    [House Hearing, 106 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

           SEVEN YEARS OF GPRA: HAS THE RESULTS ACT PROVIDED RESULTS?

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT,
                          INFORMATION, AND TECHNOLOGY

                                     of the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                               GOVERNMENT REFORM

                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 JULY 20, 2000

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 106-245

                                   __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

                                     ______

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    73-837 DTP                  WASHINGTON : 2001

    For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
    Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov  Phone (202) 512�091800  Fax: (202) 512�092250
                  Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001

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

    _______________________________________________________________________
     For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
                                     Office
    Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: (202) 512-1800  Fax: (202) 512-2250
                   Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001

                         COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

                         DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman
    BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York         HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
    CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland       TOM LANTOS, California
    CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut       ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virginia
    ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida         MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
    JOHN M. McHUGH, New York             EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
    STEPHEN HORN, California             PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
    JOHN L. MICA, Florida                PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
    THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia            CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
    DAVID M. McINTOSH, Indiana           ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,
    MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana                  DC
    JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida             CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
    STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio           ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
    MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South     DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
        Carolina                         ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
    BOB BARR, Georgia                    DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
    DAN MILLER, Florida                  JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
    ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas             JIM TURNER, Texas
    LEE TERRY, Nebraska                  THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
    JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois               HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee
    GREG WALDEN, Oregon                  JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
    DOUG OSE, California                             ------
    PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin                 BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
    HELEN CHENOWETH-HAGE, Idaho              (Independent)
    DAVID VITTER, Louisiana

                          Kevin Binger, Staff Director
                     Daniel R. Moll, Deputy Staff Director
                         James C. Wilson, Chief Counsel
                            Robert A. Briggs, Clerk
                     Phil Schiliro, Minority Staff Director
                                     ------

       Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology

                       STEPHEN HORN, California, Chairman
    JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois               JIM TURNER, Texas
    THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia            PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
    GREG WALDEN, Oregon                  MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
    DOUG OSE, California                 PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
    PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin                 CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

                                   Ex Officio

    DAN BURTON, Indiana                  HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
              J. Russell George, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
                   Robert Alloway, Professional Staff Member
                               Bryan Sisk, Clerk
              Mark Stephenson, Minority Professional Staff Member

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hearing held on July 20, 2000....................................     1
    Statement of:
        Armey, Hon. Richard K., a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Texas, and Majority Leader, U.S. House of
          Representatives; and Hon. Pete Sessions, a Representative
          in Congress from the State of Texas and chairman, House
          Results Caucus.............................................     7
        Gotbaum, Joshua, Executive Associate Director and Controller
          and Acting Deputy Director for Management, Office of
          Management and Budget; Christopher Mihm, Associate
          Director, Federal Management and Workforce Issues, U.S.
          General Accounting Office; Maurice McTigue, distinguished
          visiting scholar, Mercatus Institute, George Mason
          University; and Ellen Taylor, policy analyst, OMB Watch....    22
    Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
        Armey, Hon. Richard K., a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Texas, and Majority Leader, U.S. House of
          Representatives, prepared statement of.....................    10
        Gotbaum, Joshua, Executive Associate Director and Controller
          and Acting Deputy Director for Management, Office of
          Management and Budget, prepared statement of...............    25
        Horn, Hon. Stephen, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of California, prepared statement of.................     3
        McTigue, Maurice, distinguished visiting scholar, Mercatus
          Institute, George Mason University, prepared statement of..    51
        Mihm, Christopher, Associate Director, Federal Management and
          Workforce Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office, prepared
          statement of...............................................    34
        Sessions, Hon. Pete, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Texas and chairman, House Results Caucus, prepared
          statement of...............................................    17
        Taylor, Ellen, policy analyst, OMB Watch, prepared statement
          of.........................................................   104
        Turner, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State
          of Texas, prepared statement of............................     6

           SEVEN YEARS OF GPRA: HAS THE RESULTS ACT PROVIDED RESULTS?

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, JULY 20, 2000

                      House of Representatives,
    Subcommittee on Government Management, Information,
                                        and Technology,
                                Committee on Government Reform,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in
    room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Stephen Horn
    (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Horn, Turner, and Maloney.
        Staff present: J. Russell George, staff director and chief
    counsel; Earl Pierce, professional staff member; Bonnie Heald,
    director of communications; Bryan Sisk, clerk; Elizabeth Seong,
    staff assistant; Will Ackerly and Davidson Hulfish, interns;
    Trey Henderson, minority counsel; and Jean Gosa, minority
    clerk.
        Mr. Horn. We are here today to examine the implementation
    of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993. This is
    a very important process.
        The act was designed to evaluate whether Federal agencies
    and programs are accomplishing their missions. Once the law has
    been successfully implemented, the American people will be able
    to ask and receive an accurate answer to the question, what are
    we getting for our money? The Results Act encourages efficiency
    and accountability in government spending by requiring agencies
    to justify how they spend their portion of the Government's
    $1.8 trillion budget. The law requires agencies to set goals
    and use performance measures for their management and
    budgeting.
        In a 1997 hearing before this subcommittee, Christopher
    Mihm of the General Accounting Office testified that
    implementation of the act varied among executive branch
    agencies in quality, utility and responsiveness to the law. In
    1999, the General Accounting Office found that only 14 of 35
    agencies defined some type of relationship between the program
    activities on their proposed budgets and the performance goals
    cited in their plans. Yet, few of the 14 agencies explained how
    they would use their funding to achieve these goals.
        Clearly, agencies have made progress in linking program
    planning with their budget requests. Yet, much work remains
    before
    Congress can use this performance information as a significant
    tool in the budget allocation process. Nevertheless, once the
    Results Act has been successfully implemented, it will help us
    achieve a more efficient, effective and responsive government.
        [The prepared statement of Hon. Stephen Horn follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.001

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.002

        Mr. Horn. We are honored to have as our lead witnesses, the
    Majority Leader of the House, the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
    Armey, and the chairman of the House Results Caucus headed by
    the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Sessions.
        We welcome all of our witnesses today and we look forward
    to their testimony.
        You know the routine here, my friend, and the full
    statement goes into the record automatically when you are
    introduced, resume and all. In a minute, I am going to yield to
    another gentleman from Texas. This seems to be a Texas day
    here. I hope the Texas Society is out here somewhere.
        Mr. Sessions. Let us hope the rest of the year continues
    that way, Mr. Chairman. [Laughter.]
        Mr. Horn. I agree with you.
        That is how it works and in the meantime, the gentleman
    from Texas, Mr. Turner, our ranking member, will have his
    opening statement.
        Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Being from California, you certainly defer to Texas. We
    appreciate it.
        This March, for the first time under the Results Act,
    agencies Governmentwide were required to report on their
    results in achieving their goals. I think we all agree that
    this bipartisan legislation we call the Results Act has been an
    effective tool for enhancing government performance and
    efficiency. Its intent is to fundamentally shift the focus of
    our Federal Government and to be sure that we move from a
    preoccupation with staffing and activity levels to a focus on
    outcomes in Federal programs.
        Outcomes are the results expressed in terms of real
    differences in Federal programs and the impact those programs
    make in peoples' lives such as increase in real wages earned by
    graduates of an unemployment training program, or a reduction
    in fatality and injury rates in workplaces or on our highways.
        Congress and its committees can and have been involved in
    the Results Act at all stages. Committees have a means to
    develop and amend the strategic plans as well as the annual
    performance plans. Agency officials have said that evidence of
    real involvement and interest on the part of congressional
    committees in using performance goals and information to help
    in congressional decisionmaking would help to build and sustain
    support for the Results Act within the agencies.
        As a result, as Members of Congress, we have an obligation
    to work with all of the executive branch's agencies to be sure
    GPRA is the tool that improves the efficiency of the Federal
    Government. I believe that a strong and sustained congressional
    attention to GPRA is needed to ensure the success of the act
    and I know that goal is shared by Chairman Horn. I commend the
    chairman as well as my colleagues from Texas for their strong
    support of this very critical effort on the part of this
    Congress.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Hon. Jim Turner follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.003

        Mr. Horn. I thank the gentleman.
        Now we have the ``el tremendo'' gentleman from Texas. We
    are delighted to have the Majority Leader here. He has been a
    backer of the results-oriented approach from day 1. We are
    pleased to have him here. We will have a few questions for him
    but I know he has a busy day.
        The gentleman from Texas, the Majority Leader, Mr. Armey.

