING LEVELS

RESULTS NOT DEMONSTRATED PROGRAMS—Continued

(Dollars in millions) 

Program Name Agency 2006 Enacted 

2007 

Budget 

Change from 2006

Dollars Percent 

28 Fish and Wildlife Service—Migratory Bird Management and Conservation ............................................. DOI 124 132 8 6.5%

29 Community Facilities Program ...................................... USDA 550 522 ¥28 ¥5.1%

30 GSA—National Information Technology Solutions ........ GSA 6,782 6,401 ¥381 ¥5.6%

31 Tropical Forest Conservation Act ................................... Treasury 20 * * *

32 Emergency Watershed Protection Program .................... USDA 300 0 ¥300 ¥100.0%

33 Rural Business Enterprise Grant Program .................... USDA 40 0 ¥40 ¥100.0%

34 Montgomery GI Bill- Veterans Education Benefits ........ VA 1,982 2,041 59 3.0%

35 Inland Waterways Navigation ........................................ Corps 934 871 ¥63 ¥6.7%

36 Transportation Security Administration: Screener Workforce ........................................................................... DHS 2,529 2,618 89 3.5%

37 Minerals Management Service—Minerals Revenue 

Management .............................................................. DOI 78 79 1 1.3%

38 Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion ..... HHS 7 7 0 0.0%

39 Dairy Payment Program ................................................. USDA 500 50 ¥450 ¥90.0%

40 Coast Guard: Drug Interdiction ..................................... DHS 1,219 1,240 21 1.7%

41 Bureau of Reclamation—Rural Water Supply Projects DOI 79 66 ¥13 ¥16.5%

42 GSA—Regional Information Technology Solutions ........ GSA 0 0 0 0.0%

43 Defense Communications Infrastructure ....................... DOD 3,820 3,760 ¥60 ¥1.6%

44 Department of the Interior—Wildland Fire Management .......................................................................... DOI 755 770 15 2.0%

45 Developing Hispanic-serving Institutions ...................... ED 95 95 0 0.0%

46 Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and Universities .......................................................................... ED 238 238 0 0.0%

47 Strengthening Historically Black Graduate Institutions ED 58 58 0 0.0%

48 Federal Election Laws—Compliance and Enforcement FEC 21 23 2 9.5%

49 Asian Development Fund ............................................... State 99 115 16 16.2%

50 Food and Nutrition Service—Child and Adult Care 

Food Program ............................................................ USDA 2,159 2,274 115 5.3%

51 Science and Technology: Threat and Vulnerability, 

Testing and Assessment ........................................... DHS 40 40 0 0.0%

52 International Trade Administration: Import Administration ............................................................................ DOC 61 61 0 0.0%

53 Partnership for Advancing Technology in Housing ....... HUD 5 0 ¥5 ¥100.0%

54 Rural Distance Learning and Telemedicine Loan and 

Grant Program ........................................................... USDA 50 25 ¥25 ¥50.0%

55 Afghanistan Health Initiative ........................................ HHS 6 6 0 0.0%

56 Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control .......................... HHS 320 160 ¥160 ¥50.0%

57 Bank Enterprise Award .................................................. Treasury 12 0 ¥12 ¥100.0%

58 Internal Revenue Service Tax Collection ....................... Treasury 2,106 2,131 25 1.2%

59 Enhancing Education Through Technology .................... ED 272 0 ¥272 ¥100.0%

60 National Archives and Records Administration: Electronic Records Services ............................................. NARA 38 45 7 18.4%

61 International Information Programs .............................. State 53 62 9 17.0%

62 Rural Business-Cooperative Service Value-Added Producer Grants .............................................................. USDA 21 20 ¥1 ¥4.8%

63 National Nuclear Infrastructure ..................................... DOE 98 97 ¥1 ¥1.0%

64 State Energy Programs .................................................. DOE 36 49 13 36.1%

65 Fish and Wildlife Service—National Wildlife Refuge 

System ....................................................................... DOI 386 382 ¥4 ¥1.0%

66 Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention ................... HHS 42 42 0 0.0%

67 Public Diplomacy ........................................................... State 703 762 59 8.4%

68 Transportation Security Administration: Air Cargo Security Programs ......................................................... DHS 44 40 ¥4 ¥9.1%

69 Bureau of Indian Affairs—K-12 School Construction .. DOI 207 157 ¥50 ¥24.2%

70 Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need .......... ED 30 30 0 0.0%

71 Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Grants ............ HHS 27 27 0 0.0%

72 United States-Mexico Border Health Commission ......... HHS 4 4 0 0.0%

73 Global Environment Facility ........................................... Treasury 79 56 ¥23 ¥29.1%

74 USDA Wildland Fire Management .................................. USDA 1,646 1,676 30 1.8%

23

PART RATINGS AND PROGRAM FUNDING LEVELS

RESULTS NOT DEMONSTRATED PROGRAMS—Continued

(Dollars in millions) 

Program Name Agency 2006 Enacted 

2007 

Budget 

Change from 2006

Dollars Percent 

75 Coastal Storm Damage Reduction ................................ Corps 113 53 ¥60 ¥53.1%

76 Fish and Wildlife Service—Wildlife and Sport Fish 

Restoration ................................................................ DOI 717 800 83 11.6%

77 International Education Domestic Programs ................. ED 92 93 1 1.1%

78 CDC: State and Local Preparedness Grants ................. HHS 824 822 ¥2 ¥0.2%

79 Dairy Price Support Program ......................................... USDA 42 21 ¥21 ¥50.0%

80 Transportation Security Administration: Passenger 

Screening Technology ................................................ DHS 164 173 9 5.5%

81 Coastal Zone Management Act Programs ..................... DOC 109 98 ¥11 ¥10.1%

82 Department of Defense Training and Education Programs—Other Training and Education .................... DOD 1,271 1,291 20 1.6%

83 Preparedness Grants and Training Office State Homeland Security Grants ................................................. DHS 564 668 104 18.4%

84 Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund ......................... DOC 67 67 0 0.0%

85 Job Training Apprenticeship .......................................... DOL 21 21 0 0.0%

86 Child Care Access Means Parents in School ................ ED 16 16 0 0.0%

87 Education—Neglected and Delinquent State Agency 

Program ..................................................................... ED 50 50 0 0.0%

88 GSA—Office of Governmentwide Policy ........................ GSA 62 65 3 4.8%

89 GSA—Travel Management ............................................. GSA 14 15 1 7.1%

90 Head Start ...................................................................... HHS 6,876 6,786 ¥90 ¥1.3%

91 Office of Minority Health ............................................... HHS 57 47 ¥10 ¥17.5%

92 Minority Business Development Agency ........................ DOC 30 30 0 0.0%

93 Smaller Learning Communities ..................................... ED 94 0 ¥94 ¥100.0%

94 EPA Environmental Education ....................................... EPA 9 0 ¥9 ¥100.0%

95 Domestic HIV/AIDS Prevention ....................................... HHS 651 739 88 13.5%

96 National Bioterrorism Hospital Preparedness Program HHS 474 474 0 0.0%

97 Transportation Security Administration: Baggage 

Screening Technology ................................................ DHS 441 442 1 0.2%

98 Bureau of Reclamation—Water Management—Project 

Planning and Construction ....................................... DOI 222 175 ¥47 ¥21.2%

99 Community Oriented Policing Services .......................... DOJ 387 ¥23 ¥410 ¥105.9%

100 Federal Work-Study ........................................................ ED 980 980 0 0.0%

101 Physical Education Program .......................................... ED 73 26 ¥47 ¥64.4%

102 Ready to Learn Television .............................................. ED 24 24 0 0.0%

103 Mental Health Programs of Regional and National 

Significance ............................................................... HHS 263 228 ¥35 ¥13.3%

104 Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign ................................ ONDCP 99 120 21 21.2%

105 Transportation Security Administration: Federal Air 

Marshal Service ......................................................... DHS 686 699 13 1.9%

106 Bureau of Land Management—Land Use Planning ..... DOI 50 49 ¥1 ¥2.0%

107 Bureau of Land Management—Southern Nevada Land 

Sales .......................................................................... DOI 738 735 ¥3 ¥0.4%

108 Emergency Medical Services for Children ..................... HHS 20 0 ¥20 ¥100.0%

109 Family Violence Prevention and Services Program ....... HHS 129 0 ¥129 ¥100.0%

110 Runaway and Homeless Youth ...................................... HHS 103 103 0 0.0%

111 Transportation Security Administration: Aviation Regulation and Enforcement ............................................. DHS 221 218 ¥3 ¥1.4%

112 Transportation Security Administration: Flight Crew 

Training ..................................................................... DHS 30 30 0 0.0%

113 DOL—Women’s Bureau ................................................. DOL 10 9 ¥1 ¥10.0%

114 Impact Aid Basic Support Payments and Payments for 

Children with Disabilities .......................................... ED 1,141 1,141 0 0.0%

115 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas ........................... ONDCP 225 207 ¥18 ¥8.0%

116 Resource Conservation and Development ..................... USDA 51 26 ¥25 ¥49.0%

117 Residential Substance Abuse Treatment ...................... DOJ 9 0 ¥9 ¥100.0%

118 IDEA Special Education—Research and Innovation ..... ED 72 72 0 0.0%

119 GSA—Transportation Management ............................... GSA 23 23 0 0.0%

120 Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants ............. ED 771 771 0 0.0%

121 Teaching American History ............................................ ED 120 50 ¥70 ¥58.3%

24

PART RATINGS AND PROGRAM FUNDING LEVELS

RESULTS NOT DEMONSTRATED PROGRAMS—Continued

(Dollars in millions) 

Program Name Agency 2006 Enacted 

2007 

Budget 

Change from 2006

Dollars Percent 

122 Adolescent Family Life Program .................................... HHS 30 30 0 0.0%

123 Independent Living Program .......................................... HHS 140 140 0 0.0%

124 Immigration and Customs Enforcement: Automation 

Modernization Program .............................................. DHS 40 0 ¥40 ¥100.0%

125 Training and Advisory Services ..................................... ED 7 7 0 0.0%

126 Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program ............ HHS 2,162 2,782 620 28.7%

127 Bureau of Indian Affairs—Housing Improvement ........ DOI 28 28 0 0.0%

128 Bureau of Indian Affairs—Operation and Maintenance 

of Irrigation Projects ................................................. DOI 38 38 0 0.0%

129 College Assistance Migrant Program ............................ ED 15 15 0 0.0%

130 Office on Women’s Health ............................................. HHS 28 28 0 0.0%

131 Counterdrug Technology Transfer Program ................... ONDCP 16 0 ¥16 ¥100.0%

132 Adult Education State Grants ........................................ ED 564 564 0 0.0%

133 Traumatic Brain Injury ................................................... HHS 9 0 ¥9 ¥100.0%

134 FHA Multi-Family Mortgage Insurance .......................... HUD 309 316 7 2.3%

135 Counterdrug Research & Development ......................... ONDCP 14 10 ¥4 ¥28.6%

136 High School Equivalency Program ................................. ED 19 19 0 0.0%

137 IDEA Special Education—Parent Information Centers ED 26 26 0 0.0%

138 IDEA Special Education—Technical Assistance and 

Dissemination ............................................................ ED 49 49 0 0.0%

139 Teacher Quality Enhancement ....................................... ED 60 0 ¥60 ¥100.0%

140 Community Services Block Grant .................................. HHS 630 0 ¥630 ¥100.0%

141 Veterans Home Loans .................................................... VA 7,698 6,634 ¥1,064 ¥13.8%

142 Preparedness Grants and Training Office Assistance 

to Firefighters Grant Program ................................... DHS 648 293 ¥355 ¥54.8%

143 Bureau of Indian Affairs—Operation and Maintenance 

of Roads .................................................................... DOI 29 26 ¥3 ¥10.3%

144 Vocational Rehabilitation Demonstration and Training 

Programs ................................................................... ED 7 7 0 0.0%

145 Coast Guard: Polar Icebreaking Program ...................... DHS 85 89 4 4.7%

146 Independent Living for People with Disabilities ........... ED 98 98 0 0.0%

147 Pesticide Field Programs ............................................... EPA 37 38 1 2.7%

148 Commodity Purchase Services (Section 32) .................. USDA 1,416 907 ¥509 ¥35.9%

149 Delta Regional Authority ................................................ DRA 12 6 ¥6 ¥50.0%

150 Bureau of Land Management—Mining Law Administration ........................................................................ DOI 33 33 0 0.0%

151 IDEA Special Education Grants for Infants and Families ............................................................................. ED 436 436 0 0.0%

152 IDEA Special Education Personnel Preparation Grants ED 90 90 0 0.0%

153 The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) ....... USDA 196 190 ¥6 ¥3.1%

154 Comprehensive Regional Assistance Centers ............... ED 56 56 0 0.0%

155 Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership ........... ED 65 0 ¥65 ¥100.0%

156 Pollution Prevention and New Technologies Research .. EPA 26 21 ¥5 ¥19.2%

157 Native American Housing Block Grants ........................ HUD 622 624 2 0.3%

158 University Nuclear Education Programs ........................ DOE 27 0 ¥27 ¥100.0%

159 Bureau of Indian Affairs—Law Enforcement ............... DOI 193 202 9 4.7%

160 Prevailing Wage Determination Program ...................... DOL 10 10 0 0.0%

161 Multipurpose Law Enforcement Grants ......................... DOJ 517 0 ¥517 ¥100.0%

162 Assistive Technology Alternative Financing Program .... ED 4 0 ¥4 ¥100.0%

163 Public Housing ............................................................... HUD 6,003 5,742 ¥261 ¥4.3%

164 Commerce Small Business Innovation Research Program .......................................................................... DOC 8 7 ¥1 ¥12.5%

165 American Printing House for the Blind ......................... ED 18 18 0 0.0%

166 National Writing Project ................................................. ED 22 0 ¥22 ¥100.0%

167 Tech-Prep Education State Grants ................................ ED 105 0 ¥105 ¥100.0%

168 Tribally Controlled Postsecondary Vocational and Technical Institutions ....................................................... ED 7 7 0 0.0%

169 Preparedness Infrastructure Protection Cyber Security DHS 146 178 32 21.9%

170 National Park Service—Land and Water Conservation 

Fund State Grants ..................................................... DOI 30 2 ¥28 ¥93.3%

25

PART RATINGS AND PROGRAM FUNDING LEVELS

RESULTS NOT DEMONSTRATED PROGRAMS—Continued

(Dollars in millions) 

Program Name Agency 2006 Enacted 

2007 

Budget 

Change from 2006

Dollars Percent 

171 Commodity Supplemental Food Program ...................... USDA 111 0 ¥111 ¥100.0%

172 Fish and Wildlife Service—Endangered Species .......... DOI 330 330 0 0.0%

173 Parental Information and Resource Centers ................. ED 40 0 ¥40 ¥100.0%

174 Social Services Block Grant ........................................... HHS 1,700 1,200 ¥500 ¥29.4%

175 Housing for Persons with Disabilities ........................... HUD 239 119 ¥120 ¥50.2%

176 Housing for the Elderly .................................................. HUD 742 546 ¥196 ¥26.4%

177 Defense Small Business Innovation Research/Technology Transfer .......................................................... DOD 1,264 1,282 18 1.4%

178 B.J. Stupak Olympic scholarships ................................. ED 1 0 ¥1 ¥100.0%

179 Byrd Honors Scholarships .............................................. ED 41 0 ¥41 ¥100.0%

180 States Grants for Occupational and Employment Information ....................................................................... ED 0 0 0 0.0%

181 Universal Service Fund High Cost ................................. FCC 3,982 4,367 385 9.7%

182 Impact Aid Payments for Federal Property ................... ED 64 64 0 0.0%

183 IDEA Special Education Preschool Grants ..................... ED 766 766 0 0.0%

184 Universal Service Fund E-Rate ...................................... FCC 2,274 2,405 131 5.8%

185 State Criminal Alien Assistance Program ..................... DOJ 400 0 ¥400 ¥100.0%

186 Education State Grants for Innovative Programs ......... ED 99 99 0 0.0%

187 Veterans Disability Compensation ................................. VA 30,970 35,012 4,042 13.1%

188 Department of the Interior—Land and Water Conservation Fund Land Acquisition .............................. DOI 103 112 9 8.7%

189 National Park Service—Heritage Partnership ............... DOI 13 7 ¥6 ¥46.2%

190 Bureau of Indian Affairs—Tribal Courts ...................... DOI 12 12 0 0.0%

191 Health Care Facilities Construction and Other Miscellaneous Congressional Earmarks ......................... HHS 0 0 0 0.0%

Total funding for Results Not Demonstrated programs1 ....................................................................... ................... 139,147 135,991 ¥3,156 ¥2.3%

1 Funding levels represent program level and include BA, obligations, user fees, loan levels, etc. as appropriate.

*Tropical Forest Conservation Act Funding for 2007 will be provided within the amount appropriated for debt relief based on the program’s 

ability to demonstrate results in 2006. 