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

        Mr. Armey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Let me first appreciate the work that your committee has
    done. I think as much as any committee in Congress, this
    subcommittee and this committee has led our efforts under the
    Results Act.
        The Results Act, as you know, was passed in 1993 and it was
    designed to bring accountability and performance in government
    agencies to the American people. Every one of us, as a Member
    of Congress, will get testimony from back home in that area of
    our work which we most often refer to as case work about the
    extent to which the agencies are providing the services in the
    lives of our constituents, the American people, who pay for
    these agencies, and by whose authority the agencies exist. All
    too often we find ourselves frustrated along with our
    constituents in the agency not performing.
        This has been, I think, a particularly heart warming
    experience for me to be able to be involved in the Results Act.
    The Results Act basically says to every agency, have a clear
    understanding of what you are doing, be able to express that to
    us, tell us what your mission is and give us some evidence of
    your ability to achieve the results you desire.
        We give the agency a great deal of latitude there. If we
    have a quarrel with what they believe and express to be their
    mission, we can take that up legislatively, but the fundamental
    question is, do you in fact have an ability to demonstrate that
    you are getting results, even as you define your mission? We
    have encouraged this.
        I have to tell you, to a large extent, what we did when we
    passed the Results Act was ask the agencies to conform to a new
    regime of accountability. I, for one, was more than willing to
    be patient and encouraging. I have always argued that for any
    of us in any occupation of our life, adaptation to change the
    adoption and the performance under new regimes are always
    something we must have some time and encouragement in doing,
    and we have done that.
        What you have seen happening simultaneously over the past
    couple of years is congressional oversight that has been
    designed to in fact encourage greater performance--your
    scorecards being very important in that regard--and at the same
    time, for us to give a very strong view of the results that are
    there.
        I think, quite frankly, this Congress has been encouraging
    and it has been diligent in oversight. You have seen the
    oversight extension go to other committees across Congress and
    more committees have taken up the understanding of the
    implementation of their role in oversight in this regard.
        I have to tell you, Mr. Chairman, despite all the time and
    effort that we have spent being encouraging in this manner, I
    have come to a moment of some disappointment. Our latest
    evaluations of performance are frankly disappointing to me.
    Every agency in the Federal Government has had a chance to
    travel that learning curve and frankly, should be doing better,
    each and every one of them.
        I think we need to appreciate the performance of the
    General Accounting Office. They worked very hard on this, they
    have taken it seriously and they have been very supportive
    again, both to the committee and to the agencies, but we have
    had independent reviews that have supported their own analysis
    from George Mason University and other reviewers across the
    country that it just isn't working well enough for the American
    people.
        I think what we need to do today perhaps is start to just
    step it up another level. My friend, Pete Sessions, came to me
    early on when we began talking about Results Act and said, I
    would like to form a Results Caucus. He and his caucus have
    been very active in that and we will hear from Pete in a
    moment.
        While I don't think we should ever be a singularly
    discouraging voice out there, I think while we continue our
    encouragement, we must at this point be a little demanding.
        Finally, let me say two final points. One, I have taken
    that initiative a little bit with something that perhaps you
    have seen the ``waste-o-meter.'' We try to keep a better track
    of this, try to publicize the results and try to arm our
    budgeteers and appropriators with real information should it
    become necessary as we try to implement an overall, rigorous
    budget process, fighting against demands for new, more
    spending, to document that spending is not necessarily
    justifiable given the levels of waste we have uncovered from
    the committees reporting today and the reports we have had, and
    the fine work of GAO, some $16 billion uncovered already this
    year, that we have talked about.
        Finally, if I might chafe a little under the bit, at or
    about the time we created the Results Act, the Vice President
    of the United States, Al Gore, was billed as the
    administration's leader in this effort in what he called the
    whole effort to reinvent government. I know there was a great
    deal of public relations there but the fact of the matter is
    that the Results Act and any efforts to reinvent government,
    enforce accountability in Government lay fallow until this
    congressional majority took over in 1995.
        Therefore, it irritates me a little bit when constituents
    come into my office with severe disappointments, sometimes
    heartbreaking disappointments about agencies that just aren't
    performing as they should be for them. People come to my office
    here, people sometimes with multibillion dollar private
    agreements that are being held up by some agency that just
    won't make a decision.
        We don't necessarily sit in Congress and say to the agency,
    you should make this or that decision but I think we have a
    responsibility to say, make a decision--a disservice to the
    people by virtue of agencies not performing.
        To have the Vice President criticize this Congress that has
    tried through all our oversight efforts in so many ways to
    encourage this better service, refer to us as a do nothing for
    the people Congress, I must say gets under my skin a little
    bit. I have to say, where were you, Mr. Vice President, after
    all the publicity waned over reinventing government; where were
    you when it came time to dig in as committee after committee
    has done here and implement the rigor, maintain the oversight
    and continue the encouragement and at times, if necessary,
    express some anger?
        We have done that. Your committee has done that. As I said,
    other committees have done that and the fact of the matter is,
    we are getting improvement, but it is not coming fast enough.
    You will hear further testimony today about that.
        I guess my parting word would be, let us not only continue
    but continue to expand our effort across the Congress to
    implement this because the goal is worthy. The objectives of
    the Results Act are laudable. We have said to the American
    people, we are determined to not only make it clear in every
    agency of this government, a shared understanding of what your
    mission is, what your duty is to the American people, but to
    give one another encouragement, prodding and at times, if
    necessary, criticism in seeing to it that the American people
    get the services they deserve from the agencies created by this
    Congress on their behalf.
        Let me again thank you for letting me be here this morning.
    Let me again encourage you to continue your fine work and I
    express my firm belief that as we continue in understanding and
    implementing GPRA, we will make this government a government
    that is a better service in the lives of its constituents and
    that is what this government has an obligation to be.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Hon. Dick Armey follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.004

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.005

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.006

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.007

        Mr. Horn. We thank you. Those are very worthwhile bits of
    wisdom. By the way, when we did take over this committee in
    1995, we did offer an invitation to the Vice President on
    several occasions and we told him it wasn't one where we were
    going to crab a lot about it, we just thought he was trying to
    do a good job and we will give you a forum. We wouldn't even
    get that.
        Let me ask you on this serious business. I have a feeling,
    and I did say it once either in the retreat or in the
    conference but nobody listens to humble subcommittee chairs but
    they will listen to you.
        I think under your leadership, if we can get the chairs of
    the full authorization committees, the chairs of the
    Subcommittees on Appropriations, and get their political
    counterparts--Presidential nominees, be it Secretary, Deputy
    Secretary, Assistant Secretary--in the same place around a
    table and say, we have read through what some of your goals
    are, show me where in the law this is based. I just think we
    have to get a dialog of principals, not just a dialog of staff.
    With all due respect to the wonderful staff around here, the
    fact is, they are not elected and the executive branch at least
    has the imprimatur of the President's nomination and the
    confirmation of the Senate. I think that closure has not been
    very good.
        Mr. Armey. I appreciate that point. I couldn't agree with
    you more. It has to be a full partnership. This is a big
    government. Any big enterprise like this, it is easy for people
    to lay down on the job and let it be overlooked or to have
    confusions about what their jobs are and let that not be
    clearly understood.
        It does take a partnership effort I think between the
    House, the Senate and the executive branch to make something
    that is frankly this bold and large--imagine this. If you went
    before any college class in America and said, my job is to make
    sure the Federal Government, as large as it is, never misses a
    beat in serving to the best of its ability, the needs of the
    American people, you would astound people with just how
    enormous that task is. No small group of people can do that. We
    must all work on it together.
        That is why I have tried to use the authorities of my
    office to encourage that and I think your point is well taken.
    We have to do a better job all the way around.
        Mr. Horn. I thank you and I know you have other things to
    do but if you want to stay and listen to Mr. Sessions, fine. We
    would welcome you.
        Does the gentleman from Texas have any questions for the
    Majority Leader?
        Mr. Turner. No.
        Mr. Sessions. Majority Leader, are you going to stay or
    stick around?
        Mr. Armey. I might stay a little bit because I am so proud
    of you. If I may, Mr. Chairman, my good colleague just got a
    clean bill of health from Baylor University and they said he
    was good looking too, so I am going to stay.
        Mr. Sessions. It is true, I went in for a little bit of day
    surgery and everything turned out all right.
        I thank my good friend, the Majority Leader.
        Mr. Sessions. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for asking me
    to be here today.
        I would also like to give the same accolades to the
    gentleman from Texas, Mr. Turner. He and I have numerous
    conversations, as you and I do, Mr. Chairman, and I have found
    that Mr. Turner is not only focused on government efficiency,
    but that his answer to the problems is right in line with the
    things you and I are attempting to accomplish. I would like to
    applaud the gentleman for his leadership and work on that also.
    I thank Mr. Turner for that.
        As you know, the Results Caucus is interested in giving
    this government every single dollar it needs but not a penny
    more. Today, you are hearing testimony from Majority Leader
    Armey from Texas talk about his observations as the father and
    leader of the GPRA and other things that have come through this
    Congress that would empower and give stature to government
    agencies to be able to resolve their own problems.
        Mr. Armey and I have, for quite some time, decided that
    there is a time and a process that would allow this government
    the opportunity to see that a process that would encourage
    efficiency was important. We have also decided that we were not
    going to become frustrated, that we were going to work with
    agencies, work with GAO, work toward resolution of problems.
        The fact of the matter is that I believe the gentleman from
    Texas, Mr. Armey and I concur. It seems like the government has
    had time to work through these problems and they have not made
    as much progress as either one of us would have wanted.
        The Results Act, as you know, was a challenge for agency
    directors and those managers of the government to run their
    agencies more efficiently. It was created as a challenge, as an
    opportunity for them to focus on the near term needs of the
    government by them establishing those goals and directions they
    would like to go into.
        The fact of the matter is that as technology and time has
    played its course, many Federal programs are still dramatically
    underperforming, inefficient and have become functionally
    obsolete. This government and its managers have not even
    recognized those changes and taken hold of that.
        I believe that the Results Act, which was designed to
    address those problems as well as to functionally require that
    the Government managers would be attuned to those changes has
    not worked. I have not seen agencies using the Results Act as a
    helpful management tool. I will repeat, I have not seen the
    agencies use the Results Act as a helpful management tool which
    it was completely designed for.
        The performance plans the agencies produce are often still
    too broad, they are attempting to solve every agency problem
    with a large stroke of a brush rather than specifically
    focusing on a structured performance plan to focus or to move
    toward reform by addressing those immediate problems that face
    their agency.
        I continue to have, as Majority Leader Armey and both you,
    Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Turner, regular talks with agencies about
    their performance, regular talks with agencies about how they
    perform their job. I will tell you that the feedback I hear is
    that the managers of the government see the Results Act as
    cumbersome and yet just another hoop to jump through.
        I am disappointed. I am disappointed because I do not
    believe that the agencies have looked at what this is all
    about. I don't believe they have worked hard enough to make it
    work and I further do not believe that they view it as a value
    added process.
        We will continue to focus on the job of oversight. Mr.
    Armey and I will continue not to be frustrated, but I will tell
    you, Mr. Chairman, we will not yield back to believing that the
    Government, regardless of how big it is, should not be
    efficient. We believe a government or an organization, even the
    smallest in this Government, should become efficient and should
    do what its mandate is laid out to be.
        Last, I would say this. While I have said we are not going
    to be frustrated, you can anticipate and expect that the
    Majority Leader and the Results Caucus led by me will continue
    to speak out on the issues where we see problems. We do
    appreciate what this committee is doing as well as the
    gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Burton, and the whole committee,
    and we want to continue working with you.
        Today, you are going to hear from people who have specific
    examples, ideas about how we can make it better, and I
    encourage this committee to address that in the way they
    choose. We will continue to be a value added partner.
        I thank you for the opportunity to be here.
        Last, I would say this, and ask unanimous consent to say
    this, I have a professor to my right, Dr. Armey; I also have a
    professor from my university, Dr. Weldon Crowley, who is here.
    Dr. Crowley was my history professor. So many times we talk
    about learning things in fifth grade, how government works and
    playing them out here. In this case, it was at Southwestern
    University as a young student where my professor, Dr. Weldon
    Crowley, a man who is very distinguished in what he does, to
    teach me the ways of government and here we are playing them
    out today with the Majority Leader and this esteemed committee.
        I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Hon. Pete Sessions follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.008

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.009

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.090

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.091

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.092

        Mr. Horn. We thank you and we welcome you to the chamber
    here. I know it must have been tremendous to get all that
    knowledge in his head and maybe you should be a distinguished
    trustee professor for life as a result of that. [Laughter.]
        We thank the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Sessions. He has
    done a terrific job with the Results Caucus. We will be putting
    out our dear colleague bit which I hope will help you based on
    the General Accounting Office, as to where the waste is in a
    lot of agencies which we have done about every 6 months or so.
        Thank you both for coming.
        Unless Mr. Turner has some questions, you have heard mine
    and I thank you very much.
        We will have now panel two, the Honorable Joshua Gotbaum,
    Christopher Mihm, Maurice McTigue and Ellen Taylor.
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        Mr. Horn. The clerk will note the four witnesses have
    affirmed the oath.
        We will begin with the Honorable Joshua Gotbaum, Executive
    Associate Director and Controller, and Acting Deputy Director
    for Management, Office of Management and Budget. I think you
    have appeared three times or so this last month. We thank you.

    STATEMENTS OF JOSHUA GOTBAUM, EXECUTIVE ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR AND
    CONTROLLER AND ACTING DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR MANAGEMENT, OFFICE OF
     MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET; CHRISTOPHER MIHM, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR,
         FEDERAL MANAGEMENT AND WORKFORCE ISSUES, U.S. GENERAL
      ACCOUNTING OFFICE; MAURICE MCTIGUE, DISTINGUISHED VISITING
    SCHOLAR, MERCATUS INSTITUTE, GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY; AND ELLEN
                   TAYLOR, POLICY ANALYST, OMB WATCH