**US AID Climate Change Program Funding is included in other programs reported separately. Total funding for this activity was $189 in 

FY 05, $162 in FY 06, and to be determined for FY 07. 

Chairman NUSSLE. Thank you, Director Johnson. 

Since you have invited us to talk about results and outcomes, let 

me focus on two that are in the news. One is, as I referred to, the 

what appears to be thousands of trailers on a runway in Hope, AR, 

after Congress very expeditiously and generously provided $62 billion for hurricane victims. 

And let me start by asking what is the role of OMB in a situation 

like that? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, there is the role of OMB and then there is 

specifically my role. I am the Chair of the PCIE (President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency) and the ECIE (Executive Council on 

Integrity and Efficiency), which are the two Inspector General’s 

(IG) groups. So I have worked with Rick Skinner as he took to organize all the IGs related to Katrina and bring a government-wide 

approach to Katrina. 

And I personally worked with the Department of Homeland Security initially and then with the Corps of Engineers, the agencies 

that were involved in responding to Katrina, to develop stewardship plans for how they were going to make sure that we were 

spending money on real needs and when we obligated to spend 

some money, we actually get what we paid for. 

26

Chairman NUSSLE. Well, why were they purchased? Why were 

these trailers purchased? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I don’t know the particulars of the trailers. I do 

know that there was a commitment made in the very early stages 

of a hundred thousand or so trailers. And as Rick Skinner will say, 

in those first 72 hours of a disaster, which I think is when these 

commitments were made, in that very few first few days, there was 

very few facts. You are dealing with assumptions and extrapolations and estimates. And a bad estimate was made, as I understand it, of how many trailers they needed. The question I would 

ask is, why did they believe they had to commit, formally commit 

to those trailers in that first 72 hours? 

One of the things that we did in this whole stewardship process 

was to go back into all the obligations that were made in that first 

week, which is when you have very few facts to go on, all the obligations that were made and were there obligations that you could 

lessen, recompete the contract to get a better price, or change the 

delivery dates. And all those situations where we were able to do 

that, we took that action. 

And I do not know the particulars of the trailers, but the assumption I can make, only from just reading is that we own them 

and do not need them, is that we were not able to decrease the contractual obligation for those trailers. 

Chairman NUSSLE. Well, I do not represent a gulf area. I maybe 

should defer to somebody who does. But I cannot believe everybody 

who needs a home has got a home yet. So I mean, I will just tell 

you, this is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever seen. 

So I understand Inspector Generals get together and they look at 

this and they try and figure out what went wrong and all of that, 

but does anyone call to somebody and say, guys, move the trailers 

to the gulf, get them to people who are living in tents still as I understand it? My understanding is people are still living in tents. 

Mr. JOHNSON. That would be Homeland Security Council, I believe. OMB——

Chairman NUSSLE. OMB does not give that kind of direction. 

Mr. JOHNSON. No, sir. 

Chairman NUSSLE. That is what I was asking about the role. 

Mr. JOHNSON. No, sir. 

Chairman NUSSLE. You do not have a role in that? 

Mr. JOHNSON. [Shakes head negatively.] 

Chairman NUSSLE. So each and every agency and department 

has their own authority outside of OMB to make these decisions 

and OMB’s role is to gather the IGs afterwards and find out if—

I mean, I am just trying to understand this. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yeah. OMB has no formal role over the IGs. I do 

as the Deputy Director for Management. We create mechanisms 

whereby agencies are held accountable for the money they spend. 

Chairman NUSSLE. All right. Well, how much was spent for these 

trailers? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I do not know. But I would be glad to get back to 

you with that information and answer this and any other question 

you have about them. But I just do not have that information. 

[The information requested follows:]

27

Answer: The 9,993 units now staged in Hope, Arkansas will cost FEMA an estimated $677 million, factoring in both their purchase cost (about $27,000 each) and 

the distributed cost of various support contracts (about $41,000 each).

Chairman NUSSLE. Well, we are ready to vote on another supplemental. And I got to tell you that, you know, we tried to reduce 

discretionary spending last year, and we did it. I mean, we got that 

done. 

But on 60 Minutes, there was a—I believe the company’s name 

was Custer Battles which spent $2.5 billion on a contract in Iraq 

out of defense budget which everybody comes screaming in here 

every year saying we need more for defense, more for defense, more 

defense. 

I am the guy who said we ought to start planning for it and putting it into the budget. And you all thankfully have at least done 

that this year, but $2.5 billion—that is pretty darn close to the entire budget for the State of Iowa—to one contractor who according 

to the people that are watching this over there says that it was 

borderline incompetent behavior. 

So, you know, we have got a real problem on the accountability 

side, and it is not just the programmatic. My guess is that if you 

log onto this Web site, you will not find those two instances anywhere on the Web site. 

Mr. JOHNSON. There is a Web site for FEMA, but there is not one 

for trailer purchasing for Katrina. There is not. 

Chairman NUSSLE. Of course not, I do not know why they would. 

I mean, my point is that I think it is great that we are now tracking these programs, but there is an unbelievable and indefensible 

amount of resources that are still falling off the table and being 

wasted inappropriately. 

Mr. JOHNSON. To add to that comment, the Federal Government 

makes incorrect payments, improper payments each year to the 

tune of $45 billion per year. 

Chairman NUSSLE. Incorrect payments to whom? 

Mr. JOHNSON. To somebody that we are not sure is supposed to 

get it. 

Chairman NUSSLE. These are individuals? These are companies? 

These are for contracts? These are soup to nuts? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. 

Chairman NUSSLE. That is the total amount of——

Mr. JOHNSON. Forty-five billion dollars a year. The universe of 

programs that are most susceptible to improper payments, because 

some decision has to be made about who qualifies for a benefit or 

is this the right amount for this contract, it is like $1.4 trillion. 

And the error on that $1.4 trillion based of audits of accurate and 

inaccurate payments, proper, improper payments is about 3.8 or 

3.9 percent. A 3.8 or 3.9 percent error rate sounds pretty low except it equates to $45 billion. 

Now, our goal is—and the purchase of——

Chairman NUSSLE. Billion. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Billion. 

Chairman NUSSLE. B, billion. 

Mr. JOHNSON. This is not hidden. This is in our financial reports 

to you all. This past year, for instance, the purchase of the delivery 

of benefits to Katrina victims that were unauthorized, somebody 

28

that had a fake Social Security number or whatever, that is an improper payment. 

The buying a trailer that we did not need, that is an improper 

purchase. That is not an improper payment, but that is an improper purchase. But the error rate is 3-point-something percent, 

that should be zero. 

This past year, for instance, efforts were taken to, for the first 

time, consistently across the government to reduce improper payments. That number, $45 billion, was reduced 17 percent, $7.8 billion. That still means that there is $37 billion in improper payments. 

So we have a long way to go to make sure that we are spending 

every dollar on a real need and that we are getting what we pay 

for. There are lots of indicators that suggest that we do not always 

spend our money where the need is and that when we spend it, we 

do not always get what we contracted for. 

And all I can tell you is we are better at it today than we were 

last year, and we are better last year than the year before. However, we have a good ways to go still. 

Chairman NUSSLE. We have votes on the floor. Let me yield to 

Mr. Spratt for time he would like to consume at this point. 

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Johnson, I want to go back to a point that I 

made in my opening statement, namely that there is a bewildering 

pattern of what gets approved and what does not get approved. It 

does not seem to correlate completely with the PART assessment. 

For example, I gave an issue for proliferation prevention and the 

gravity of the threat, that is nuclear terrorism. It got an effective 

PART rating, but the budget eliminated all funding for it. Can you 

explain that? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I do not know the particulars of that program, but 

I would be glad to get back to you and will do that. I do have a 

couple of examples of one that was rated effective that is recommended. Similar situation, but it is not that particular program. 

It might be illustrative. 

[The information requested follows:]

Answer: Funding for the ‘‘Global Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention’’ was not 

eliminated but the program was shifted in FY2007 to a different organization within 

NNSA. The Administration has not proposed to reduce any of the NNSA nonproliferation efforts.

Mr. SPRATT. Public Diplomacy, State Department, I believe that 

is Secretary Hughes, Karen Hughes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. 

Mr. SPRATT. Rating results not demonstrated, but it was approved, fully funded notwithstanding that rating? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. They are not able to demonstrate the outcomes that are resulting from their public diplomacy efforts. We 

know what is important. We know we have to become more results 

oriented. 

If you might, let me give you two examples——

Mr. SPRATT. Sure. 

Mr. JOHNSON [continuing]. That, I think, touch on this. And then 

I can get back to you with a response to those two specific programs. 

29

There is a program called Gear Up in the Education Department 

that is rated adequate. And it is an attempt to encourage students 

to take more challenging courses to better prepare them for college. 

It is rated——

Mr. SPRATT. Trio and Gear Up are companion programs——

Mr. JOHNSON. I am sorry? 

Mr. SPRATT. Trio and Gear Up are companion programs to take 

kids from families that have not been college bound, college oriented in the past, and to help them make curriculum choices and 

college choices and find financing and do things that is otherwise 

Greek to them. Two good programs——

Mr. JOHNSON. Right. 

Mr. SPRATT [continuing]. Just based on my personal observations 

in my——

Mr. JOHNSON. Right. 

Mr. SPRATT [continuing]. Because I come from a district with lots 

of kids like that. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Right. That has been proposed for termination, 

and the reason is—it is an effective program, but we believe that 

the administration’s High School Reform Initiative deals with that 

aspect and other aspects and will be a more effective results-oriented way to deal with that and related issues. 

So it is not that we do not believe that the goal is not worthwhile, but that there is an even more effective way of accomplishing that goal. So you do not need to have duplicative programs. We are proposing that you terminate one and replace it 

with one that dealt with that and other matters. 

There is a program, the project-based——

Mr. SPRATT. The budget cuts education by $2.2 billion and it 

eliminates 42 other programs, some of which have related purposes, in order to save $4.1 billion. How do you fund this alternate 

or substitute program with a budget that is shrinking? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I do not have the particulars on that, but I would 

be glad to get back to you on the particulars of the High School 

Initiative. 

[The information requested follows:]

Answer: The Administration proposes to consolidate funding from the seven narrow purpose programs that support a particular high school intervention strategy 

and to redirect it to the President’s High School Reform program. While such programs were intended to support promising educational approaches, most lack strong 

accountability mechanisms and have largely failed to demonstrate measurable results despite decades and billions of dollars of investment. 

Furthermore, because the Federal Government sets annual spending levels for 

each of these programs, States and school districts do not have the flexibility and 

control to allocate funds to activities they determine will best meet the needs of atrisk students. 

These programs would be replaced by the new $1.5 billion High School Reform 

program which will provide States with flexible funding to support a wide range of 

effective interventions. In return for this flexibility, States would be held accountable for improving student achievement and graduation rates. These new initiatives 

would augment new or expanded high school activities that are being proposed by 

the President, including $100 million for Striving Readers and $380 million in new 

funding for programs that are part of America’s Competitiveness Initiative. 

The strategies supported by the existing programs—vocational training, mentoring, and partnerships with institutions of higher education to prepare students 

for college—would be allowable activities under the new High School Reform program. The Administration expects that States and localities would continue those 

projects supported under existing programs if the projects are performing effectively 

30

and reaching students who need them most. During the initial years of the program, 

the Administration would honor its commitment to fund multi-year continuation 

awards under the current programs.

Mr. SPRATT. We would appreciate it. And, once again, it is no reflection on you. I respect what you are doing. 

I worked once with the Defense Comptroller in a similar effort 

to establish something called a Selected Acquisition Report, which 

is woefully inadequate for the job. We are talking about small potatoes right now compared to military procurement. The investment 

accounts at DOD are running $125 billion for research, development, procurement, production. 

And do you feel that you have an adequate baseline, for example, 

with respect to those programs against which to measure cost, performance, and schedule? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I do not know the particulars of those specific programs. I hate to keep answering your questions that way, and I 

know it must be frustrating for you. 

But I know for all programs, we do have, because we insist on 

it—and if they do not have it, their rated results not demonstrated—we require all programs to have a clear definition, a 

measurable definition of what the desired goal is and what the desired cost level is for the money that they are being given to spend 

each year. 

And when we first started rating programs in 2002, only 45 percent of the programs could demonstrate that they were performing; 

55 percent were either rated ineffective or they could not demonstrate a result. Today that number is 70 percent. So there is 

more attention today than in 2002 being paid to——

Mr. SPRATT. One quick question. We will come back to it. International Affairs gets a $3 billion increase this year, and that is 

more than 10 percent. Sticks out as a spike in the budget which 

otherwise is pretty stingy with allocation for new money. 

Three billion dollars, are you seeing that kind of performance 

justification in international aid programs and the International 

Affairs Program? 

[The information requested follows:]

Answer: The 2007 Budget requests a large percentage increase for international 

affairs programs because 2007 represents a critical year for American foreign policy. 

The largest proposed increases are targeted to programs that will greatly expand 

the number of people who receive life-saving treatment for HIV/AIDS; help strengthen the democratic government in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere; or will help 

countries with good governing practices grow their way out of poverty through the 

Millennium Challenge Account. (These initiatives account for over three-fourths of 

the proposed increase in international affairs funding.) 

Nearly $1 billion of the proposed increase is for the President’s Emergency Plan 

for AIDS Relief, which is achieving measurable results and saving lives. In 2003, 

only 50,000 people in sub-Saharan Africa received treatment. With 2007 funding, 

the number of people receiving life-saving treatment in Africa and the Caribbean 

focus countries will increase from over 400,000 supported by the program in FY 

2005 to 1.3 million. This Budget will keep us on track to reach the President’s goals 

supporting lifesaving treatment for 2 million persons, prevention of 7 million new 

HIV infections, and care for 10 million persons infected or affected by this disease 

after 5 years of funding. The Budget also includes funds to fight malaria in Africa 

and around the world and to build global capacity to prevent and respond to a potential influenza pandemic. 

Another $1.2 billion of the proposed increase is for the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), which expects to approve a total of 21 transformational Compacts 

by the end of 2007 totaling up to $6 billion. MCC has already achieved results and 

encouraged countries to adopt political and economic reforms. MCC is expected to 

31

have even more positive and transformational results when disbursements increase 

significantly in FY 2006 and FY 2007 as the first group of signed compacts move 

beyond the initial implementation stage. To sustain results, Compacts need to be 

large enough to have a transformational impact. The proposed increases also includes $771 million to transition U.S. assistance to 

Iraq from the large scale approach that was needed to quickly repair 20 years of 

neglect to a ‘‘capacity-building’’ approach that will help Iraqis build and sustain a 

democratic society and healthy economy. This budget request is closely linked with 

the President’s National Strategy for Victory in Iraq, helping Iraqis defeat the terrorists and rebuild their nation.

Mr. JOHNSON. Again, I am not familiar with the specifics of that 

program. I apologize. 

Mr. SPRATT. Well, we will come back. 

Thank you very, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman NUSSLE. Mr. Spratt, I am told there are two votes on 

the floor now, this one and then followed, we believe, by another 

vote. So we will recess and then come back after that second vote. 

Thank you, Mr. Johnson. 

We’ll stand at recess. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman NUSSLE. The Budget Committee will resume. I believe 

when we left off, Mr. Spratt was in the middle of his questions. Let 

me return to Mr. Spratt for any more time he wishes to consume. 

Mr. SPRATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Johnson and I were talking during the recess. And the question I was about to ask him, I will ask him so he can give me the 

answer he gave me off the record. And that is one would expect if 

this system is working that as you look through the budget, some 

rational pattern will begin to emerge. Namely you would see those 

things that were scored well and highly by PART getting funded, 

maintained, even increased, and those things that were not getting 

decreased. 

I do not see that pattern here because as I look through it, part 

of the problem is I do not know what the PART’s scores is, but I 

see programs that in my own experience I regard as highly effective. 

I will give you an example, the Economic Development Administration. The administration frequently wants us to cut it out. Every 

time it goes to the floor, there are 435 members, 400 of whom have 

seen its positive results in their district and they rise up in support 

of the program, last year CDBG was to some extent the same way. 