        Mr. Gotbaum. Yes, Mr. Chairman, but since each of them is
    something that is quite important to the business of
    government, I am actually grateful.
        Mr. Horn. You know the routine which is your paper is
    already in the hearing record. We would like a summary of it
    and you don't have to read it because we have read it.
        Mr. Gotbaum. I appreciate that.
        I would note that I am joined this morning by a number of
    folks from OMB staff, including Jimmy Charney, Texas A&M, 1996,
    who wanted me to make sure you knew that Mr. Turner's colleague
    was an alumnus of his.
        I don't want to spend a lot of time in this committee
    talking about the importance of GPRA because I think it is
    crystal clear that this committee recognizes it is important. I
    think it is important to affirm that the administration does
    too and that as this committee knows, each year we put out a
    set of priority management objectives. For the last several
    years, performance measurement has been PMO 2 because Y2K was
    PMO 1. This year performance management, using performance
    data, is PMO 1.
        The story of our implementing this law, which was passed
    with bipartisan support and which we strongly endorse, is I
    think a story of real effort and some real success and a long
    way to go. I think we should be honest about that.
        I have listed in my testimony the fact that 100 Federal
    agencies have turned out strategic plans and performance plans
    and performance reports and this year, for the first time, they
    all turned out performance reports and we think this is a very
    important milestone.
        What I would like to do is talk about the risks that we
    face--how we go from here--and what the challenges are. I am
    happy to talk in questioning about what individual agencies
    have done.
        We are still learning what the right measures are. This is
    a difficult task, something the Government hadn't done before,
    particularly systematically and certainly not with the force of
    law. GPRA is not a one size fits all business. What we find is
    that as agencies develop their measures, and try to implement
    them, there is a trial and error process. That necessarily
    involves error and it involves allowing people to learn from
    their mistakes.
        Let me list one of my personal favorites which is the
    Occupational Safety and Health Administration. OSHA wanted to
    implement the law, so they said, we are going to measure and
    keep track of the number of inspections we do. Then they
    realized that this was an intermediate measure, a measure of
    their effort but not a result. They said, we are really in the
    business of workplace safety, so maybe we should be tracking
    and measuring and sending our troops based on where the
    workplaces are safe or not safe. They reformed the way they did
    business.
        This had a couple of powerful effects. One, it enabled them
    to be more effective in their job, and two, it enabled the
    businesses they regulate to understand what the right goals
    were. I mention this because I think it is very important as we
    implement GPRA and as you provide oversight to both encourage
    these guys to do it and allow them to make mistakes and
    encourage them to correct and improve the results.
        We need both outcome and output measures. There are some
    who say that agencies should only be measured by how they are
    doing in reducing poverty or improving the quality of housing,
    or reducing unemployment rate. We agree that agencies should be
    measured by that but it would be a mistake to throw out all
    measures of output because it matters to the Government, it
    matters to the citizens, and I believe it matters to the
    Congress how efficiently agencies do things.
        So while I think it is very important that we keep track of
    measures of unemployment and how they change as a result of job
    training programs, if we can figure that, it is equally
    important that we tell the Social Security Administration that
    they ought to watch how long it takes for them to answer the
    telephone.
        The real challenge of GPRA is moving beyond report writing.
    It is in taking performance information and using it in program
    management and budgeting. There are people who argue that we
    should measure the success of our implementation of GPRA by the
    clarity of reports or the validity of the data used. I must
    strenuously disagree. They matter but those are output
    measures. Those are not outcome measures.
        The outcome that we are trying to get is to have
    performance information used routinely by agencies to measure
    how they manage their programs and by OMB and you in how you
    review their programs and their budgets.
        This is hard stuff because it means you have to pick the
    right measures, you have to put them out there and get
    agreement on them, you have to put them in your management
    systems and then you have to use them, but we are beginning.
        In budgeting, we have always used and looked for,
    performance information. What GPRA has done is added the force
    of law to that requirement and as a result, we are increasingly
    using performance information in budget decisions. I have
    listed some examples in my testimony.
        OMB strongly supports this. We are using it. We too are
    learning how to incorporate performance information into the
    budgeting process. We started by giving guidance on plans and
    then when we got the plans saying how do you incorporate this
    into budget decisions? We then said to the agencies, send us
    performance information with your budget plans. We started
    using it internally.
        This year we moved a step ahead: We said to the agencies,
    send us your performance plan as part of your budget
    submission. What we were trying to do was ask the agencies to
    integrate performance measures and budgeting so that we can do
    a better job. As a result, we hope you will agree they will do
    a better job.
        We have a very long way to go. We have a long way to go in
    improving the measures we use, a long way to go in integrating
    them into management and budget, and we have a long way to go
    in realigning budgets, programs and organizations as a result
    of those reviews, but we are, I hope the committee recognizes,
    beginning. This leads me to my last point, which is the role of
    Congress.
        We are enormously grateful for the attention that this
    committee and this Congress places on the Government
    Performance and Results Act. We think it is essential that you
    review progress and hold everybody's feet to the fire.
        I view this as an issue of combining patience and pressure.
    One of the things for which we are grateful is that the
    Congress has recognized this is a trial and error process. We
    have to keep working at it. I was enormously gratified at the
    statements by Congressman Sessions and Mr. Armey because they
    recognize this takes time. But you have to hold our feet to the
    fire.
        That is really my last request, which is that you continue
    to do so. Hearings like this one, every time you hold one, send
    a message. Your suggestion, Mr. Chairman, of combining forces
    with appropriations and authorizing committees would make the
    message even clearer. We hope it is something the Congress will
    take to heart.
        In closing, all I will say is, however you choose to do it,
    we are committed to working with you, to delivering on the
    promise of performance, and as a result, to deliver the quality
    of government the American people deserve.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Gotbaum follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.010

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.011

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.012

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.013

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.014

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.015

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.016

        Mr. Horn. Thank you. That is a very optimistic view and I
    am glad to hear it.
        Now we go back to a regular also here and that is
    Christopher Mihm, Associate Director, Federal Management and
    Workforce Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office, part of the
    legislative branch.
        Mr. Mihm. Yes, sir.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Turner. Once again, it is
    an honor and a pleasure to appear before you to discuss the
    Government Performance and Results Act.
        The issuance last spring of the first performance reports
    showing the degree to which agencies met their goals and the
    strategies and plans they have to meet unmet goals, along with
    their annual performance plans and strategic plans and the
    Governmentwide performance plans, represents a new and
    potentially more substantive phase of GPRA implementation. That
    is, we have now completed the first full cycle of the act in
    its planning and reporting requirements.
        For GPRA to be fully useful to Congress and the executive
    branch, however, agencies need to make continued progress in
    addressing a set of five enduring challenges that we have
    reported on fairly consistently: first, articulating the
    results orientation; second, coordinating cross-cutting
    programs; third, showing the performance consequences of budget
    decisions which you highlighted in your opening statement;
    fourth, showing how daily operations contribute to results--one
    of the issues that Mr. Gotbaum raised--and fifth, building the
    capacity to gather and use performance information.
        First, in regards to adopting a results orientation, the
    challenge confronting agencies is to develop a clear sense of
    the results to be achieved as opposed to the products and
    services the agency produces. The lack of a comprehensive set
    of goals that focused on results was one of the central
    weaknesses that we saw when we looked at the fiscal year 1999
    annual performance plans.
        Important progress was made over the next year and all of
    the fiscal year 2000 plans we looked at, the plans the agencies
    are operating under now, contained at least some goals and
    measures that addressed program results. Still, detailed in my
    written statement, there are plenty of opportunities for
    continued progress in that area.
        Second, coordinating cross-cutting programs: we have found
    that unfocused and uncoordinated cross-cutting programs waste
    scarce resources, confuse and frustrate taxpayers and program
    beneficiaries--as the Majority Leader pointed out in the
    casework examples he discussed--and limit overall program
    effectiveness.
        Although the fiscal year 2000 plans indicate that agencies
    continue to make progress in coordinating these cross-cutting
    programs, we are still finding they need to complete the far
    more difficult and substantive task of establishing
    complementary performance goals, mutually reinforcing
    strategies and where appropriate, common performance measures.
        Third, a key objective of GPRA is to help Congress develop
    a clearer understanding of what is being achieved in relation
    to what is being spent. We are finding that agencies are making
    incremental progress in developing the useful linkages between
    their annual budget request and performance plans but that much
    additional work is needed in this area as well.
        The actions of many agencies during fiscal years 1999 and
    2000 performance planning cycles constituted important first
    steps but, I would stress, just first steps in forging closer
    links between the plans and budgets and could be seen in
    essence as a baseline from which to assess future progress.
        Fourth, understanding and articulating how agencies' day-
    to-day operations contribute to results is a critical element
    of GPRA implementation. Mr. Gotbaum mentioned the excellent
    example of the experiences over at OSHA and I would underscore
    that. The point there is that as OSHA and other agencies begin
    to move beyond what they do on a day-to-day basis and consider
    the results they are designed to achieve, that often opens
    whole new avenues for them to explore in terms of strategies
    and program initiatives they should be undertaking that would
    lead them to more effectively achieve the results.
        Fifth, we found although the fiscal year 2000 plans
    contained valuable and informative information relating
    strategies and programs to goals, there was plenty of work that
    was still needed in that area. Let me mention two in
    particular.
        First, the virtual absence of discussions of human capital,
    which as you know from the Comptroller General earlier this
    week, is a major concern. The fiscal year 2000 plans suggested
    that one of the critical components of high performing
    organizations, the systematic integration of human capital and
    performance planning, is not being adequately addressed
    throughout the Federal Government.
        More broadly, any serious effort to fundamentally improve
    the performance of Federal agencies must address the management
    challenges and program risks including those elements on our
    high risk list. This obviously was the point that Mr. Sessions
    was making. Unfortunately, the fiscal year 2000 plan showed
    inconsistent attention to the need to resolve these issues.
        The fifth and final key challenge we found deals with the
    substantial and longstanding limitations in agency ability to
    produce credible performance information. In fact, these
    challenges and the lack of credible performance information is
    one of the greatest continuing weaknesses with GPRA
    implementation.
        In summary, GPRA has the potential and is already beginning
    to help Congress and the executive branch ensure that the
    Federal Government provides results the American people care
    about. We look forward to continuing to support the Congress in
    this regard and in any way we can to meet your needs.
        As you know from my prepared statement, one of the things
    we suggest is under House Rule 10, the oversight plans that the
    standing committees must send to this committee could be used
    as a vehicle for further drilling GPRA into congressional
    oversight plans. We look forward to helping you with that or in
    any other way.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Mihm follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.017

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.018

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.019

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.020

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.021

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.022

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.023

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.024

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.025

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.026

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.027

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.028

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.029

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.030

        Mr. Horn. Thank you. We have two more witnesses and then we
    will open it to questions. I think it will be a very good
    dialog from all four of you.
        Our next witness is Maurice McTigue, distinguished visiting
    scholar, Mercatus Institute, George Mason University, and a
    fellow once parliamentarian. We were delighted to visit
    Australia and New Zealand in a trip last year to see if any of
    your fine work was still holding forth. In places, it is, so I
    would like to talk to you about that sometime.
        Go ahead.
        Mr. McTigue. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, and I would be delighted
    to talk to you about it.
        As you indicated, my experience is mainly as a politician
    and as a member of Cabinet, and at a time when my country was
    going through major changes, most of which were based upon the
    principle that is the founding principle of GPRA.
        I think for Congress one of the interesting factors
    involved in that process is that while it started 16 years ago,
    and there have been three changes of the party in power in
    governance in New Zealand, there has been no relaxation in the
    rigor with which the performance of government has been
    pursued.
        In the 3-years that I have been here in the United States
    and have worked closely with the agencies of government and
    also with Congress in terms of sharing some of our experiences,
    I think the thing that impresses me most about GPRA is that it
    does focus on changing the primacy of measures to a focus on
    outcomes.
        I have heard a number of people make comment this morning
    about efficiency. When I talk about the primacy of measures, it
    is that the primacy of the measure of effectiveness must
    outweigh considerations of efficiency. That is not something
    that legislatures have been good at doing in the past.
        I think if we were to look at the high spot of government
    performance over the past 3 years in the United States, it
    would be the success of the Y2K project. In my view, the
    success of that project was driven in no small part by people
    like yourself who actually asked the right questions. The
    question was the outcome question--will the computers work on
    January 1, 2000? It didn't focus so much on tell me what you
    have done, you kept focusing on ``will the computers work on
    January 1, 2000.''
        That is outcome-based scrutiny. We want to know the result.
    Can you actually deliver for us what you have promised you
    would deliver for us? If we looked at the principle that I
    think is important to Congress in considering this whole area
    of activity, that principle would really be this--``that all
    future decisions by government would be taken in full knowledge
    of the consequences of that decision.''
        In the past, I believe many decisions have been taken in
    full knowledge of what will be done but without full knowledge
    of the consequences of that decision. What GPRA does is shifts
    the focus of accountability to what were the public benefits
    from the expenditure of that money rather than what were the
    activities that were funded from the expenditure of that money?
        If we look at GPRA as a tool, then it breaks into four
    significant parts. The first part of the process is planning.
    Give to the public a fair expectation of what it is that you
    are going to achieve. The second part of it is implementation,
    putting in place and implementing those outputs that are meant
    to achieve that outcome.
        We have been through the first two stages of that with GPRA
    and I like to remind people that GPRA, while passed in 1993,
    only took effect for fiscal year 1999, so there is very little
    evidence at this stage of the success or otherwise of GPRA.
        As an ex-politician and working in a university at the
    moment, in my mind the most important part of GPRA is what
    occurs now. In March of this year, we saw the first round of
    disclosure of performance. What was in the reports of the
    agencies should disclose what was achieved and now we are at
    the fourth stage, what does Congress do in the process of
    oversight and scrutiny of those reports?
        To me that is the most important part. One of the things
    you need to do, in my view, is look at the quality of the
    reporting. Have you had placed in front of you sufficient
    knowledge and a high enough quality of information for you to
    be able to make decisions in the knowledge of the full
    consequences of those decisions? We at the Mercatus Center did
    a study on the quality of reporting and in many instances, the
    reports do not provide you with that capability. Some of them
    were good. Most of them lacked in a number of areas in terms of
    being able to identify for you what were the public benefits
    from these activities.
        In looking at those reports, I think you also need to look
    at not only are they open and transparent but is there full
    disclosure? For example, we found some organizations that
    describe their activity in terms of ``we fully met the goal''
    when what they actually did was achieve 90 percent of the goal.
    Ninety percent might be a good measure in some cases but in
    some other areas, you might determine that was quite
    inadequate.
        In other cases, they described adequate performance as
    anything above 67 percent of goal. Those are very arbitrary and
    I think what you need to know is what was the percentage of
    each goal that was achieved rather than a broad-based measure
    like that. So that is full disclosure in my view and it is very
    important to the success of Congress's security of Government.
        What then might Congress do through committees like
    yourself? I believe what Congress has to do is to learn to
    conduct scrutiny based on outcomes rather than conduct,
    scrutiny based on process. What you need to be able to do is to
    look at a particular outcome: you are examining an agency, you
    pick a particular activity, look at that outcome. If you were
    to follow that outcome through, you would be able to say how
    much of the public good for this particular issue comes from
    this agency and how much from others.
        By following that outcome and looking at the effectiveness
    of each program, you can then make comparisons and finally get
    to a position of saying if we have optimal utilization of
    resources, here is the potential public benefit. The cost to
    the American public for suboptimal utilization of resources is
    the difference between optimal allocation and the status quo.
    We, the public could have had
    this quantity of benefit and we are shortchanged by the amount
    that was placed in ineffective programs.
        That is the end of my testimony and thank you for the
    opportunity.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. McTigue follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.031