But where is the rational pattern, the correlation between your 

PART assessment and budget funding? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Two answers, two aspects to the answer to that 

question. One of them is, the greatest use of the program assessment is to improve program performance. A secondary use of the 

information is to inform the budget and appropriation decision. 

We cannot hold program managers accountable for improving the 

performance of their program every year unless we have clear definitions of what their performance and financial and cost goals are. 

And until they have laid out for us what their program performance plan is, we cannot hold them accountable for achieving desired goals if they cannot define them. 

So the primary purpose of this is to let us cause programs to 

work better. A secondary purpose, but very important, is to inform 

what you all do here and what the appropriators do. There is a 

32

general correlation. The programs that were rated ineffective in the 

2007 budget, we are proposing—there are 28 of those programs—

the sum of all those budget proposals is minus 16.7 percent 2007 

versus 2006. 

The programs rated results not demonstrated, there is a minus 

2. something percent 2007 to 2006 budget. Some of those programs 

might work. Some of them do not work. We just cannot demonstrate whether they work or not, and they are working on it. 

The programs that are rated effective have a zero percent increase. The programs that are rated moderately effective have a 

plus 2.2 percent. Programs rated adequate have a minus .2 percent. 

There is a general correlation, but there is nothing that happens 

automatically as a result of programs assessment. It is one of many 

factors. Priorities are another factor, and buplication is another factor. There are several things that go into the decision about what 

the budget proposal ought to be. 

In some cases, we propose additional funding because we need to 

build extra safeguards in, extra quality control, extra compliance 

activities that will give us the return on the investment that we 

believe is possible. 

Mr. SPRATT. Well, let me give you an example. When we had the 

debate on the floor just weeks ago about stiffer sanctions and penalties for immigration, one of the arguments raised was that even 

if you have stiffer sanctions, you do not have the personnel, border 

patrol, immigration and customs enforcement, and the elsewhere to 

implement and carry these out. So you are putting the cart before 

the horse. You need people out there who will actually implement 

the rather stiff and rigid rules we have got already. 

The typical response to that amongst those who were supporting 

the bill was, what we want to do is enlist the support of State and 

local law enforcement, engage them along with the border patrol 

and the customs and others in the process of enforcing immigration 

law. 

As I understand it, the chief program for that purpose in the Justice Department is the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program—

it is zeroed out completely. One week we hear this argument on the 

House floor, part of the passage of a big, major initiative in immigration law toughening. The next week we get the budget and the 

principal account that would fund what they are touting is gone altogether. 

How did a program of that apparent importance get zeroed out 

altogether? Do you have any idea? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I do not on that particular program. Again, I 

apologize. 

[The information requested follows:]

Answer: The 2007 Budget proposes to terminate SCAAP. Due to SCAAP’s lack of 

adequate goals and performance measures and the fact that it can not demonstrate 

results, as well as other Federal efforts to strengthen immigration enforcement, the 

Administration proposes to reallocate funding to other priority needs such as Federal counterterrorism, immigration enforcement, and other efforts.

But what we are able to do now, I believe, that we were not able 

to do 5 years ago is to take immigration, whatever the issue is, and 

define specifically what the definition of success is. What are our 

goals? How do we measure success, the turnaround time, catching 

33

the bad guys, incident rates? What are we trying to accomplish? 

What are our plans for accomplishing that? What sort of resources 

are we devoting to accomplishing that? So we do not get into philosophical arguments or $1 billion sounds like more than $900 million. We can talk about our resources and our commitments and our accountabilities are relative 

to what we are trying to accomplish. Therefore, it is a more intelligent, professional, results-oriented conversation as a result of 

having this information. 

Mr. SPRATT. Well, let us take education. The President touted 

that particularly math and science education in the State of the 

Union message. The budget he sent up shortly thereafter cuts education by $2.1 billion overall. It is way short, $15 billion below 

what was represented as the authorized level for No Child Left Behind. Forty-two programs are eliminated. 

Did you find 42 programs in education that did not pass muster, 

that did not have a positive assessment rating? 

Mr. JOHNSON. As I mentioned earlier, a reason why we recommend that programs be eliminated is some are due to performance, some due to duplication, some due to the fact that there is 

a better solution, we believe, a new program that will replace the 

program that was already there. There are many——

Mr. SPRATT. Well, 42 programs is the better part of the universe 

of all of the education programs after Title 1, Elementary, and 

Education——

Mr. JOHNSON. Education is full of a large number of very small 

dollar programs. I do not know what the dollar value of those program elimination proposals are, but there are a lot of small programs. 

Mr. SPRATT. Let us take Head Start, a successful program. You 

hardly have to argue for it because everybody knows whom it affects and helps, and they have seen the results themselves. And, 

furthermore, we have had various outside consultants over the 

years like Mathematica come look at and say you are getting a 

positive return on your money. Down the road, there was some 

speculation years ago that it washed out by third or fourth grade. 

But, nevertheless, it certainly helped these kids over the threshold 

into the first and second grade. 

It has not been too long ago when this Committee said we are 

going to balance the budget, but there are a few things we are 

going to squirrel away and protect. Head Start was one of them. 

This year Head Start is frozen. 

Do you know if you found that Head Start was not worthy of any 

increase at all, even though it only reaches maybe 50, 60 percent 

of the eligible kids? 

Mr. JOHNSON. What I understand of the assessment of the Head 

Start Program showed is it is rated results not demonstrated. They 

are not able to demonstrate quantifiably the impact that they have 

on the target population. There was a lot of anecdotal information, 

but they are not able to demonstrate tangible impact. 

So the challenge there is to go out and better understand and 

better define the desired outcomes and be able to measure them. 

We talked when I was in here the last time about CDBG and because there was another venue, there was a lot of conversation 

34

about what the funding for that ought to be and whether they all 

ought to be combined and moved to Commerce and so forth. And 

that is also a program where a lot of Members of Congress like 

that program, CDBG. One of the reasons is a lot of them used to 

be mayors and it is a lot of no-strings-attached money. And there 

were some knowing smiles, I think, in this panel when we talked 

about that. 

But meanwhile, it is difficult to quantify that they are having the 

desired impact, creating economic vitality where it would not otherwise exist. And that is what the program is designed to do. 

So anecdotal evidence is better than no evidence, but we want, 

with all these programs, to be able to go beyond the anecdotes and 

be able to say we are taking measurements and here is, in fact, the 

impact that it is having. 

Mr. SPRATT. Two more questions and then I will turn it over to 

others. I am using more than my fair share. 

But defense. Do you feel that you have an adequate grasp of defense programs, the investment programs, R&D, and production, 

procurement programs? 

With the PART system that you have in place now or are developing, are you able to baseline the initial representations as to cost, 

performance, and schedule and then track them quarter by quarter 

or year by year as the system progresses? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I do not have the details. I would bet we do not 

have it to your or our satisfaction. Some programs are very difficult 

to measure that the Federal Government is involved in. Research 

and development are some of the more difficult ones. Buying large 

weapon systems——

Mr. SPRATT. Well, typically, DOD will not draw you a baseline 

until they are well along in R&D, to engineering and development. 

Then they can define the cost much better. So they win that argument. They get a postponement of the commitment to their specifications until they put them down in engineering form. 

Mr. JOHNSON. They are not the only ones that are not doing as 

well as we all would like. As I mentioned earlier, we spend a lot 

of money, and every dollar we spend, we are buying something. 

Whether we are buying a weapon system, a better-educated child, 

or we are buying a new computer system. We are particularly bad 

in investing money in new computer systems, and the more money 

we spend, the worse we are at it. 

A reason why we wasted a lot of money at FBI with their Case 

Management System was they never defined up front what it was, 

the functionality, what we were trying to do with this new Case 

Management System. If we are not—this is to your point about 

weapon systems—if we are not clear at the outset, disciplined and 

knowledgeable and clear at the outset about what we are trying to 

do, we are going to make a bad purchase decision. 

Mr. SPRATT. Take ballistic missile defense (BMD), for example. 

If you go all the way back to the mid 1970’s when Safeguard was 

started and add everything up and raise it to a present value, I 

would guess that the total amount we have spent is $150 billion. 

We are about to field one system, a ground-based interceptor, but 

there is a galaxy of other systems, interceptors of different sorts, 

kinetic and laser and directed energy and what have you. There 

35

are a lot of other ancillary programs like Sibbers Low and Sibbers 

High which are not performing well. Yet, BMD is getting an increase this year of $1.7 billion. 

Did the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pass judgment 

on that increase and did you apply the PART application, the 

PART analysis to that program to determine whether or not it was 

worthy or warranted of an increase of that magnitude? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Again, the PART would be one of the factors that 

anybody would look at. OMB is integrally involved in the development of all budgets including DOD’s budget. So when the budget 

comes up here, OMB is saying we sign off on this. So, yes, we are 

involved in that. I do not know what the PART assessment——

Mr. SPRATT. Well, several years ago, they put into play something they called spiral development. They call it capabilities management. You do not represent you are going to do something. You 

simply say that you are going to pursue it to the limit of its capabilities and you are going to spiral upward until you eventually attain your goal. 

Doesn’t that take what you are trying to do and kind of throw 

it into a cocktail? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. 

Mr. SPRATT. Have you had that problem with ballistic missile defense, trying to figure out what the baseline is against which you 

are measuring, cost performance and schedule? 

Mr. JOHNSON. If we are not able to clearly define what it is we 

are trying to purchase, we are going to make a bad purchase decision. 

Mr. SPRATT. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Chairman NUSSLE. Mr. Ryun. 

Mr. RYUN. First of all, I would like to begin with just a comment 

and I do have a question. I know when we left for votes, you made 

a comment with regard to decision makers within the Government, 

how they control approximately $1.4 trillion with an error rate of 

roughly 3.8 percent which, if you do the math on that, it comes out 

to about $45 billion a year. 

And I think I can speak for most everyone here, that is a lot of 

money. And in a sense, it is a question, but it is really a comment. 

I think the 3.8 percent error rate can be reduced and improved 

upon. Certainly as Republicans, that is what we are doing, you 

know, looking for ways to save money and it is what this hearing 

is in part about. 

So my point is I would like to see if you can’t take a message 

back that $1.4 trillion, as far as we are concerned, is too much 

money with regard to the error rate, and see if we can’t lower that 

error rate. That is certainly a lot of dollars back home that people 

who send their tax dollars in would like to see greater accountability. 

I would like to address the question that actually the Chairman 

brought up, and that is with regard to the money that was sent for 

FEMA in the last hurricane situation. You know, we were told they 

needed a lot of trailers and those trailers, as has been acknowledged, are sitting on a runway in Hope, AR. 

And it is my understanding that part of the reason that they did 

not arrive at their destination is that where they would go is in a 

36

floodplain. Now, if that is really true, my question is, is there some 

way that Federal agencies and FEMA and your area of authority 

can work together to address those problems ahead of time so that 

Congress is not asked to write checks that ultimately really, should 

be addressed in a more accountable way? 

In other words, can you help us with regard to agencies asking 

those questions? You know, if you are going to build trailer homes 

and you are going to build them in an area where there is a floodplain problem, why don’t we address that before we build the trailers and spend the money? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Right. This is a broken record. I do not know the 

particulars of the trailer situation. I read and hear that there are 

a lot of communities that do not want trailers. Trailers are an effective way of housing displaced persons, however, the communities 

do not want trailers. 

So, I do not know if that is a primary factor, why they are on 

the runway unused or not. I do believe that FEMA would tell you 

that they bought more trailers than they needed. They make the 

commitment in those first few days when the facts were few and 

they feel like they needed to make a commitment then. Looking 

back, I bet you they would do it differently. 

So I do not think they are saying we made the right decision 

when we purchased those trailers. I cannot answer the question 

about why they are sitting in Hope, AR, and not somewhere with 

families in all of them. 

One comment about the improper payments. There is an initiative to eliminate, not reduce, eliminate improper payments. Every 

agency—there are 11, I think it is—that are involved in our improper payment elimination effort where they are required to audit 

all the programs susceptible to improper payments to find the 

level, to find the causes, implement a plan. 

It is about a 10-year plan, 8- to 10-year plan. We reduced it 17 

percent last year. The 17 percent was what we had planned to reduce it in the first 3 years. So we got a huge jump on it. There is 

a huge commitment to reduce this. 

I can give you information by agency. There is a report already 

that comes out that lays this out, that can tell you what each agency is doing and how much they reduced it and by program. And I 

will be sure you get a copy of that. We are very public, very candid 

about this. We have laid out our goals. This is not something we 

want to cut into. This is something we need to eliminate. 

Mr. RYUN. I am going to follow-up with one more quick question. 

As part of your PART assessment, you present this as a useful way 

of weeding out wasteful programs in the budget. But I would like 

to look at a way or ask you how you might address those programs 

that are successful, how you would wean those out. 

I mean, when a community becomes dependent and then becomes independent because those programs are working well, is 

there something that you would recommend as an assessment for 

these programs that have become successful and perhaps could 

move on? 

Mr. JOHNSON. They move on because we do not need them anymore. 

Mr. RYUN. Yes. As they become——

37

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, that is part of the assessment is, is there another provider of services that produce the same thing? Has it 

achieved the desired goal? There are several programs—Hope Six 

is one in particular—that has achieved the desired goal. And there 

are other ways of dealing with the same issue that are more effective and more efficient. So our proposal is that that be eliminated. 

So I think the current process does look at programs that have 

served their purpose or the need is less or the need is a lower priority. And there is nothing to prevent us from recommending, even 

though it is an effective program, from recommending that it be reduced or combined with another program. 

The primary purpose of this is to cause programs to work better, 

and that means we want great programs to be outstanding, even 

greater than great. We want medium programs to be great and we 

want not-performing programs to be performing. Separately, there 

is the use of information to inform how much money goes to each 

of the programs. But there is nothing in either case that happens 

automatically as a result of the assessment. 

When we first went out and started evaluating programs in the 

executive branch, there was a lot of resistance from the career employees because they thought, oh, this is an attempt to get rid of 

programs and get rid of me. I am going to be seen to be working 

with a program that does not work. That means my job is in jeopardy. It took them about 18 months to understand this is all about 

programs working better. 

There is another process that decides whether a program stays 

or goes, but our dealing with each agency is focused on programs 

getting better. And we cannot work with them to get programs better if we do not know where we are now and what we think the 

program’s strengths and weaknesses are and what the opportunities to make it better are. 

So only with an assessment, initial assessment, can you have intelligent discussions about going forward, and can you have candor 

and transparency with regard to—that allows you to hold someone 

accountable for actually moving from where you are now to some 

higher state of affairs. 

Mr. RYUN. Thank you for your answer and thanks for coming before this Committee. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Sure. 

Chairman NUSSLE. Mr. Baird. 

Mr. BAIRD. I thank the chairman. I thank the gentleman. 

I just want to raise a couple questions about the PART Program. 

First of all, I applaud the notion that we would evaluate the efficacy of programs. And I have never been one that we just throw 

money at a program and pat ourselves on the back. So I commend 

you for that, but I have some concerns about the PART Program, 

and let me share with you why I have concerns. 

First of all, David Walker has testified and written a document 

December 14 to Comptroller GAO that a great number of Federal 

agencies do not have their books in order well enough for him to 

complete an audit, an adequate audit. Given that, it would follow 

to me that it is a fairly difficult task to decide, since we do not 

know how the money is actually being spent, whether or not a parVerDate 0ct 09 2002 18:00 May 30, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 F:\DOCS\HEARINGS\109TH\109-15\HBU047.000 HBUD1 PsN: DICK
38

ticular program is or is not meeting its goals. So that would be one 

point. 

But sort of more directly, I believe that you have a problem in 

this administration getting accurate information from employees. I 

have talked to VA staffers about whether or not they have the resources to do their jobs, and they have told me point blank, I will 

tell you we do not, Congressman, but if you reveal my name publicly, I will lose my job. In an environment like that, I think you 

are going to have some skewed data. 

Third, and this is most relevant, I suppose, you have identified 

programs in your PART analysis as ineffective and propose to zero 

them out when the people who are involved in those programs—

and I do not think these are just self-serving, protect-my-turf people—tell us it is absolutely essential for the survival of their programs. 

And let me give you two examples. One is the Perkins Program——

Mr. JOHNSON. The what program? 

Mr. BAIRD. The Perkins Program, the vocational grants. Now, I 

have read the documentation. We got it off of the Web during the 

break. You have proposed zeroing out Perkins. 