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.032

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.033

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.034

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.035

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.036

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.037

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.038

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.039

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.040

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.041

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.042

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.043

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.044

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.045

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.046

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.047

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.048

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.049

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.050

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.051

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.052

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.053

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.054

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.055

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.056

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.057

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.058

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.059

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.060

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.061

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.062

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.063

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.064

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.065

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.066

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.067

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.068

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.069

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.070

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.071

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.072

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.073

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.074

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.075

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.076

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.077

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.078

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.079

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.080

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.081

        Mr. Horn. Thank you.
        We have a vote on the floor now, so we are going to have to
    recess for 20 minutes. I think it is just one vote but why
    don't you all have a cup of coffee. Just go down to the
    basement and you can get plenty of coffee.
        We will be recess until at least 11:05 a.m.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. Horn. The committee will come to order.
        We will now continue with the last presenter, Ellen Taylor,
    policy analyst, OMB Watch. You might just tell us in a couple
    of sentences what OMB Watch is. This is your chance to plug it.
        Included that because I was afraid no one would know.
        Ms. Taylor. Thank you for this opportunity to testify. For
    those who don't know, OMB Watch is a nonprofit, research and
    advocacy organization that seeks to promote greater government
    accountability and citizen participation.
        For the past 3 years, we have actively sought to increase
    the participation of nonprofits as one kind of stakeholder
    under GPRA in the implementation of the act. I believe this
    work, including our lack of success in persuading nonprofits of
    the importance of GPRA, and our reflection on that, gives us a
    unique perspective from the others presented here. I hope it
    will be useful in these deliberations.
        This has already been said a number of times but it is very
    important that Congress and the executive agencies work
    together in a constructive way to accomplish GPRA. Second,
    Congress should mandate stakeholder involvement in the
    performance planning process, encouraging the active
    solicitation of comments on performance measures and ensuring
    that agencies have adequate resources to obtain outside
    comments.
        It is already part of the law that stakeholders must be
    involved during the strategic planning stage, but we would
    argue that the performance planning stage is the real meat and
    potatoes of GPRA and it needs outside involvement, and it needs
    involvement of State and local grantees who are involved in
    Federal programs.
        Third, Federal agencies must make greater use of the
    Internet to make data and performance measurement transparent
    and accessible to the public. I would suggest this kind of
    public exposure can actually help improve the quality of the
    data and mitigate some of the problems in data and in
    benchmarking.
        There is no doubt that GPRA is an important tool and yet we
    remain skeptical about whether it can achieve the purposes for
    which it was made into law. These three changes may help GPRA
    to strengthen government accountability and enhance public
    trust. I would like to look more closely at our
    recommendations.
        First, GPRA's success depends on government's commitment to
    it. Otherwise, it will simply become another kind of exercise
    in a long series. Government agencies we have seen are taking
    GPRA very seriously and they are taking it not as just another
    paperwork exercise, but as a real potential to do things
    differently, and to do things better.
        This can only happen with a concerted and constructive
    involvement of Congress, not as an antagonist but as a partner.
    In this regard, we encourage congressional committees to
    exercise their oversight authority but we would caution if that
    oversight is done in the context of partisanship or as a way to
    wage ideological battles, it will be detrimental. We should
    always remember that GPRA is about improving government and
    performance, not about downsizing or not about privatizing, or
    not about bean counting.
        While we recognize one of the distinguishing features of
    GPRA is its linkage to the budget, we also think it is
    important to realize that it is not a panacea for difficult
    budget decisions. Performance measurement may be a helpful tool
    in determining resource allocations but quantifiable measures
    of performance will never be enough.
        Finally, we think Congress has a golden opportunity here
    not only to emphasize the problems in government but to
    highlight those government programs that do work, that are
    effective and accomplish goals for citizens. Recent studies
    have shown that citizens rate government almost on a par with
    private services. Yet, mistrust of government as a whole is
    still a problem. We think one way of overcoming that is to
    start focusing on the successes of GPRA and not just on the
    failures.
        Our second recommendation is stakeholder involvement in
    performance planning. While we know the public can't become
    privy to Federal budget decisions, the performance plans are
    too important to disallow public engagement on the selection of
    benchmarks and performance measures. Performance information
    can be pulled out of the budget submissions and made available
    to stakeholders without impinging on the privileged nature of
    the budget.
        Finally, agencies need to use the Internet to make their
    GPRA plans and reports available but also to provide the public
    with the underlying data and the information used in their
    plans to measure performance. We believe that public exposure
    and input can positively affect the quality of that data.
        For example, even though the EPA never identifies specific
    amounts of reduction in emission of toxic chemicals, the public
    accessibility of their toxics release inventory helped to
    create an amazing 45 percent reduction in toxic emissions it
    was easy to find, easy to access.
        To conclude, frankly, we don't know whether the Results Act
    has achieved results during the past 7 years. We have doubts
    but we remain hopeful. GPRA was not meant to be perfect in the
    first go around and this really has been the first go around.
    We think it may succeed in its purposes if there is meaningful
    stakeholder involvement in the performance plans, including
    that of Federal grantees, if underlying data as well as plans
    and reports are publicly accessible and open and transparent,
    and if Congress will work in a constructive partnership with
    agencies to achieve GPRA's potential.
        Thank you for allowing me to speak.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Taylor follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.082