I can tell you the vocational schools and the community colleges 

that I represent say they cannot meet their mission if you zero out 

Perkins. Perkins’ monies are used to provide things like drill presses, saws, nursing equipment depending on the vocational program. 

That is the money they use to get the equipment you need to train 

people. 

Now, I have looked through the assessment and it looks actually 

like you have got some pretty good indicators of achievement. Now, 

admittedly, there are some States that have not reported, but you 

have reported it as not meeting any of its goals and zeroed it out. 

And that is so at odds with, I think, some of your data. I will not 

say objective data, but I will say data. But it is clearly at odds with 

the empirical experience of the people out in the field. 

A second example that I think is very relevant is when it comes 

to fighting methamphetamine. And I will tell you that the National 

Association of Counties has identified this as the single-biggest 

drug problem in the country. It is behind a great deal of crimes of 

all sorts throughout our communities. 

And, yet, this is what the administration has proposed for this, 

a $353 million reduction in the Safe and Drug Free Schools Program, complete elimination of the Edward Burn Grants Program, 

$388 million complete elimination of Justice Assistance grants, 

$376 million to the Cops Program. 

Now, I know the administration has proposed a very modest, I 

think, $80 million increase in drug courts. And that is to be appreciated, but the net cut is over a billion, $1.4 billion. 

So I have two questions, and I know it is difficult. We cannot expect you as one person to know all of these categories. But here is 

a broad-based question I think you can answer. 

If I look at Perkins and I look at Burn Grants and Cops, et 

cetera, and you say we are going to zero these out, where in your 

report or the PART analysis have you reported on the impact of zeroing out the programs because it seems to me sound management 

39

strategy would say, OK, we may not be sure this is meeting its 

goal, but what are the consequences if we zero it out? How many 

officers off the street? How much less investigatory potential? How 

many students will not be able to get a vocational education and, 

therefore, drop out of high school and become other statistics that 

we do not want? Can you address that issue? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Let me try. It will necessarily be at a very high 

level. First of all, there is a document we put out in the last week, 

I think it was, that goes through the 141 recommendations for reduction or elimination. And it goes into the rationale for the recommendation for each program. 

Performance is not the rationale or the primary rationale for all 

of them. It is for some, but fFor others, it is duplication, because 

there is a better solution. So the specific answers to the programs 

you have asked about are in that document, and I would be glad 

to make sure you get one. 

Mr. BAIRD. I would like to look at that. My assessment is, as I 

have looked through the rest of the budget, and we do not usually 

supplement, we usually are just cutting or you are putting out the 

administration’s favorite program that made a good sound bite in 

the State of the Union, but you do not adequately fill in the gap. 

Mr. JOHNSON. This is a very high level and I bet you it is unsatisfactory for you. But we believe that you have to focus on your priorities. You have to live within your means. And that is why increases in budget are entertained for Homeland Security and the 

Global War on Terror. 

An important priority is also the vitality and vibrancy of our 

economy and, therefore, that is why we believe that taxation at historical levels, not higher, is very important. And there is a conflict 

there. You do not have all the money to do all the things that 

somebody, some segment of our population would like us to do. 

Mr. BAIRD. So I respect that and——

Mr. JOHNSON. Choices have to be made. 

Mr. BAIRD. I respect that. So I think the choices you are saying 

is that we are choosing, the administration is choosing in its budget proposal to leave our communities less well protected against 

methamphetamine, less able to enforce our laws that restrict drug 

trafficking this, less able to educate our kids so they do not get involved in methamphetamine, less able to educate our kids in vocational education, et cetera, in order to prosecute the War in Iraq 

and push forward the tax cuts. Those are the choices I see. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Let me be real clear. That is not what the administration is saying. I know on the Drug Free Schools—I believe this 

is correct—the reason that is recommended for elimination is it is 

a very little bit of money to be spread all across the United States. 

And so there is a pittance that goes to each school or each school 

district and it is not enough to have any impact whatsoever. And 

so, therefore, the money that we are spending now is wasted. 

Mr. BAIRD. I can guarantee you on Burn Grants and Cops, if you 

talk to my local law enforcement officers, and Perkins, they do not 

say it is a pittance, it is an absolute essential. I know that my time 

is up. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yeah. But I would suggest that the question to the 

administration ought to be or to the agency that is working this—

40

I guess it is a number of agencies—is drugs and schools, what are 

we doing? What is the Federal Government doing, what is the 

State, what is the local governments doing, private sector? What is 

happening and is the total effort, not just the federal, is the total 

effort adequate to address the opportunity to do good, the need. 

Chairman NUSSLE. Mr. Hensarling. 

Mr. HENSARLING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Johnson, first let me applaud you personally, OMB, the administration for the PART Program. It is, as you know, fairly novel 

in this city to judge the effectiveness of a program by any other 

measurement besides how much more money can we spend on the 

program next year than this year. So any step in the direction of 

accountability is one that certainly deserves high praise. 

I believe that OMB has now performed 800 assessment summaries——

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. 

Mr. HENSARLING [continuing]. Is that correct? Sounds like there 

is still a lot of work to be done. How many Federal programs are 

there out there? I saw a report from the Heritage Foundation that 

led me to believe the number was roughly 10,000. Is that in the 

ballpark? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, you can define a program as a combination 

of a bunch of little ones or one big one. Generally the number we 

have used is there is about 1,150 or so programs. What we think 

we have done, reasonably we have done, is we have evaluated 800. 

Those are programs that account for about 80 percent of the budget. 

So we will assess programs that account for the remaining, 

roughly the remaining 20 percent of the budget this next year. I 

mean, it will be 90 something percent of the budget. But it is in 

the 1,100 plus or minus is the way we think of the number of programs. 

Mr. HENSARLING. Well, I certainly will expect to spend some 

more time on expectmore.gov and learn more about your program, 

but kind of a philosophical question. It is one thing to measure the 

effectiveness of a program. It is another thing to incent the effectiveness of a program. 

Given that all too often still the incentive structure is for people 

to want to increase their budget, increase the number of programs 

they administer, increase the number of employees, how can you 

ever expect the bureaucrat planted deep in the bowels of Commerce 

to have an incentive to be a good steward of the taxpayer money? 

What is it we can do in Congress? What is it the administration 

can do? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, one, employees tell me, managers tell me 

that they welcome transparency about how their programs are 

working. As we see, 70 percent of the programs are deemed to be 

effective to some degree. That is not well understood. So it is 

incentivizing to have it known that this program is excellent, moderate, so forth, or adequate or so forth. 

So transparency is good, and being held accountable is good. The 

thing that we think is very, very important is now that they have 

tools, now that we have a clear definition of what programs are 

41

supposed to be doing, it is important to ensure, to require agencies 

to better manage, develop, and reward their employees. 

And that means that every individual’s performance evaluation 

needs to reference the performance goals of the program they work 

on and they need to clearly understand, have a clear definition 

from their boss what is expected of them as it relates to the performance of the program. 

And our proposal in draft form this past year and more formal 

form going forward will be that a part of person’s pay raise be tied 

to their individual performance. 

Mr. HENSARLING. Sounds like an excellent idea. Let me change 

subjects on you. 

Apparently the administration will send out very soon a new $18 

billion supplemental appropriation request for further funding on 

Katrina relief. This is on top of, I believe, roughly $88 billion that 

has already been approved, with another $8 billion roughly in tax 

incentives. 

We all know where the budget is headed in generations to come. 

I am under the impression that the administration is going to send 

up this supplemental request without offsets. 

So my first question is, is that correct and, if so, why isn’t the 

administration offering offsets? 

Mr. JOHNSON. The one part I know is they are sending it up this 

afternoon, I think it is, or shortly. But that is the only part of it 

I know for details, I mean in terms of details. 

Mr. HENSARLING. OK. A different subject. I notice that you assessed the effectiveness of a number of DOD programs. If I am 

reading the budget correctly, since we continue to essentially fund 

the War on Terror through supplemental requests, non-War on 

Terror, DOD spending is due to increase almost 7 percent in this 

next budget. That strikes me as a very, very large number if that 

is not associated directly with conducting the War on Terror. 

Surely the Pentagon is not immune from waste and fraud, abuse 

and duplication and ineffectiveness and lower priority spending. 

What is the administration doing about all that? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well——

Mr. HENSARLING. Why do we have 6.9 percent increase? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Why what? 

Mr. HENSARLING. And why the 6.9 percent increase? 

Mr. JOHNSON. The next time I come up here, I am bringing a 

budget person. Everybody will be happier, starting with me. But 

you all——

Mr. HENSARLING. You are the only guy here. 

Mr. JOHNSON. But you all will be getting answers to your questions as opposed to this shuck and jive that you are getting from 

me. 

We did not start with 6-point-something percent and then back 

into it. It was a buildup, and OMB worked with the Defense Department to develop their budget. And it is designed they want to 

accomplish this and here is how much money they believe is required to do that. 

So it is very goal oriented. It is tied where we have program assessments. Program assessments is a factor in that discussion. But 

42

the goal, they want to spend X amount of money to accomplish this 

and Y amount of money to accomplish that. 

So it is focused on individual goals, and that is what the budget 

should present to you. That is one of the reasons why we are proposing and worked with both Houses of Congress to better accomplish the things you are talking about, Mr. Cuellar, is performance 

budgeting. Tell me here is what we are going to spend and here 

is why we recommend spending this amount of money. We want to 

spend this amount of money to accomplish X. 

Mr. HENSARLING. Well, thank you for your testimony. I am out 

of time, but I do look forward to hearing exactly what these nonWar on Terror goals are. 

Chairman NUSSLE. Mr Cooper. 

Mr. COOPER. Thank you. I will reserve my questions for the next 

time. 

Chairman NUSSLE. Mr. Cuellar. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Spratt, also members. 

Clay, I have handed out a—and I do not know if you got a copy 

of the——

Mr. JOHNSON. No. 

Mr. CUELLAR [continuing]. Handout. I believe all the members 

should have a copy of it. And all I want to do is just ask you. I 

think we are all in agreement as to performance-based budgeting, 

at least moving to that direction, the results oriented. 

What I have done is, all I have done is just present three copies, 

a copy of the President’s budget—and I just used an Ag because 

the other committee I am in is on the agriculture. There is a copy 

of the Department of Agriculture budget as presented by the President. There is a copy of the budget that the U.S. Congress presents. And then there is a copy—as a model, I am using just Texas 

as a model. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Just to pick a State at random? 

Mr. CUELLAR. Just to pick a State that’s random. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Right. 

Mr. CUELLAR. And what I will ask the members and ask you 

also, Clay, to just look at this. Look at the President’s budget and 

the format that it is in, and notice, members, look at the structure 

that we have. Then ask you to look at what the U.S. Congress presents when it talks about the agricultural budget. And then ask 

you to look at, you know, just a random—you know, the other one 

that we use in Texas, and look at the format. And if you look at 

the format, there is a format first. 

The first part of it is a method of financing, so we know what 

are the monies coming in to finance that budget. And then the second part is the item of appropriations where we go into the goals 

and the objectives of the Department of Agriculture. And then the 

third part of it deals with the performance measures and has other 

items dealing with capital budget, et cetera, and a more systematic 

approach to address the issue. 

I had asked Mr. Bolten last time when he was here, and I believe 

he referred this to you, Mr. Johnson, is, just so we can get the process started because we have been talking about it—and I want to 

thank the chairman for allowing us to be here last—I think it was 

43

last July when we were here last time—is if your department, even 

if you use dummy figures or percentages on the performance, if you 

all could just put something together so we can at least look at 

what a Federal budget would look like——

Mr. JOHNSON. Right. 

Mr. CUELLAR [continuing]. Using the format—and, again, I hate 

to use Texas—but I mean using Texas, I mean that model just so 

we can get an example. And I think if we are able to do that, I 

think on a show and tell, I think for members, I think this will give 

us a pretty good idea as to what it would mean for us because we 

would ask more intelligent, more in-depth questions, more——

Mr. JOHNSON. Even more intelligent. 

Mr. CUELLAR. More intelligent questions, even more intelligent 

questions. And I mean for everybody, I mean whether it is on the 

executive branch or the legislative branch or even for the agencies 

themselves. I think this would allow us. Could you all put something together——

Mr. JOHNSON. Sure. 

Mr. CUELLAR [continuing]. And, again, as to what the performance measures, come up with some, but I think that is something 

that the members can come up, and what the numbers will be, just 

use some dummy numbers as an example. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Right. 

Mr. CUELLAR. But I would ask you if you can do that because I 

think this will go a long way to show us what we could actually 

come out from results-oriented government. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Be glad to do that. We welcome that, that challenge. 

Mr. CUELLAR. OK. 

Mr. JOHNSON. But, again, I think, as I said at the very beginning, we in the executive branch should be focused on what are we 

doing with the money. Appropriators should be focused on that, 

budgeters and authorizers should be focused on that. And if we do 

not organize our expenditures by goal, by program as opposed to 

by travel versus personnel versus administrative supplies, we cannot really engage in a conversation about what we are getting for 

this expenditure and that expenditure and so forth. So we welcome 

the challenge. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chairman——

Chairman NUSSLE. Can I just ask—would the gentleman yield—

the last part of this which is on your letterhead, is this your recommendation or this is what you think it ought to look like or what 

you are——

Mr. CUELLAR. That is the bill pattern that I would ask for us to 

look at. And what we put there or what performance, I mean, that 

is up to us to decide. 

Chairman NUSSLE. Right. I just was not sure what this last part 

was. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Right. It is the last part that has my letterhead. 

And it is basically, if you look at it, the first part is the source of 

funding. The second part is the items of appropriations by goals. 

And then the third part is it has the performance measures plus 

some other items that we might budget, the capital budget and 

those items. 

44

But if you look at it, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Spratt, this will give 

us—it is a more systematic approach to address this. And I think 

this will allow us to ask more in-depth questions as to what we are 

doing. And I think if you look at it, I mean, I think this will answer 

a lot of the questions. 

I know that a lot of this information, Clay, is available in other 

places. I know it is all available somewhere. But in practicality, 

how many of us do we really go out there and have it available? 

I mean, I think if we put it at our fingertips, I think this will provide us more legislative oversight, which we should be doing. 

Chairman NUSSLE. I thank the gentleman. And I would ask 

unanimous consent that this be made part of the record, too——

Mr. CUELLAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman NUSSLE [continuing]. Unless you have an objection to 

that. 

Mr. CUELLAR. No, sir. 

Chairman NUSSLE. I think it would be good to have that in the 

record. Thank you. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Thank you. 

Chairman NUSSLE. Mr. Chocola. 

Mr. CHOCOLA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Johnson, thanks for being here and thank you for the work 

you are doing. 

Just an initial matter, there has been some discussion of trailers 

here today. Most of those trailers are made in my district or nearby 

my district. And I will just offer that even the manufacturers of the 

trailers understand that there have been mistakes made in this 

program and they are more than willing to sit down with OMB, 

with FEMA, with Homeland Security and talk about a better way 

to manage a program in response to a disaster like we had in temporary housing. So they would love to do that. 

In your opening remarks, you talked about probably the two 

most important things as focusing on results and being accountable, and I agree with you. But one way it is hard to be accountable is when we pass a budget and then we have spending outside 

of the budget that we call emergencies. And I think over the past 

5 years, we have had about $88 billion a year spending outside the 

budget. 

There has been a group of us that have worked on budget process reform issues that would include having a rainy-day fund to 

budget for emergencies. We know we are going to spend money on 

emergencies. We do not know how much or when, but use history 

as our guide and use a super majority vote procedure if something 

exceeds our expectations. 

I used to be in the business world and if we knew we were going 

to spend money, we would budget for it. 

Do you think it is a good idea to have a rainy-day fund to try 

to anticipate those emergencies and have really a more accountable 

budget and if not a rainy-day fund, do you have any other suggestions? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Let me state again, the next time I am bringing 

a budget person up here for your all’s benefit and a little bit for 

mine. 

45

Texas had a rainy-day fund and used it to sort of smooth things 

out. I think actually there is plenty of accountability with 

supplementals. We have to be very detailed about what we want 

to do. And you all are prepared to ask a lot of questions about why 

do we need this when we are not doing this or having already 

spent this or whatever. 

So I do not believe that using supplementals diminishes the level 

of accountability. I think in the world of limited resources that we 

are in today and with the growing mandatory program expenditures in the future, which suggest we are going to be in the limited 

resource environment from this point onward, to agree to a rainyday fund because it might rain, that might be a difficult pill to 

swallow. 

But if you come in with a very specific need, here is a war, here 

is a Katrina, here is a something we need to respond to, here is 

why we need the money, that is actually something that is more 

apt to create a specific yes, no answer from Congress than a rainyday fund. But I am not a budget person. 

Mr. CHOCOLA. When we talk about budgets and we talk about 

how much more or less we are going to spend compared to last 

year, it is not as accountable as it could be because we know we 

are going to spend more than that. We do not know exactly which 

count or how much, but I think it is more transparent, it is more 

accountable to say we know we are going to spend it, we are going 

to budget for it, and then when the need comes, we can evaluate 

it at that time. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yeah. 

Mr. CHOCOLA. You also talked about, you know, focusing on results. We had a panel here yesterday focused on entitlement spending and we discussed the fact that we may understand the challenge here, in many cases insurmountable challenge, but we are 

not sure our constituents do. 

And so when you talk about focusing on results, it is not only us, 

but it is the American people that are the recipients of the services 

that Government provides. 

Do you have any ideas how to use these performance measures 

to get our constituents to understand how well these programs are 

performing? 

I have not been in Congress long, but I understand there is a 

constituent for every dollar we spend. Nobody has ever come in my 

office and said spend less on me. And so how do we make sure that 

we are hearing from our constituents that they demand that we are 

better managers by spending their tax dollars better based on results? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, one, this information allows a lot of things. 

It allows us to have a conversation about these performance measures that are pathetic. We need better performance measures. It is 

better than having no performance measures, which was the case 

in a large percentage of our programs 5 years ago. So you could say 

I need more service performance measures or I need more information about how our constituents are really being served. 

So, it encourages that kind of conversation to have it be even 

more focused on the good we are doing or not doing. Also, it is information that you, any Member of Congress, can use to go out in 

46

their district and say here are the programs. I have a lot of people 

in my district that benefit from this program or receive services 

from this program. Here it works or it does not work or here is 

what we are doing to make it work. I think the things they are 

working on to make the program work better are OK, better than 

nothing, but they are not being as aggressive as they can, and I 

am here to tell you I am going to work with the agency to get them 

to be more aggressive and to get better performance measures or 

to do some things to drive the performance even more aggressively 

than they are. 

So it allows you to have a more informed dialogue with your constituents and allows you to have a more informed dialogue with the 

appropriate agency and allows us all to have a conversation about 

what is—it is nice to pay attention to performance. That is better 

than not, but is it enough attention to performance? 

Mr. CHOCOLA. I see we are out of time. Is there any marketing 

effort on expectmore.gov to the general population, they know it is 

there? 

Mr. JOHNSON. We have gone with the press. Our first goal has 

been with Congress, with agencies, agency employees, and primary 

constituent groups. Here are programs that you, the farmers, are 

interested in or that you, the housing community, is interested in 

to give them information. 

But in terms of general public, we have gotten some press. We 

have gone and talked to general press just with the budget release 

the President mentioned in his speech last week in New Hampshire. So that has gotten some word out. 

But there is no plans, more aggressive marketing plans to the 

public at large. We figure that the greatest opportunity to do that 

to the relevant people would be Members of Congress to go out as 

they communicate with their constituents. 

Mr. CHOCOLA. OK. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman NUSSLE. If there are no further questions for this 

panel, thank you, Director Johnson, for being with us today, and 

we appreciate your testimony. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Right. 

Chairman NUSSLE. Thank you. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thanks for having me. 

Chairman NUSSLE. I will now be in order to call the second panel 

forward, and we have Brian Riedl. I hope I am pronouncing that 

correctly. Riedl? 

Mr. RIEDL. Riedl. 

Chairman NUSSLE. Riedl. Well, I did not pronounce Robert 

Greenstein’s name correctly either, as I understand, so I have—I 

just did. But when I opened up the hearing, I believe I pronounced 

it incorrectly. So I apologize for that. Welcome both the Director, 

Executive Director for the Center of Budget and Policy Priorities, 

Robert Greenstein, here, as well as Brian Riedl, the fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs from the Heritage Foundation. We welcome 

you to the Budget Committee. 

We are pleased to include your entire testimony in the record as 

it is written, and we will give you 5 minutes to summarize your 

statement, and let me call on, in order of the way they appear on 

47

our sheet, and that is Brian Riedl to begin the testimony. You are 

recognized for 5 minutes. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF BRIAN M. RIEDL, FELLOW IN FEDERAL 

BUDGETARY AFFAIRS, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION 

Mr. RIEDL. Thank you. Chairman Nussle, Ranking Member 

Spratt, members of the committee, thank you for offering me the 

opportunity to share my views. My name is Brian Riedl. I am the 

Grover Herman fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs at the Heritage 

Foundation. The views I express in this testimony are my own and 

should not be construed as representing any official position of the 

Heritage Foundation. 

My testimony will explain that discretionary spending levels are 

not out of line with historical trends. However, budget increases 

since 2001 have set the spending on a steeply upward course, just 

as escalating entitlements are putting an enormous strain on the 

Federal budget. 

Let me begin with the historical context. The 7.9 percent of GDP 

we currently spend on discretionary spending is not far off the historical average. Discretionary spending topped 10 percent of GDP 

from World War II through the 80s, before dropping down to 6.3 

percent of GDP in 2000, but it has since spiked back up to 7.9 percent of GDP. 

Defense has driven many of these fluctuations. From 9.3 percent 

of GDP in 62, it usually remained over 5 percent, that is, until the 

Soviet Union fell in 1991, and it dipped all the way down to 3.0 

percent of GDP before rebounding to 4.1 percent of GDP today. 

Non-defense discretionary spending by contrast has remained 

stable over the past few decades. However, after dropping to 3.2 

percent of GDP in 1999, non-defense discretionary spending has 

since spiked up to 3.9 percent of GDP. 

Let me jump into some of the recent spending increases. Conventional wisdom holds that non-defense discretionary spending has 

been cut to make room for defense spending increases. Conventional wisdom is wrong. According to OMB historical table 8.2, nondefense discretionary outlays adjusted for inflation, surged by 34 

percent from 1999 through 2005. That is the largest 6-year expansion of non-defense discretionary spending since the 1970s. 

One way to compare discretionary spending trends is by presidential administration. Overall discretionary outlays rose 2.3 percent under President Clinton versus 9.7 percent annually under 

President Bush. Defense was virtually frozen in nominal dollars 

under President Clinton and has averaged 12 percent annual 

growth under President Bush. 

Non-defense discretionary outlays rose 4.0 percent annually 

under President Clinton versus 8.0 percent annually under President Bush. Let me reemphasize that last point. Non-defense discretionary outlays have grown twice as fast under President Bush as 

President Clinton. 

From 2001 through 2006, inflation was about 12 percent total. 

With that in mind, over these 5 years, 2001 through 2006, we have 

had education increase by 62 percent or 10 percent annually. International affairs has increased by 74 percent or 12 percent annually. 

48

Health research and regulation is up 57 percent or 9 percent annually. Veterans’ benefits were up 46 percent or 8 percent annually. 

Science and basic research is up 40 percent or 7 percent annually, and overall non-defense discretionary outlays are up 46 percent or 8 percent annually. Again, this is versus inflation of only 

12 percent. 

Now budgets are about making trade-offs among competing priorities, and these recent guns and butter budgets raise serious 

questions about Federal priorities. To enact the largest 6-year, nondefense discretionary spending hike, at the same time funding a 

war, has placed Federal spending on an unsustainable path. Last 

week’s harsh reaction to the President’s budget proposal shows 

that certain constituencies have now grown accustomed to large annual spending increases and consider even a temporary freeze at 

these higher levels to be out of bounds. 

Let me finish up by focusing on the future. Discretionary spending faces a perilous future, not because President Bush put out a 

proposal that lowers it through 2011, those out-year numbers are 

typically ignored when writing future budgets. 

The real reason for concern comes from Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, which you heard of yesterday. Spending on the 

three big entitlements is going to increase by 10.5 percent of GDP 

between now and 2050. Yet the entire discretionary budget is only 

7.9 percent of GDP. 

Now the math is simple. Again, we can raise taxes to pay for the 

spending, but raising taxes by 10.5 percent of GDP would be the 

equivalent of raising taxes by 11,000 per household permanently. 

Assuming that Congress balks at such large tax hikes, it becomes 

more likely that discretionary spending will have to be reduced to 

make up for these spending increases entitlements. 

Overall, if we took Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid increases out of the—and squeezed it out of the defense—our discretionary budget, we would have to wipe out the entire non-defense 

discretionary budget by 2020. We would have to wipe out the entire 

discretionary budget by 2034. 

Now I’m not saying obviously that that’s going to happen, but I’m 

showing the trade-offs we face as entitlement spending continue to 

increase, there will be enormous pressure on discretionary programs. So if you prioritize education, health research, veterans’ 

health, homeland security, defense, or environment, the single biggest threat to these programs is Social Security, Medicare and 

Medicaid. 

The CBO estimates that in a decade spending on the big three 

entitlements is going to grow $172 billion per year. That will be 

more than the entire Department of Education and Justice at that 

time. At that point it will be difficult to maintain even a shell of 

current discretionary programs. Social Security, Medicare, and 

Medicaid will swallow almost all of the tax dollars. 

Heritage is creating an online budget calculator that we can 

show to offices that will show this, and I see that my time is up, 

and so with that, I will thank you for your time. 

Chairman NUSSLE. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Brian M. Riedl follows:] 

49

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRIAN M. RIEDL, FELLOW IN FEDERAL BUDGETARY

AFFAIRS, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION

My name is Brian Riedl. I am the Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs at The Heritage Foundation. The views I express in this testimony are 

my own, and should not be construed as representing any official position of The 

Heritage Foundation. 

Discretionary spending is not out of the line with historical trends. However, 

budget increases since 2001 have set this spending on a steeply upward course just 

as escalating entitlement costs are putting an enormous strain on the entire budget. 

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

The 7.9 percent of GDP spent on discretionary programs in 2005 was not far off 

the historical average. Discretionary spending topped 10 percent of GDP from World 

War II through the early 1980’s, before falling to 6.3 percent in 2000, and then spiking back up to 7.9 percent in 2005. 

Defense spending has driven much of these fluctuations. From 9.3 percent of GDP 

in 1962, it typically remained over 5 percent until the Soviet Union fell in 1991. 

Then, after dropping all the way down to 3.0 percent of GDP in 2000, the War on 

Terrorism has pushed it back up to 4.1 percent. 

Non-defense discretionary spending has remained more stable over the past few 

decades. After dropping to 3.2 percent of GDP in 1999, it has since surged to 3.9 

percent in 2005. 

RECENT LARGE SPENDING INCREASES

Conventional wisdom holds that non-defense discretionary spending has been cut 

to make room for defense spending increases. Conventional wisdom is wrong. According to OMB Historical Table 8.2, non-defense discretionary outlays—adjusted 

for inflation -surged by 34 percent between 1999 and 2005. That is the largest 6-

year expansion since the 1970’s. 

One way to compare current discretionary spending trends is by presidential administration: 

• Overall discretionary outlays rose 2.3 percent annually under President Clinton, 

compared to 9.7 percent annually under President Bush. 

• Defense was virtually frozen in nominal dollars under President Clinton, and 

has averaged 12 percent annual growth under President Bush. 

• Non-defense discretionary outlays rose 4 percent annually under President Clinton, versus 8 percent annually under President Bush. 

Let me re-emphasize that last point: Non-defense discretionary spending has 

grown twice as fast under President Bush as under President Clinton. Examples of 

discretionary spending increases between 2001 and 2006 include the following: 

• Education is up 62 percent, or 10 percent annually; 

• International affairs is up 74 percent, or 12 percent annually; 

• Health research and regulation is up 57 percent, or 9 percent annually; 

• Veterans’ benefits are up 46 percent, or 8 percent annually; 

• Science and basic research is up 40 percent, or 7 percent annually. and 

• Overall non-defense discretionary outlays are up 46 percent, or 7.8 percent annually. 

Budgets are about making trade-offs among competing priorities, and these recent 

guns and butter budgets raise serious questions about Federal priorities. To enact 

the largest 6-year non-defense discretionary spending hike, at the same time funding a war, has placed Federal spending on an unsustainable path. Last week’s harsh 

reactions to the President’s budget proposal shows that certain constituencies have 

now grown accustomed to large annual spending increases, and consider even a temporary freeze at these higher spending levels to be out of bounds. 

LARGE ENTITLEMENTS THREATEN DISCRETIONARY PROGRAMS

Discretionary spending faces a perilous future. The reason is not because the 

President’s budget proposal forecasts discretionary spending cuts through 2011. Discretionary spending is budgeted on a yearly basis, and any projected discretionary 

spending numbers after 2007 hold no statutory weight, but serve only as temporary 

placeholders to make future budget deficits appear smaller. These out-year numbers 

are typically dismissed by the White House when writing subsequent budget requests. 

The real reason for concern comes from Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, 

whose steep growth will likely crowd out all other spending. 

50

The math is simple. Annual spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid—what I call the ‘‘big three entitlements’’—is projected to leap by 10.5 percent 

of GDP between now and 2050. That money will have to come from somewhere. The 

entire 7.9 percent of GDP currently spent on discretionary programs will be at risk. 

It is possible that Congress will raise taxes to pay for this spending. However, 

Congress would have to keep raising taxes every year until they reach the current 

equivalent of $11,000 per household above current levels to fund those entitlement 

costs. 

Assuming that Congress balks at such large tax hikes, it becomes more likely that 

discretionary spending will have to be substantially reduced to make room for those 

entitlements. Competition for scarce budget resources will become increasingly intense, and the big three entitlements will leave smaller and smaller crumbs for discretionary spending. Overall, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid spending increases are projected to squeeze out the entire non-defense discretionary budget by 

2020, and the entire discretionary budget (including defense) by 2034. 

The message is clear: If you prioritize spending on education, health research, veterans’ health care, homeland, security, defense or the environment—the single biggest threat to these programs is Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that within a decade, the big three entitlements 

will be growing $172 billion each year—which will be more than the entire combined budgets of the Departments of Education and Justice at that time. At that 

point, it will become difficult to maintain even a shell of current discretionary programs. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid will swallow almost all of the tax 

dollars. 

The Heritage Foundation is creating a budget calculator that allows lawmakers 

to work with the long-term tax and spending baselines, and test different scenarios 

to cover these long-term entitlement shortfalls. We would be happy to bring this 

program to your offices. 

REFORM

While Congress’ top domestic priority should be reforming Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, they should also seize this opportunity to take a fresh look at 

discretionary spending growth. For example, education, housing, and transportation, 

are traditionally state and local functions, and may be devolved again. Many of 

these Federal programs currently force Americans to pay large taxes to Washington, 

who shave some administrative costs, and then send the money right back to state 

and local governments with new strings attached. It may be more efficient, more 

democratic, and less costly to bypass the Federal middleman and have taxpayers 

send the taxes for these programs directly to local governments who can tailor these 

programs to local needs. This would allow Congress to focus more on key national 

issues such as national security. A Federal Government that tries to do everything, 

risks succeeding at little. 

Congress should also consider creating a commission, similar to the successful 

BRAC model that closed obsolete military bases, to package all outdated, wasteful, 

and unnecessary programs into one termination bill that would receive expedited 

floor consideration. This could reduce some of the enormous waste in the Federal 

budget. 

At that very least, basic budget caps can help lawmakers set priorities and make 

trade-offs. Congress should consider attaching these caps to the debt limit vote later 

this month. 

51

APPENDIX

Source: Both charts come from the Office of Management and Budget, Historical 

Tables, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2007 (Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2006), Table 8.1, at http://

www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/hist.html.

DISCRETIONARY OUTLAYS BY CATEGORY, 2001–2006

[Nominal dollars, in millions] 

Discretionary Spending Category 2001 2006

2001–06 Percent In- crease 1993– 2001 Annual Avg. Total Annual 

Avg. 

National Defense ......................................................................... $306,068 $532,215 74% 11.7% 0.6%

Education .................................................................................... 37,659 61,040 62% 10.1% 5.4%

Income Security ........................................................................... 43,972 54,978 25% 4.6% 4.3%

Health Research and Regulation ................................................ 33,158 51,910 57% 9.4% 6.8%

Highways & Mass Transit ........................................................... 34,595 44,844 30% 5.3% 7.2%

Justice Administration ................................................................. 29,853 39,977 34% 6.0% 9.1%

International Affairs .................................................................... 22,496 39,171 74% 11.7% 0.5%

Natural Resources & Environment .............................................. 25,960 33,875 30% 5.5% 3.3%

Veterans Benefits ........................................................................ 22,399 32,709 46% 7.9% 4.4%


riedl1.eps riedl2.eps
52

DISCRETIONARY OUTLAYS BY CATEGORY, 2001–2006—Continued

[Nominal dollars, in millions] 

Discretionary Spending Category 2001 2006

2001–06 Percent Increase 1993–

2001 Annual Avg. Total Annual 

Avg. 