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.083

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.084

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.085

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.086

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.087

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.088

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.089

        Mr. Horn. We appreciate your presentation and we are now
    going to go to questions. It will be 5 minutes for each and we
    will alternate between myself and Mr. Turner.
        Let me start with you, Ms. Taylor. I would be interested,
    based on your analysis, in what are the three top Federal
    departments and agencies that have successfully implemented the
    Results Act, if you were asked that question, which you just
    have been, what would you say?
        Ms. Taylor. I think I would hedge. I think maybe that is
    the wrong way to go about it, trying to identify the agencies
    that have done the best.
        Mr. Horn. We need some role models in this work.
        Ms. Taylor. Right. I think we should pick out parts of each
    agency's plans that meet the mark and use those as examples so
    other agencies with similar programs or for whom that
    information could be transferred.
        Mr. Horn. Give me an agency where they have something that
    has really made a difference in terms of using the Results Act.
        Ms. Taylor. I haven't read the results reports carefully so
    I am really at a loss to try to specifically give an agency. I
    think my example of the EPA and the toxics release inventory is
    an example of an agency who made information available and
    accessible and through that, allows the public to start urging
    accountability which aids the agency ultimately in their
    performance. I am sorry to be vague.
        Mr. Horn. Do you have any evidence that they have used
    measurements that would apply to other types of environmental
    problems?
        Ms. Taylor. I think that approach would be transferrable to
    other agencies, to other kinds of problems government is trying
    to solve. I think we all agree that sometimes the data is
    lacking and the agencies are struggling to come up with the
    right benchmarking and starting measures to show they have
    measured performance, so I think the openness of the data so
    the public can see it and can know what they are starting from
    and where they are trying to go is really important.
        Mr. Horn. Mr. McTigue, what is your answer to that
    question?
        Mr. McTigue. This is an opportunity to make myself very
    unpopular with a lot of people. The three I would pick I would
    pick for different reasons. I would pick the Department of
    Transportation because in my view they are using
    comprehensively the principles of the Results Act to influence
    their decisionmaking.
        One of the things that impressed me most about the
    Department of Transportation is that in their internal budget
    negotiation round, what they do is identify 10 priority areas
    and other areas of activity and if necessary they have to
    concede resources to those 10 priorities. Those priorities are
    set very much on the basis of the outcomes we need to achieve.
    So I think there is a good example of making comprehensive use
    of the principles of GPRA.
        If I looked at who has been most successful in changing
    their outcomes, I would say Veterans Health because Veterans
    Health starting about 5 years ago, moved the emphasis of that
    entire organization to the imperative of improving the wellness
    of veterans, and they direct their resources to that particular
    end goal.
        They have some wonderful information that looks at the
    efficacy of different health procedures inside veterans
    hospitals and other facilities and how the efficacy of those
    procedures has significantly improved over time to the point
    now where they are equal to or better than those procedures in
    public and private hospitals. That is a dramatic outcome
    improvement.
        If I was to look for the organization where Congress and
    the American public are getting the greatest benefit in terms
    of their tax dollars, I would say it is FEMA because today FEMA
    is doing about 20 percent more for about 25 percent less money
    in its administrative budget while managing more disasters.
        In addition to that, it has also moved to a new and very
    important focus on mitigation. How can they continually reduce
    the consequences of a disaster on individuals and communities
    so that at the same time they are dealing with their base
    cause, which is helping people get their lives together, after
    a disaster they are also looking at how they can minimize the
    impact.
        Those would be my three choices but for three very
    different reasons.
        Mr. Horn. What is your suggestion, Mr. Mihm?
        Mr. Mihm. One of the advantages of being third is that it
    gives me to time to think. The disadvantage is when someone
    steals some of the best ideas, so I am going to agree in large
    measure with what has been said.
        I think the Department of Transportation as a department is
    clearly one of the leaders. That is, when you look across their
    various modal administrations, you see a lot of leadership from
    the Coast Guard, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
    is certainly one of the leaders in this; FAA, despite a lot of
    other high risk problems, is beginning to come along as well.
        Social Security Administration, I would put as one of the
    leaders. I think that is a function of two things, one, their
    experience in doing accountability reports under the Government
    Management Reform Act led them early to be thinking about how
    they pull together and talk about what they are doing and
    accomplishing. I also think it is a function in SSA that a lot
    of their outcomes are more outputs, making sure the right check
    gets to the right bank account on the right day. Nevertheless,
    they have done a fairly sophisticated job in thinking about
    their goals and presenting them in that regard.
        I would also agree with Veterans Health Administration. The
    chronic disease prevention index that they have has become
    quite sophisticated looking across a variety of diseases such
    as: diabetes, obesity, heart disease. It is a quite
    sophisticated index that they are able to evaluate the
    performance of VHA generally as well as each of their
    integrated service centers, and to talk about how they are
    doing.
        We are doing a review at the request of Mr. Burton that is
    looking at how the performance goals are being drilled into the
    contracts of senior managers at VHA and elsewhere. So I would
    put them among the leaders as well.
        Mr. Horn. Mr. Gotbaum, I want you to answer the question
    last because you have the overall view from the executive
    branch. Then I will give 10 minutes to Mr. Turner for his
    questioning because we are obviously going over 5.
        Mr. Gotbaum. I am sure you have run into this dilemma; what
    do you say when everything has been said but not everyone has
    said it. I don't disagree with these particular analyses, so
    what I would like to do is elaborate on a couple of points.
        One, Veterans Affairs. The work that was done in Veterans
    Health has been very impressive. I would note the Department of
    Veterans Affairs is now taking the next step we talked about,
    which is that they are trying to both realign their budget
    accounts so they follow program lines and to modernize their
    financial systems to take them into account.
        I mentioned moving from output measures and asking how good
    the reports are, to outcome measures, how much is incorporated
    into management. The Department of Veterans Affairs is really
    trying to go this next step, for which I personally commend
    them.
        Social Security and NASA are interesting cases because
    these agencies really were concerned with accountability and
    were a little slow to develop the skill on the performance side
    but have clearly gotten it, and gotten it very well. The nice
    thing is, because they were so concerned with accountability in
    the first place, each has produced reports that cover both
    financial accountability and performance. That achieves the
    goal that you mentioned which we agree is quite important:
    people want to know what they get and what they pay for with
    their money.
        The last one I want to mention is Education. I want to
    mention it because of two things. One, the task is hard. A
    large part of the Department of Education budget is programs in
    which they send checks to States and local governments who
    implement their programs. So one of the real tasks and real
    difficulties for Education is: what is it I measure? What is it
    I am accountable for? Am I accountable for merely how quickly I
    send the check or how carefully I review the State agency's
    plan, or should I be accountable for literacy levels in local
    jurisdictions?
        In my view, one of the impressive and honest things in the
    Department of Education's accountability report is how clear
    they are that they are keeping track of both but they haven't
    yet figured out what is the best tie between their activities
    and final results. I commend them, partly because they have
    improved dramatically over the last year, and partly because
    they are honest about the linkage question which is, for those
    of us in the Federal Government, really very important.
        Mr. Horn. Thank you very much.
        Ten minutes of questioning to the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
    Turner.
        Mr. Turner. One of the areas I want to spend a little time
    with each is discussing the role of the Congress and the
    committees in successful implementation of the Results Act. I
    want to do that because I think when we look honestly at the
    origin of this legislation, it did begin as a bipartisan
    effort.
        As I recall, Mr. Conyers and Mr. Clinger were the co-
    sponsors in the House and Senator Roth was the sponsor in the
    Senate. I frankly believe the success of GPRA not only will lie
    with the ability of the agency managers to put GPRA and the
    performance measures in place and to properly evaluate them,
    but it is going to depend on the ability of Congress to carry
    out its role in GPRA.
        I think we need to jealously guard the bipartisan nature of
    this legislation. Frankly, I really think it is not only
    important to jealously guard it to ensure its success, I think
    it is probably poor politics to do otherwise because if you
    make an effort to make efficiency and effectiveness of
    government a partisan issue, it is like trying to make
    motherhood a partisan issue. I don't think the public is going
    to buy into it. I think they understand both sides of aisle
    believe in efficiency and effectiveness in government.
        I think if we can ensure the Congress approaches this
    legislation in that manner, I think we have the hope of its
    ultimate success. If we fail to do that, I think we sow the
    seeds of its destruction.
        In keeping with those thoughts, I want to first ask a
    question perhaps of any of you who would like to respond. I
    think I might want to start with Mr. Mihm.
        One of the key things we all know ultimately GPRA is all
    about, as I think Mr. McTigue expressed in his testimony, is
    that Congress should be able not just to see government
    agencies manage activities and then hope for results, but as
    you said in your testimony, GPRA makes it possible for Congress
    to choose to do only those programs that will produce results.
        With that concept, we will change the way the Congress
    conducts oversight and review of our agencies. So what I would
    like to do even though I acknowledge GPRA is in its infancy and
    this is only the first year, even though passed in 1993, of
    full implementation, I would like you all to give me an
    example, if you have one, of where the Congress has made a
    decision, based on your observations of the work of the
    committees, to either fund or not fund a program based upon the
    Results Act and the information flowing from a given agency
    produced by the Results Act.