Community/Regional Development .............................................. 12,417 29,485 137% 18.9% 4.9%

Training/Employment/Soc. Services ............................................ 16,607 20,460 23% 4.3% 4.4%

Air Transportation ....................................................................... 11,617 19,304 66% 10.7% 1.8%

General Government .................................................................... 12,644 16,650 32% 5.7% 1.3%

Space and Other Technology ...................................................... 13,236 14,742 11% 2.2% 0.1%

General Science and Basic Research ......................................... 6,509 9,117 40% 7.0% 6.5%

Water/Other Transportation ......................................................... 3,901 6,152 58% 9.5% 2.0%

Agriculture ................................................................................... 4,958 6,045 22% 4.0% 2.3%

Medicare ...................................................................................... 3,323 5,102 54% 9.0% 2.9%

Social Security ............................................................................. 3,590 4,553 27% 4.9% 4.1%

Energy .......................................................................................... 2,897 3,948 36% 6.4% ¥7.8%

Commerce and housing credit .................................................... 1,467 2,076 42% 7.2% ¥4.4%

Allowances ................................................................................... 0 3,726 N/A N/A N/A 

Total Discretionary Outlays ......................................................... 649,326 1,032,079 59% 9.7% 2.3%

Total Defense .............................................................................. 306,068 532,215 74% 11.7% 0.6%

Total Non-Defense ....................................................................... 343,258 499,864 46% 7.8% 4.2%

From 2001 through 2006, inflation will have totaled 12 percent, and the population will have grown 5 percent. 

2006 numbers reflect current OMB estimates. Additional supplemental spending will add to this total.

Source: Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2007 (Washington, D.C.: 

U.S. Government Printing Office, 2006), Tables 3.2 and 8.5, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/hist.html. 

Chairman NUSSLE. Mr. Greenstein. And I am pleased to receive 

your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT GREENSTEIN, EXECUTIVE 

DIRECTOR, CENTER ON BUDGET AND POLICY PRIORITIES 

Mr. GREENSTEIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Some people have 

an impression that there has been an explosion in domestic discretionary programs in recent years. Some might have gotten that imVerDate 0ct 09 2002 18:00 May 30, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 F:\DOCS\HEARINGS\109TH\109-15\HBU047.000 HBUD1 PsN: DICK

riedl3.eps
53

pression from some of Brian’s comments. But if you actually look 

at the data, it’s not the case. 

Now, he talked about non-defense discretionary spending. That 

includes international affairs. He noted a 74 percent increase for 

that. Reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan shows up in the 

international affairs part of the budget, not the defense part. I am 

going to look at appropriations for domestic discretionary programs 

outside homeland security. 

What you find when you look at that is that on a real per capita 

basis, total funding for all domestic discretionary programs outside 

homeland security is only 2 percent higher in 2006 than in 2001. 

By comparison, defense is up 32 percent. That’s an average annual 

growth rate of four-tenths of 1 percent per year. 

If you look at total funding for domestic discretionary programs 

outside homeland security as a share of GDP, it’s actually a little 

lower in 2006 than in 2001. This is not what has caused the return 

of deficits. 

Turning now to the President’s budget proposal: the President’s 

budget contains substantial reductions in domestic discretionary 

programs over the next 5 years. Total funding for the programs 

would be cut $16 billion below the OMB baseline in the first year, 

rising to $57 billion in the fifth year, a total of $183 billion over 

5 years. 

In fact, under the President’s budget total outlays for domestic 

discretionary programs would, by 2011, be at their lowest level 

since 1962. Now, it is not the case that these reductions are limited 

to a small number of programs thought to not be high performing. 

There are 15 budget categories or functions that include domestic 

discretionary programs. Under the President’s budget, total funding would be cut significantly over the next 5 years for 14 of the 

15 categories. 

A few examples. Funding for veterans’ programs: this is the discretionary part of the budget functions, not including the mandatory part. Funding for discretionary veterans’ programs would be 

cut $10.3 billion over the next 5 years. 

Funding for environmental and natural resource programs would 

be cut $28 billion, a total of 22 percent by the fifth year. Funding 

for education, job training, and social services programs: a total of 

$53 billion over the next 5 years, with the cuts reaching 17 percent 

in the fifth year. 

Materials from OMB also show the proposed funding levels for 

each of the next 5 years for each budget subcategory or subfunction. There are 56 domestic, discretionary subfunctions. Discretionary funding would be cut in 49 of the 56. 

Again, a few examples. Elementary, secondary, and vocational 

education would be cut a total of $18 billion over the next 5 years. 

Higher ed: $16 billion, 20 percent in the fifth year. Total education 

funding cut nearly $36 billion over 5 years. Healthcare research 

and training, including NIH, cut $15.5 billion over 5 years. Veterans’ healthcare: $9.3 billion over 5 years. And national parks and 

pollution control and abatement, each cut 22 percent by the fifth 

year. 

Now there has been a certain amount of focus on program terminations. The much bigger savings are in substantial program reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 18:00 May 30, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 F:\DOCS\HEARINGS\109TH\109-15\HBU047.000 HBUD1 PsN: DICK
54

ductions, and if you look at the OMB computer run nearly all domestic discretionary programs outside of some space and science 

areas would be cut over the next 5 years. Funding for special education for children with disabilities, down $5.5 billion over 5 years. 

A cut of over a billion over the next 5 years in discretionary child 

care funding. 

The President’s budget has a table which itself shows you that 

the number of child care slots for children from low-income working 

families would be reduced by more than 400,000 by 2011. 

One more example: this December the Department of Housing 

and Urban Development (HUD) issued a report, finding that over 

a million very low-income elderly who receive no Federal housing 

assistance have what HUD calls worst-case-housing needs, which 

means they either pay more than 50 percent of income for housing 

or live in severely substandard housing. The budget proposes cuts 

starting at 27 percent in 2007, reaching 30 percent by 2011, in the 

Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly program. 

Now let me make three observations about these proposals for 

substantial reductions in domestic discretionary programs. The 

first is that none of the savings would go for deficit reduction. 

The budget’s figures show that OMB expects its combined reductions in domestic discretionary and entitlement programs to reduce 

outlays by $191 billion over 5 years, but the budget proposes $285 

billion in tax cuts over 5 years; by the Treasury figures, $1.7 trillion over 10 years. 

The net effect of the policy proposals in the budget is to increase 

the deficit in each year above what it would be if we put everything 

on automatic pilot and did nothing, because the costers in the 

budget cost more than the savers save, and that means that the 

reductions in the domestic discretionary programs are effectively 

going to offset a portion of the cost of the tax cuts, not to reduce 

the deficit. 

Secondly, on the PART issue, I think everyone will agree that 

evaluation and measuring of performance is important. It’s the 

right thing to do. I do think, however, there are some problems 

with how the PART system is used in the budget to justify various 

program terminations. 

In the case of many programs slated for termination, PART did 

not find the program to be ineffective. In a number of cases, programs rated as effective were targeted for elimination. But I want 

to focus on one particular issue which is that, in many cases, when 

you look at a proposed program termination, what it says next to 

it is ‘‘results not demonstrated.’’

Now that normally does not mean the program has been studied 

and found to be ineffective. For most of these programs, what it 

means is that the executive branch and Congress have never put 

up the funds to finance a program evaluation. 

In most cases, because these are small programs and the judgment has been made that, given the limited amount of research 

and evaluation dollars available, money would be best spent elsewhere. 

Let me give you a specific example. The budget proposes to terminate a program, the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, 

55

that provides modest, nutritious food packages to about 430,000 

low-income, elderly people across the country. 

The PART document acknowledges that this program may contribute positively to the nutrition needs of those people. But it 

gives the program a low rating for results not demonstrated. 

Now, there is no research showing the program is ineffective. 

This is a $100 million a year program and executive branch officials and appropriators have generally made the decision that they 

want to focus program evaluation dollars and money for sophisticated program performance measurement and reporting where the 

big money is: food stamps and school lunches are many times bigger in cost than this $100 million a year program. 

So they have not put up the money for sophisticated program 

measurement, program monitoring, or research evaluation. Now, 

maybe we should do that, but the fact that that has not been done 

is not a valid basis for eliminating a program where the elimination is going to create hardship among significant numbers of 

low-income elderly people. 

The other major problem I want to highlight with PART is that 

it’s not even-handed, because it leaves out a big part of spending. 

And the part of spending it leaves out are what OMB and the Joint 

Tax Committee call ‘‘tax expenditures.’’

In a report issued a year ago, the Joint Tax Committee explained, I’m quoting, ‘‘special income tax provisions are referred to 

as tax expenditures because they may be considered analogous to 

direct outlay programs.’’ Some of these expenditures are of dubious 

value. Certainly for some of them results have not been demonstrated. The GAO has explicitly called on OMB to expand PART 

to include tax expenditures. 

Unfortunately, the continued exclusion of tax expenditures from 

PART and the fact that it is being used to justify terminations of 

some programs that have not been found to be ineffective, but 

where Congress and various administrations, not just the current 

one, have not put up the funds to conduct program evaluations, 

mean in my view that while PART is very important, it is being 

somewhat misused in the current budget. 

The last comment I want to make is with regard to where domestic discretionary programs fit into the larger budget. 

Chairman NUSSLE. Could you make it quickly? 

Mr. GREENSTEIN. Yes. I’m a strong advocate of shared sacrifice. 

I think everything should be on the table. I would note that when 

fully in effect, the cost of the tax cuts, if made permanent, including continued alternative minimum tax (AMT) relief, will be three 

times all Federal funding for education at all levels, three times all 

Federal funding for veterans, and most strikingly, equal to the 

combined cost of the entire departmental budgets for agriculture, 

labor, education, VA, transportation, HUD, justice, state, interior, 

EPA, and energy. 

The conclusion I draw from all of this, Mr. Chairman, is that I 

do think the proposed cuts in the domestic discretionary area are 

significantly too deep. I think we need a balanced approach where 

you put everything on the table: entitlements, domestic discretionary, defense, revenues. Put everything on the table. 

56

In 90 and 93, policymakers put the entire budget on the table. 

In each of those 2 years, they achieved deficit reduction of about 

$500 billion over 5 years. In my view, that’s the kind of approach 

we need to go back to. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Robert Greenstein follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT GREENSTEIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER ON

BUDGET AND POLICY PRIORITIES

Thank you for inviting me to testify. I am Robert Greenstein, executive director 

of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a policy institute that conducts research and analysis on fiscal policy issues, with a particular focus on the impact of 

policies and programs on low- and moderate-income families. The Center does not 

receive (and never has received) any funds from Federal grants or contracts. It is 

supported by foundations and individual donors. 

My testimony today is divided into three sections. The first examines the extent 

to which domestic discretionary programs have grown in recent years. The second 

section examines what the President’s budget proposes with regard to domestic discretionary programs. The final section examines several important issues that these 

budget proposals raise. 

I. WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO DOMESTIC DISCRETIONARY PROGRAMS SINCE 2001?

Many people have come to believe that domestic discretionary programs have exploded since 2001. This is not the case. Depending on the measure used, total funding (i.e., total appropriations) for domestic discretionary programs has risen modestly, fallen slightly, or remained largely unchanged. 

• On a real per capita basis, total funding for domestic discretionary programs 

outside homeland security is only 2 percent higher in fiscal year 2006 than it was 

in fiscal year 2001. This represents an average annual growth rate of 0.4 percent 

per year. 

(In comparing funding levels for years such as 2001 and 2006, it is necessary to 

adjust for inflation, as 2006 dollars and 2001 dollars are not equivalent and do not 

have the same buying power. The OMB and CBO baselines for discretionary programs both adjust for inflation. One also should adjust for changes in the size of 

the U.S. population. When the population grows, the cost of government programs 

rises because more children attend school, the number of people seeking government 

services from passports to child care assistance increases, etc. When the population 

grows, revenues also increase, because there are more workers paying taxes, and 

the economy grows as well because the size of the labor force—a key component of 

economic growth—expands. If one adjusts for inflation but not for population 

growth, then total funding for domestic discretionary programs outside homeland security grew at an average annual rate of 1.4 percent between 2001 and 2006.) 

• As a share of the economy, total funding for domestic discretionary programs 

outside homeland security actually declined between 2001 and 2006. It stood at 3.36 

percent of GDP in 2001 and stands at 3.13 percent of GDP in 2006. 

Increases (or decreases) in deficits are usually measured as a share of the economy. As these data indicate, domestic discretionary programs have not been a significant contributor to the shift in recent years from budget surpluses to budget 

deficits. 

II. WHAT THE PRESIDENT’S BUDGET PROPOSES FOR DOMESTIC DISCRETIONARY

PROGRAMS

The President’s budget proposes substantial reductions in domestic discretionary 

programs over the next 5 years. Total funding for these programs would be cut $16 

billion in 2007, relative to the OMB baseline (i.e., relative to the 2006 level adjusted 

for inflation). The funding reduction would grow larger with each passing year. By 

2009, funding for these programs would be $37 billion below the OMB baseline. In 

2011, funding would be $57 billion below the baseline, and outlays for domestic discretionary programs would fall to their lowest level since 1962, measured as a share 

of the economy. Over the 5 years as a whole, funding for domestic discretionary programs would be cut a total of $183 billion. (See Figure 1.)

57

These cuts would be achieved both through program terminations and through 

program reductions. Nearly every category of domestic discretionary programs 

would be cut significantly. 

• There are 15 budget categories (or ‘‘functions ’’) that include domestic discretionary programs. Under the President’s budget, total funding for domestic discretionary programs would be cut significantly over the next 5 years in 14 of these 15 

categories. Only the General Science, Space, and Technology category would be 

spared. 

• A few examples: 

• Funding for veterans programs would be cut by a total of $10.3 billion over the 

next 5 years, with the cuts reaching 13 percent in 2011. 

• Funding for energy programs—which include research on alternatives to oil, 

conservation efforts, and emergency energy preparedness programs—would be cut 

a total of $4.4 billion over 5 years, with the cuts reaching 29 percent in 2011. 

• Environmental and natural resources programs would be cut 22 percent by 

2011, with the cuts totaling $28.1 billion over 5 years. 

• Education, job training, and social services programs would be cut $52.7 billion 

over 5 years. The cuts would reach 17 percent in 2011. 

• Funding for discretionary health programs—including medical research at NIH, 

community health centers, and HIV/AIDS treatment funds—would be cut $24.2 billion over 5 years, with the cuts reaching 13 percent in 2011. 

OMB materials also show the proposed discretionary funding levels for each of the 

next 5 years for each budget sub-category (or ‘‘subfunction ’’). There are 56 budget 

subfunctions that include domestic discretionary programs. By 2011, discretionary 

funding would be cut for 49 of these 56 program areas, or nearly 90 percent of them.


green1.eps
58

• Elementary, secondary, and vocational education programs would be cut a total 

of $18.1 billion over 5 years, with the cut reaching 13.5 percent by 2011. Higher 

education programs would be cut $15.8 billion over 5 years, and 20 percent in 2011. 

Total education funding would be cut nearly $36 billion over 5 years. 

• Health care research and training, which includes the National Institutes of 

Health, would be cut $15.5 billion over 5 years (and by 14 percent in 2011). 

• Consumer and occupational health and safety, which includes funding for mine 

safety, would be cut by 15 percent by 2011. 

• Hospital and medical care for veterans would be affected substantially, with the 

cuts amounting to $9.3 billion over 5 years and $4.5 billion in 2011 alone (a 13 percent reduction in that year). Given the rising cost of medical care and the large 

number of wounded servicemen returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, these reductions do not seem tenable. 

• Within the natural resources and environment function, recreational resource 

programs—including the national parks—and pollution control and abatement programs each would be cut 22 percent by 2011. 

PROGRAM TERMINATIONS AND REDUCTIONS

The budget proposes terminations or reductions of hundreds of domestic discretionary programs. The Administration has issued a list of the programs it would terminate in 2007. In addition, an OMB listing has become available that shows the 

funding level envisioned for every discretionary program account for each of the 

next 5 years.


green2.eps
59

The terminations include, among others: 

• The Commodity Supplemental Food Program, which provides nutritious food 

packages for less than $20 a month to 420,000 low-income elderly people, one-third 

of whom are over age 75; 

• The Preventive Care Block Grant, which is operated by the Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention and provides grants to states for preventive health services 

for underserved populations; 

• The TRIO Talent Search program, under which colleges and universities—in 

many cases, Historically Black Colleges and Universities—assist disadvantaged secondary school students (two-thirds of whom are minority) by providing them with 

academic, career, and financial counseling so they will be better able to finish high 

school and attend college; and 

• The Community Services Block Grant, which provides funding for a range of social services and other types of assistance to low-income families and elderly and 

disabled individuals. 

Other programs that would be terminated include: vocational education, the 

Emergency Watershed Protection Program, Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness 

for Undergraduate Programs, and Safe and Drug Free Schools Grants. 

A much larger number of programs would face deep funding cuts: 

• Funding for special education, under which states receive grants to help cover 

the added costs of providing special education to children with disabilities, would 

be cut about $5.5 billion over 5 years. 

• EPA grants to states (and Indian tribes) for environmental protection, clean-up, 

and land preservation activities—which already were cut by $427 million in nominal 

terms in 2006—would be cut another $420 million below the baseline in 2007, and 

by larger amounts in subsequent years. 

• Discretionary appropriations for the Child Care and Development Block Grant 

would be cut by $1 billion over the next 5 years. The President’s budget includes 

a table showing that under the budget, the number of lower-income children receiving child care assistance would be cut from 2.2 million in 2005 (and 2.45 million 

in 2000) to 1.8 million in 2011. In other words, the number of such children aided 

would be reduced by more than 400,000. 


green3.eps
60

1These figures are taken directly from the Treasury Department’s book explaining the Administration’s tax proposals. It includes the revenue and outlay effects of the Administration’s tax 

proposals. 2The $192 billion total includes the increased interest payments on the debt that would have 

to be paid because of the effects of the Administration’s proposals in increasing deficits and debt. 

Note: the deficit estimates used here do not include the effects of the Administration’s proposal 

to convert part of Social Security to private accounts. Were that proposal included, the increases 

in the deficit that the Administration’s proposals would cause would be larger. 

The baseline used here is the Administration’s current services baseline, adjusted to remove 

the effect of making the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent. (The Administration includes in 

its baseline the costs of its proposal to make the tax cuts permanent, in order to make that 

proposal appear to have no cost.) The Administration’s baseline—and the baseline used here—

do not assume any future supplemental appropriations for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan 

or for domestic emergencies. Likewise, expenditures from emergency funding that the President 

is requesting for 2006 and 2007 have been excluded from the calculations here. Were they included, the President’s budget would be seen as increasing deficits by more than $192 billion 

over five years. 

• In December 2005, HUD issued a report finding that 1.1 million very-low-income elderly households that receive no Federal housing assistance have ‘‘worst-case 

housing needs,’’ which means they either pay more than 50 percent of their limited 

incomes for housing or live in severely substandard housing. The budget proposes 

to cut deeply into the Section 202 Supportive Housing for the elderly program, 

which provides capital grants and operating subsidies to non-profit institutions to 

develop and generate affordable housing for elderly people with low incomes. Large 

cuts (a cut of 27 percent) would start in 2007; by 2011, the funding cut would be 

37 percent. 

• The equivalent housing program for low-income people with disabilities would 

be sliced by more than half in each of the next 5 years. The recent HUD report 

found over 500,000 low-income people with disabilities who have worst-case housing 

needs and receive no Federal housing aid. 

III. ISSUES RAISED BY THESE PROPOSALS

These proposals calling for substantial reductions in nearly all domestic discretionary program areas raise several issues: 

• Would the savings be used for deficit reduction? 

• Is the ‘‘Program Assessment Rating Tool’’ system sound and is it being used appropriately when it is cited as justification for various of these program terminations and reductions?, and 

• Are the cuts proposed in domestic discretionary programs equitable—are they 

part of a program of shared sacrifice? 

I address each of these issues in turn. 

WOULD THE SAVINGS CONTRIBUTE TO DEFICIT REDUCTION?

The nation faces serious long-term fiscal problems. Deficit reduction is needed. 

The data in the President’s budget show, however, that the substantial reductions 

that the budget proposes in domestic discretionary programs would not be used to 

reduce the deficit. Instead, the resulting savings would be used to offset a portion 

of the costs of other, costly budget proposals. 

• The budget’s figures show that OMB expects the proposals for reductions in domestic programs—in both discretionary and entitlement programs—to reduce Federal expenditures by $191 billion over the next 5 years. (This does not reflect proposed Katrina or avian flu supplementals or the proposal for Social Security private 

accounts.) 

• But the budget also proposes $79 billion in increased defense and homeland security spending (not counting the additional expenditures that would result from the 

supplemental appropriations requested for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan). 

• And the budget proposes $285 billion in tax cuts over the next 5 years—and 

$1.7 trillion over 10 years.1 (These figures underestimate the tax-cut costs, because 

the budget omits the cost of continuing to provide relief from the Alternative Minimum Tax after 2006.) 

• As a result, the overall effect of the President’s proposals would be to increase 

the deficit in every year, compared to what the deficit would be in the absence of 

the proposals. The Administration’s own numbers indicate its budget proposals 

would increase deficits by $192 billion over the next 5 years.2 Data in the Administration’s budget materials show that deficits would total $760 billion over the next 

61

5 years without the policy proposals in the budget, and would total $952 billion with 

these proposals. 

In other words, since the tax cuts would cost substantially more than the domestic 

program reductions would save, there would be no deficit reduction. The budget 

would continue to ‘‘dig the hole deeper,’’ and the budget’s steep domestic discretionary cuts would be used to offset a fraction of the cost of the proposed tax cuts 

rather than to shrink the deficit. 

THE PART SYSTEM

Many of the domestic program cuts being proposed have been defended on the 

grounds that OMB’s PART (‘‘Program Assessment Rating Tool ’’) system has found 

them to be ineffective. The concept of PART is very reasonable. But the use of the 

PART system in the new budget to justify the termination of numerous programs 

is fraught with problems. 

In the case of many programs that the budget slates for termination, PART did 

not find the programs to be ineffective. In some cases, programs rated as moderately 

effective are targeted for elimination. In other cases, programs for which the Administration has failed to gather sufficient evidence of effectiveness or lack thereof are 

slated for termination. 

A phrase found in the budget alongside many of the proposed program terminations is ‘‘Results not demonstrated.’’ This generally does not mean that the program has been studied and found ineffective, but that Congress and the Executive 

Branch have not bothered to invest the funds to conduct research to evaluate the 

program, usually because the program has been considered too small in cost to justify using a portion of limited research and evaluation funds to conduct a rigorous 

evaluation of it. 

Consider, for example, the budget’s proposal to terminate the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), a $107 million program that provides nutritious food 

packages that cost the government less than $20 per month to 420,000 low-income 

seniors, one-third of whom are over age 75. (The program also serves a much smaller number of low-income pregnant women, infants, and young children.) The Administration’s PART document acknowledges that the CSFP program may ‘‘contribute 

positively to access to food assistance for low-income elderly people in the places 

where the program operates.’’ But the PART system gave the program a low rating 

on two of the PART criteria—demonstrated program results and strategic program 

planning on the part of the operating agency (in this case, USDA). 

It is not unreasonable for OMB to expect USDA to engage in strategic planning 

with respect to the program and to ask whether the program is effective. Lack of 

adequate steps by USDA to complete a strategic planning process, however, is not 

sufficient cause for eliminating a program that serves about half a million low-income seniors, mothers, and young children. Moreover, research has not found CSFP 

to be ineffective; to the contrary, the reason for the low PART rating on program 

‘‘results’’ is that Federal funding has not been provided either to conduct evaluation 

research on the program’s effectiveness or to develop sophisticated reporting systems to measure program performance. Current and prior Administrations and Congresses have opted to focus the limited research and evaluation funds available for 

Federal food assistance programs on the major programs such as food stamps and 

the school lunch program. The small amount of funding provided for CSFP has been 

dedicated to delivering services to needy people rather than conducting research and 

instituting sophisticated performance measurement systems. 

It may be appropriate for Congress and USDA to invest more energy and resources in setting and evaluating CSFP’s performance goals and effectiveness. But 

a low PART ranking simply because such activities have not yet been conducted is 

not a valid basis for eliminating the program and causing hardship among many 

program participants. 

This problem is magnified by a major deficiency with PART: it is not even-handed, 

because it leaves out a large part of the budget—the Federal tax code. 

It has long been recognized that the tax code contains numerous provisions that 

use the tax system to deliver subsidies. These provisions are referred to as ‘‘tax expenditures.’’ In a report that the Joint Committee on Taxation issued in January 

2005, JCT explained that ‘‘special income tax provisions are referred to as tax expenditures because they may be considered analogous to direct outlay programs, 

and the two can be considered as alternative means of accomplishing similar budget 

policy objectives. Tax expenditures are similar to those direct spending programs 

that are available as entitlements to those who meet the statutory criteria established for the programs.’’

62

3Due to interaction effects between various tax expenditure provisions, the precise total cost 

of all tax expenditures would vary somewhat from these JCT and OMB figures. 4Government Accountability Office, ‘‘Government Performance and Accountability: Tax Expenditures Represent a Substantial Federal Commitment and Need to be Reexamined,’’ September 2005, p. 74. 

The Joint Committee on Taxation periodically publishes a list of all tax expenditures. The cost of these items, as estimated by JCT, totals $914 billion in 2006. The 

President’s budget also contains a list of tax expenditures; the costs listed for these 

measures total $872 billion in 2007.3

There is little question that some tax expenditures are of dubious value or have 

outlived their usefulness. A January 2005 Joint Tax Committee report included options for narrowing some tax expenditures. So does CBO’s new volume on deficit reduction options. Of particular note, various tax expenditures have not been rigorously evaluated and likely would score poorly if PART were applied to them. 

The Government Accountability Office has explicitly called for PART to be revised 

to include tax expenditures. The GAO has specifically asked OMB to ‘‘require that 

tax expenditures be included in the PART process and any future such budget and 

performance review processes so that tax expenditures are considered along with related outlay programs in determining the adequacy of Federal efforts to achieve national objectives.’’4

Unfortunately, the continued exclusion of tax expenditures from PART—and the 

use of PART to help justify terminating programs on the grounds that their effectiveness has not been demonstrated, even when the reason for such a finding is that 

funds have not been provided to conduct a program evaluation—mean that PART 

is being misused. It appears that PART is being used inappropriately to advance 

a rather ideological agenda. 

SHARED SACRIFICE?

The deepest cuts in the President’s budget would come in domestic discretionary 

programs, despite the fact that expenditures for these programs have been well behaved as a share of GDP and the programs have contributed little to the return of 

deficits. The nation’s looming long-term fiscal problems stem entirely from other 

parts of the budget. There is a striking absence of shared sacrifice here. 

Particularly stark is the contrast between expenditures for many discretionary 

programs and the cost of the tax cuts enacted in recent years, which the budget 

would make permanent. Figure 3 compares the annual cost of the 2001 and 2003 

tax cuts when they are fully in effect (including the cost of continuing relief from 

the AMT) to the annual cost of various agency budgets. It shows that when the tax 

cuts are in full effect:

63

• Their annual cost will be more than three times as large as the current level 

of Federal funding for education at elementary, secondary, and post-secondary levels 

combined. It also will be more than three times the cost of all veterans programs, 

including veterans health care, veterans pensions, veterans disability compensation, 

and other veterans services. 

• The cost of the tax cuts will equal the combined cost of all of the following agency budgets: agriculture, labor, education, veterans affairs, transportation, HUD, justice, state, interior, EPA, and energy. 

• The cost of the tax cut for the top 1 percent of households, whose average income is close to $1 million a year, will be nearly the same as the total amount the 

Federal Government spends on education at all levels. The cost of the tax cut for 

the top 1 percent also will be about as large as the cost of everything the Federal 

Government spends for veterans. 

In short, rather than there being shared sacrifice, the prime beneficiaries of the 

tax cuts would move farther ahead while less-fortunate people for whom domestic 

discretionary programs are most important—such as low-income seniors in the 

CFSP program or children in working-poor families who need child care—would fall 

farther behind. This becomes even more troubling when the distribution of the tax 

cuts is taken into account: the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy 

Center estimates that when the tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 are fully in effect, the average tax cut will be $650 a year for households in the middle of the 

income scale but $136,000 for households that make more than $1 million a year. 

(These figures are in 2004 dollars.) 

Among those who would fare badly from this unbalanced approach to the budget—i.e., from the lack of shared sacrifice—would be state and local governments. 

Under the Administration’s budget, grants to state and local governments for programs other than Medicaid would decline nearly $14 billion between 2005 and 2007, 

after adjusting for inflation. This drop reflects the fact that many domestic discretionary programs operate as grants-in-aid to state or local governments, which run 

the programs or provide the services. The Administration’s budget also includes 

$35.5 billion over 10 years in Federal savings from legislative and regulatory 

changes in the Medicaid program; four-fifths of these Federal Medicaid savings 

would come from measures that shift costs from the Federal Government to state 

and local governments. 


green4.eps
64

IV. CONCLUSION

The conclusion that I draw from this is that the proposed cuts in domestic discretionary programs are substantially too deep and that the nation needs a more balanced fiscal approach in which all parts of the budget—revenues, entitlements, domestic discretionary programs, and the Pentagon—are put on the table for review. 

In both 1990 and 1993, policymakers placed all parts of the budget on the table, 

and they achieved deficit reduction of about $500 billion over 5 years on each of 

those occasions. That sort of effort is badly needed again.

Chairman NUSSLE. Let me begin by what may be the obvious observation and that is I hear from one of our witnesses that we are 

spending way too much, and I hear from one of our witnesses that 

the facts evidently demonstrate that we are spending way too little. 

Mr. GREENSTEIN. I do not think I said way too little. 

Chairman NUSSLE. All right. Too little. 

Mr. GREENSTEIN. No, I did not say that either. I was critical of 

the——

Chairman NUSSLE. All right. Just wait a minute. Giminny 

Christmas. I think there was some conflict in the testimony. Would 

you agree, Mr. Greenstein? 

Mr. GREENSTEIN. Yeah, I do want to clarify. I did not come 

here——

Chairman NUSSLE. All right. Never mind. I will——

Mr. GREENSTEIN. I will agree——

Chairman NUSSLE [continuing]. Now I’ll pass. 

Mr. GREENSTEIN. I will agree that there is conflict. I think——

Chairman NUSSLE. I will ask the question, and then I will let 

you respond. OK? 

Mr. GREENSTEIN. I’m sorry. I thought you had asked it. 

Chairman NUSSLE. No, I had not. 

Mr. GREENSTEIN. I apologize, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman NUSSLE. It may not be worth it. In fact, it’s not worth 

it. I will pass. 

Mr. Spratt. 

Mr. SPRATT. You did not address the issue of discretionary caps 

in looking back to prior experience. Would you comment on what 

you think those caps fairly and properly should be or if indeed that 

should be used as a budget process mechanism. 

Mr. GREENSTEIN. Yes, could I very briefly? First, I want to apologize again to the Chairman and I do want to say that Brian Riedl 

and I are working from the same set of numbers. I can produce his 

numbers with the numbers I’m using. The differences stem from a 

couple of things. 

His definition of non-defense discretionary includes international: 

function 150. Mine does not. I’m not sure whether he includes 

homeland security. I do not. He is looking at outlays over the same 

period that I’m looking at budget authority. I would argue that 

budget authority for this purpose is better, but they are both valid. 

I think once you take those differences in method into account, 

you will find that our numbers otherwise exactly match. Neither of 

us is doing anything funny with the numbers. 

With regard to discretionary caps, a minute ago I said I thought 

we really made major achievements in 1990 and in 1993. And we 

had discretionary caps as part of those packages. 

I think there are two issues here. The first is that the desirability of discretionary caps, to me, is inseparable from the levels 

65

at which you put them. Discretionary caps that are tied to figures 

that require excessively deep cuts in domestic discretionary programs I think are likely to be problematic for either or both of two 

reasons. 

First, either they do cut too deeply and cause real problems in 

meeting national needs, or, because they are set at unrealistic levels, they get blown through. The 90 and 93 discretionary caps were 

largely honored. They were set at realistic levels. 

I recall that in 1993, President Clinton, I think, proposed a budget that would have breached the caps, and a Democratic majority 

rejected that. 

By contrast, in the 1997 balanced budget agreement the caps 

were set too low. They would have required reductions that were 

too large. They were blown through. If one set caps for a multi-year 

period at the level in President Bush’s budget, it would require 

cuts significantly deeper than those in 1997, which were not enforced. 

The other issue is, I think that to sell discretionary caps, as in 

90 and 93, they have got to be part of a balanced deficit reduction 

package that puts everything on the table from provider payments 

in the healthcare area to farm programs, to, yes, revenues, and 

even looking for waste in the Defense Department. 

Mr. SPRATT. In 1997, we fixed the caps for 5 years at a level in 

the out years that we all knew were so tight they were unrealistic. 

That included a Domenici proposal that was effectively implemented that saw defense spending rise, and then in the latter 2 

years of the 5-year time period, actually decline, which nobody 

thought would be the likely outcome. 

Once we hit the target, that is, a balanced budget and budget in 

surplus sooner than anyone anticipated, the pressure for the maintenance of those caps, particularly an unrealistic level, was relieved 

and that part of the reason that the caps were not strictly adhered 

to in the out years 01 and 02 and onward. 

But they—I would put the question to both of you. Were they not 

effective as a spending constraint throughout the 90s, beginning 

with the Budget Enforcement Act in 91? 

Mr. GREENSTEIN. Well, I think they were effective from 90 

through about 97. I actually think the caps set in the ’97 balanced 

budget agreement did harm. And what I mean by that is because 

they were set so tight and they were waived away, once they were 

waived away, there was no real constraint in their place. 

I think unrealistic discretionary caps are worse than no caps at 

all. Realistic discretionary caps as part of a larger balanced deficit 

reduction approach that covers every part of the budget, I think 

make sense. 

Mr. RIEDL. I think Bob and I are in agreement on this. Spending 

caps work best when they’re realistic. I believe the caps through 

most of the 90s were realistic enough that lawmakers felt an attachment to make them work. However, the caps remained a little 

tighter toward the end, and also once the budget was balanced, 

there was less political pressure to adhere to the caps. 

And once a cap—if a cap requires a little bit of pain, I think lawmakers will endure that. If a cap endures a lot of pain, the lawVerDate 0ct 09 2002 18:00 May 30, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 F:\DOCS\HEARINGS\109TH\109-15\HBU047.000 HBUD1 PsN: DICK
66

makers will sweep it away and say forget the whole thing. We’re 

just going to spend as if there was no cap at all. 

And so I agree that budget caps are important because I feel 

your pain as lawmakers having to listen to requests all day long 

for groups that are looking for funding. Some are justifiable, and 

I think some of them are questionable. 

But I think lawmakers are assisted by spending caps that help 

them make the best decisions and then saying no those to whose 

claims on Federal funding are not as strong as others. And I think 

caps are a very important part of a spending control strategy. 

Mr. GREENSTEIN. I do think there is a difficulty in having discretionary spending caps in the absence of what we had in the 90s: 

PAYGO rules. If you don’t have PAYGO rules that apply to both 

entitlement increases and tax cuts, then appropriators can rightly 

feel that living within the caps is simply coming up with money to 

fund either an entitlement increase or a tax cut. 

I think you have to have, as an essential part of the architecture 

PAYGO rules that cover both entitlements and revenues. 

Mr. SPRATT. And what about enforcement, the sequestration 

process or some kind of extraordinary process, that either mandates across the board, abatement or does something to impede the 

process until you have adhered to the goals you have set yourself 

for the discretionary caps? 

Mr. RIEDL. I think right now caps can be—spending caps can be 

waived too easily, and I think I would like to see some sort of super 

majority requirement. I’m not—there are many—there are different 

ways to enforce that sort of thing, but I think some sort of super 

majority requirement to exceed a discretionary——

Mr. SPRATT. Would you apply that to defense discretionary as 

well as——

Mr. RIEDL. Yes, I would. I think even at defense, if it’s important 

enough to exceed a cap, it should have no problem getting a super 

majority vote. 

Right now we see this with emergency spending, today, which is 

even easier, but we saw this in the 90s, that it was too easy to 

waive a cap. Of course, there has to be, I believe, some sort of sequestration formula if it’s done around a super majority rule, but 

something—I think it has to be tightened up for it to have teeth. 

Mr. GREENSTEIN. The 1990 Budget Enforcement Act (BEA) had 

both PAYGO rules and the discretionary caps, and both were 

backed by sequestration enforcement mechanisms. I continue to be 

a fan of the 1990 BEA architecture. 

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Greenstein showed some fairly draconian reductions in discretionary spending at the end of the 5-year period we 

are now forecasting. You mentioned that discretionary caps are not 

useful if they are not realistic. Do you regard the percentage level 

decreases that he portrayed up there, depicted up there, is realistic? 

Mr. RIEDL. I have a two-part answer to that question. First, I 

think Congress would have a very difficult time adhering over the 

next 5 years to the numbers in President Bush’s budget. If I were—

I think any of us, if we were finding a way, could find a way to 

fund our priorities and make it work, but I think when you look 

at 435 Members of Congress having to work together to write a 

67

budget, I think it would be very difficult to hold the caps that 

would actually reduce total discretionary outlays by $40 billion in 

2011 versus what they are today. I think that would be quite difficult for Congress. 

The second part of my answer is one—well, we always look at 

these 2011 projections. I think there are two points to make on 

that. First, President Bush will not be in office when the 2011 

budget is written. 

Second, we have actually—I have a sheet I can hand around that 

shows the evolution of the out-year numbers in President’s Bush’s 

budget since he has become president. And what it shows is that 

the President’s budgets have always, to a degree, low-balled the 

out-year numbers and then gotten higher and higher as we—the 

closer we get to them. 

On average, the President’s budget proposal for the following year was $59 billion more than he proposed the year before when 

that was an out year, and $91 billion more than he has proposed 

2 years ago when it was 2 out years. 

And so what that shows is that every year we get closer to these 

out years, the numbers do go back up. And so I wouldn’t put a lot 

of weight into the President’s out year numbers. 

I mean to give an example, his first budget, released in February 2001, forecast a projection of $787 billion in discretionary spending 

for 2007. When we actually got to the 2007 budget proposal this 

year, he proposed one trillion and $29 billion, about $240 billion 

more than a few years ago when this was an out year. And I think 

that’s actually typical. And so I would not put a lot of weight into 

the 2010 and 2011 numbers. Again, not only will President Bush 

not be in office, but the numbers usually go up as the President 

goes. 

Mr. GREENSTEIN. I would somewhat disagree with that. 

Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Chairman, could we have regular order. I 

have got a plane to catch just——

Chairman NUSSLE. Go ahead. Go ahead. 

Mr. HULSHOF. I appreciate that. 

Chairman NUSSLE. Sure. 

Mr. HULSHOF. First of all, I apologize for not being with you yesterday during the mandatory hearing. As you know, we had a couple of hearings in Ways and Means with Secretary Snow and also 

U.S. Trade Representative Portman. Today we are 683 days away 

from the baby boomers beginning to retire, and one out of every 

two baby boomers will in fact take early retirement. I know that 

was the subject of yesterday’s hearing. 

But let me move now then, and I think perhaps capturing your 

frustration, Mr. Chairman, my most famous constituent, Mark 

Twain, said that there are lies, there are damn lies, and there are 

statistics. 

Mr. SPRATT. Disraeli said that. 

Mr. HULSHOF. And I think that probably the conflict and conclusions, maybe the numbers are the same or assumptions are the 

same, but the conclusions are different, and certainly, Mr. Greenstein, I acknowledge that you do put qualifiers in your testimony, 

for instance, on page 1, on a real per capita basis, and then your 

conclusion, as a share of the economy, and then your conclusion. 

68

Although I do want to take a bit of an issue with you when you 

say everything on the table. Let me take that assumption for the 

purpose of this question. You don’t do that in your testimony. 

You acknowledge on page 8 that tax expenditures should be included, for instance, as far as program assessment rating tool, and 

yet you don’t take that into account when you talk about programs 

that are being cut. 

An example would be, for instance, on page 2, funding for energy 

programs. And I recognize you’re focusing on discretionary. But 

when you consider the energy bill, and we provide tax incentives 

for renewable fuels, or we provide tax incentives for hybrid vehicles, or we provide tax incentives for conservation and weatherization and building homes that are energy efficient, were we to take 

your conclusion on page 8, the tax expenditure should be on the 

table because in your words, everything is on the table, then perhaps we should include tax expenditures on these energy conservation areas to perhaps take issue with your conclusion that funding 

for energy programs will be cut. 

We could make the same argument as far as education savings 

accounts, prepaid tuition plans, et cetera, as far as education funding is being cut. And so I realize, again, your appropriate qualifiers 

are there on page 2, and yet I would suggest that later in your testimony, that you talk about everything being on the table and I 

would—that’s just something I would note. 

Let me ask you this, Mr. Greenstein. Yesterday Secretary Snow 

told us that the top 5 percent of taxpayers in this country, which 

is roughly $130,000 or above, 5 percent of taxpayers in this country 

pay over half the bills. And I think I heard him say 55 percent of 

the Nation’s bills. Is that an appropriate number? Is it too little or 

is it too high in your opinion? 

Mr. GREENSTEIN. Well, I don’t think one can assess the figure in 

the absence of a second figure, which is what percentage of the national income goes to the top 5 percent. Now, I would be happy to 

get back to you. I don’t have all of the figures here with me. 

I would note, however, that the best data on trends in income, 

pretax and after tax, and tax rates is a series published by the congressional budget office that currently runs from 1979 through 

2003. 

Those data show a fairly dramatic increase in recent years—I 

don’t mean just under President Bush, but over the whole 24-year 

period—the significant increase in the percentage of income at the 

top——

Mr. HULSHOF. Well, let me say this to you and get back with me, 

because my time, I want to try to stay close—I want to stay close 

to my——

Mr. GREENSTEIN. Can I make one quick statement——

Mr. HULSHOF. If you can make it quick, sir. 

Mr. GREENSTEIN [continuing]. Which is simply that I think the 

more relevant question is ‘‘what percentage of income are we collecting in taxes from people of different income groups?’’ And it has 

dropped significantly at the top as a result of the tax cuts. 

Mr. HULSHOF. I would take issue. In fact, let’s continue this dialogue. You may get to come in front of our committee sometime, 

but yesterday, Secretary Snow also pointed out the fact that after 

69

the 2001 and 2003 tax relief items, that the upper-income taxpayers in this country are actually paying a greater share of the 

nation’s bills today after the tax relief than they were before. But 

again that’s something that you and I can discuss. 

Mr. GREENSTEIN. It’s true for income taxes, but not for total 

taxes. 

Mr. HULSHOF. I can’t help what South Carolina property taxes 

are, or the State——

Mr. GREENSTEIN. Total Federal taxes. 

Mr. HULSHOF. OK. 

Mr. GREENSTEIN. Not true for total Federal taxes. 

Mr. HULSHOF. Let me ask your opinion quickly, as my time dwindles, because you talk about the AMT. May I assume that you 

would agree that even a temporary patch, since it’s not—was not 

indexed—I think the last time Congress had the opportunity, was 

in 1993, to index incomes so that they would not be subject to 

AMT, that salary for Member of Congress, that we should not be 

providing tax relief? Some have said that the AMT is hitting the 

middle class. 

In Keokuk or Ames or Ottumwa, certainly in Memphis, Paris and Mexico, Missouri, $160,000 is not middle class. It’s upper income. And so I think, you know, often what we say was the AMT 

fix is hitting the middle class and it’s difficult for me to explain to 

constituents in Missouri that $160,000 plus a year, what Members 

of Congress make, is somehow in the middle class. 

May I assume that you would be opposed either personally or as 

the executive director of Center on Budget and Policy Priorities 

that we should not provide this temporary relief or even permanent 

relief as far as the AMT is concerned, or is that an incorrect assumption on my part? 

Mr. GREENSTEIN. An incorrect assumption. I agree with you that 

claims that the AMT is killing the middle class are really somewhat overblown rhetoric. The bulk of the AMT collections now 

come from people with incomes between $200,000 and $500,000 a 

year. 

I am concerned, however, that if we don’t do any AMT relief at 

all, eventually it really will get into the middle class. Is it there in 

a big way now? No. But if you go out 10 years, you would have over 

40 million filers subject to the AMT. 

Ideally, we would have a tax system where we didn’t need an 

AMT, but I think it’s unlikely that we will—I loved the ’86 Tax Reform Act. It’s unlikely we will eliminate so many tax expenditures 

and breaks that we won’t need an AMT. 

So I think what we need is to do some AMT reforms so that it 

doesn’t, over time, get down into the middle class, and I think we 

have to pay for them. I do favor PAYGO, including for the AMT 

relief. 

Mr. HULSHOF. Perhaps we can continue this discussion in further 

hearings. I know you’re frequently a witness in front of our Committee. I want to—sorry—Mr. Riedl. I want to try to practice what 

I preach, and I see my time has expired, and so I would yield back. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman NUSSLE. Mr. Spratt is recognized to continue. 

Mr. SPRATT. That’s OK. 

70

Chairman NUSSLE. You were done? 

Mr. SPRATT. The one question I was about to ask—I mean I was 

glad to yield. If you want more time, I will gladly yield. One question I was about to ask is it appears to me that in the Bush proposals for mitigating the deficit, almost all of the weight comes 

down on discretionary domestic spending. 

Certainly defense, certainly international spending are demonstrably going up. It’s only 16.3 percent of the total piece of pie, to 

the total pie. And yet we see, Mr. Riedl—is it Reedal, Ridal——

Mr. RIEDL. Reedl. 

Mr. SPRATT. Riedl, that the cuts by year five have become very 

significant and probably unrealistic. How far can we go? Just how 

much can be squeezed out of discretionary spending constraints realistically over the next 5 years to be applied to deficit reduction 

or deficit mitigation? 

Mr. RIEDL. Long term, non-defense discretionary spending is not 

going to solve our problems. The entire non-defense discretionary 

budget is under $500 billion. The deficit within a couple of years 

is going to be $500 billion. As a matter of fact, we project the deficit by 2016 hitting $800 billion. 

That’s not to say that these programs should—I believe caps can 

help these programs. I believe all parts of the budget should be on 

the table, and that these programs can play a part. Long term, 

though, this is a criticism that I have with the President’s budget. 

Most of the long-term deficit reduction, by our calculation, 25 percent of it comes from excluding the AMT after 2007, and the other 

75 percent comes out of discretionary spending. 

You know, long-term entitlements are growing so fast, we will 

not get spending under control. We will not get the budget deficit 

under control until we tackle Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. 

Again budget caps are important on discretionary. There is a role 

to play there, but long term, the game is big three entitlements. 

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Greenstein. 

Mr. GREENSTEIN. It’s difficult for me to come up with a figure 

and say here’s the figure for what you could get from domestic discretionary. I want to refer back to a point which I agree with that 

Brian made a few minutes ago, which is: if we did not live in the 

world we do and were not subject to the lobbying pressures we are, 

one could get by—if one could surgically figure out where to get 

savings in domestic discretionary, regardless of interest group pressures with a lower level than you can in the real world. 

Part of the fears that I have about various parts of the budget 

is the fear that a realistic cut may be proposed, the interest groups 

may push back, and Congress may get the money in a less reasonable way instead, and just one quick example, the Medicare proposals that the President has in the budget, a number of them 

come from the MedPac recommendation. My two concerns with 

them are, one, I wish they were going for deficit reduction rather 

than to offset a portion of the tax cut, but two, and this is the point 

I want to make, I have a little bit of a fear that the provider groups 

will push back and the savings could get pushed into hitting lowincome beneficiaries in Medicaid instead. 

71

To the degree that Congress is able to withstand various interest 

group pressures, there is an ability to do more in any part of the 

budget, and the more we can withstand interest group pressures on 

all parts, including revenues, the better we can do, and that’s why 

I end up thinking that if you can put every part of the budget on 

the table and have some kind of bipartisan agreement, kind of like 

the 83 Social Security Commission, where everybody holds hands 

together, that it’s easier to take on interest groups than if you say 

we’re just going after one part of the budget and we’re shielding 

other parts of the budget. 

Mr. SPRATT. Thank you very much, both of you. Appreciate your 

testimony. 

Chairman NUSSLE. Thank you, panel. If there’s nothing further 

to come before the Committee, we will stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:23 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

Æ