        Mr. Mihm. I think we would be hard pressed to point out
    here is where a budget was increased or decreased because the
    appropriators saw and said we are doing this because of GPRA.
        However, one of the things we need to guard against is
    setting the bar so high that if someone doesn't say they are
    doing something because of GPRA, we call the law a failure. In
    other words, when you take a look at the appropriations
    committee reports--we have examined committee reports that have
    come out of the appropriators--there is plenty of language in
    there that talks about how performance information was being
    used in their decisions, that talks about the goals and the
    actual performance of a program.
        GPRA is not often mentioned. However, it is very clear
    where that information that is being used is coming from. It is
    coming from GPRA plans and products. The point I am making is
    that while I would be hard pressed to say here is something
    that happened only because of GPRA, we are seeing the
    conversation change, more attention to performance information.
    GPRA is contributing to that environment and so in that sense,
    we are seeing appropriations decisions are beginning to be
    influenced or at least colored by a greater attention to
    performance and performance information.
        Mr. Turner. Mr. Gotbaum, have you seen examples where GPRA
    results have affected the funding decisions of the Congress?
        Mr. Gotbaum. I believe so. I meant what I said in my
    testimony. I believe that we have always--we at OMB and the
    Congress in its deliberations--looked for information about
    programs. What is it doing? What is it actually accomplishing?
    GPRA provided the force of law and the process and the language
    that enhanced that.
        I agree and accept Chris' point which is I am not sure I
    can hand you a case in which I can tell you the chairman of an
    appropriations subcommittee said, based on the Social Security
    Administration's performance report, I change their level. I
    don't think that is the right test.
        I think there are lots of cases in which the fact the
    discussion is based on performance and not on dollars has
    changed the discussion. Let me mention one. This is one which
    was controversial.
        The President proposed a couple of years ago what we call
    the Class Size Initiative. He said, I would like to provide
    funding so that school districts in grades 1 through 3 didn't
    have to have class sizes larger than 18. This got translated
    into 100,000 teachers.
        I don't mean to raise this so that we can talk about the
    merits of that particular proposal, but I think it is important
    that we recognize that was a proposal that was framed not as
    let us expand the budget of the Department of Education by $1
    billion. That wasn't what he said and that wasn't what the
    debate was.
        He said, let us focus on class size. The interesting thing
    was the congressional debate then became should we tie Federal
    dollars to class size or should we work on a more generic block
    grant. So that is a case in which I think the debate was
    affected very powerfully by the fact that it was framed in
    terms of performance measures.
        There are to be sure intermediate measures. Class size is
    not literacy but it is a heck of a long way from the let us
    just increase the budget of the Department of Education by 10
    percent.
        I think we all recognize and everyone is conscious of the
    fact that performance information alone isn't going to take
    away the need to make choices. The President and Congress are
    going to have to say, I think we should do more in education
    versus defense, environment or whatever, but I really do feel
    and I have watched it in the budget process in case after case
    after case, the more debate goes toward measures other than
    dollars, the more focused the debate is and in my view, the
    better the ultimate decisionmaking.
        I am enormously grateful for your point about the
    bipartisan support for GPRA. We feel that very strongly. My
    colleague from OMB, Walter Groszyk, although he generally
    doesn't admit it, helped draft GPRA. We think it is very
    important that the Congress work on it, work on it
    aggressively, work on it expansively and work on it in a
    bipartisan fashion.
        Mr. Turner. Mr. McTigue, do you have any examples you could
    cite where you have seen Congress or a committee actually make
    a decision on funding based on results?
        Mr. McTigue. The first comment I would make is with all due
    respect, I think your question is a little bit premature
    because you are only now seeing the first of the annual reports
    based on that. Quite frankly, the quality of the reporting at
    the moment does not provide you with information where you
    could clearly say we should cancel this activity.
        To approximate an answer to your question, I think the
    principles that probably led to the writing of GPRA in 1993
    have certainly been applied by Congress to a number of
    organizations. If you take the five, in my view, highest
    performing organizations in government, each and every one of
    them has been subjected to intense scrutiny by this Congress in
    the last 10 years.
        FEMA was slated by Congress to be wiped out in the early
    1990's unless it was able to improve its performance. Today, it
    is one of the best performing government organizations and
    meeting the criteria of GPRA. You can say exactly the same
    thing for the Department of Transportation, for NASA, post the
    shuttle crash, that intense congressional interest dramatically
    changed the way in which that organization focused and
    delivered. You can say exactly the same sort of thing for
    Veterans Health. I think in those areas Congress has played a
    very significant role in improving a total organization and its
    culture.
        What could Congress do now? I think there are two things
    that I believe are very important right now for Congress. You
    should insist on greater transparency in the reporting that you
    get from agencies and greater disclosure. That would be very
    helpful to your role. The second thing is controversial and it
    is internal and that is Congress should conduct some reform
    itself. That reform would be that the processes of oversight,
    authorization and reauthorization should be used as a means of
    informing the process of appropriation, not commanding it but
    the knowledge built up in hearings like this should be used to
    inform whether or not an appropriation is appropriate for this
    particular program or activity.
        Mr. Turner. Ms. Taylor.
        Ms. Taylor. I would agree with Mr. McTigue about the fact
    that we can't use GPRA right now in making budget decisions. It
    really is too early and I think the important thing Congress
    should be concentrating on right now is the issue of
    performance, not to make agencies terrified that they are going
    to lose their budget because their performance rates are low
    because we don't want this to lead to performance goals that
    are so low that an agency can easily meet them and say, look, I
    met my performance goals.
        Rather, they should be striving for higher goals. I think
    we would all agree. I am just afraid if we directly tie it to
    the budget at this point, the only performance reports will be
    good performance reports and yet they won't be meaningful in
    terms of the act.
        Mr. Turner. I didn't expect any of you really to give me
    any real concrete examples and frankly only asked the question
    to make the point that as we look at the agencies and their
    efforts to implement GPRA, Congress has an equal responsibility
    to begin to use GPRA. Though the Congress, being the
    deliberative body and elected by the people, may not always
    choose to fund programs based on results, it does need to
    become a part of the culture of the Congress. I frankly think
    the Congress is a long way from that kind of approach.
        I think Mr. McTigue, you put it very well when you
    suggested that in order to win the confidence of the public and
    improve the quality of government performance, the scrutiny
    provided by the Congress must be robust, focused on results,
    committed to rewarding superior activity and equally committed
    to punishing poor performance.
        I am not sure that is really a part of the process, not to
    say that process would result in the ultimate decision because
    other considerations may override and maybe appropriately so in
    certain circumstances. Somehow, as we try to train the managers
    in the agencies, we in Congress are going to have to be trained
    as well.
        I thank each of you for your comments.
        Mr. Horn. Thank you. You and the chairman of the full
    committee seem to be on the same track. Your questions and his
    if he were here, wanted to ask the point you had made on what
    is Congress doing on this.
        Let me go back to the reverse of what I was going from Ms.
    Taylor back to Mr. Gotbaum. Starting with Mr. Gotbaum, please
    name the Federal departments and agencies that have been
    unsuccessful in their implementation of the Results Act. Can
    you give me three or four?
        Mr. Gotbaum. As we have discussed before, usually Mr. Ose
    asks this question but he always asks it, and I know it is a
    concern.
        Mr. Horn. So you came prepared?
        Mr. Gotbaum. I came prepared with the same response,
    unfortunately, I gave each of the two times he asked. I think
    in order for OMB to be effective in its role as supervisor,
    encourager, combination cheerleader and sanctioner of agency
    performance, we need to use a combination of public praise and
    private criticism. So I have to resist the temptation to
    mention by name any of the agencies that disappoint. There
    certainly are several agencies whose performance reports look
    like they haven't taken the time to think through what they are
    trying to do and whose performance reports look an awful lot
    like they are describing their programs instead of describing
    their results and performance.
        There are certainly agencies whose performance reports look
    exactly like their organizational chart and their measures
    don't appear to have been linked to programs, which obviously
    is a problem. There are agencies whose performance reports
    don't include what intermediate output measures, efficiency
    measures, we think matter. There are plenty of grantmaking
    agencies that don't include information and don't even collect
    information on what is the turnaround time from the time a
    grant is applied for to the time a decision is made, and what
    is the turnaround time from the time a decision is made to
    actually delivering the check.
        I mention those as shortcomings in a range of agencies
    reports. I would, with the committee's forbearance, like to
    avoid naming the names but instead naming the sins because I
    think the sins are pretty clear.
        Mr. Horn. Did you read Mr. McTigue's study on who was ahead
    and who was behind?
        Mr. Gotbaum. I did.
        Mr. Horn. Would you say he gave a fair appraisal there?
        Mr. Gotbaum. I think he gave a fair appraisal of part of
    the things that we would like to look for. As I mentioned,
    clarity matters, linkage matters, and those are some of the
    things that Mr. McTigue's review focused on.
        We think there are other things. I view those in this
    process as outcome measures. What he was doing and was forced
    to do was evaluate the performance reports. What we are trying
    to do, we hope, is implement what we think is the outcome of
    GPRA, which is the extent to which these agencies are
    developing performance measures and using them in management
    and budget. For example, I give very high marks to the
    Department of Veterans Affairs, not just for the fact that they
    have clear measures in health but, that they are actually
    trying to realign programs and information systems. For me that
    is a very substantial task.
        That is not something which would necessarily be evident
    from reading their report. So I would say Mr. McTigue's report
    is an incomplete measure of what agencies are doing. The fact
    is that moving beyond reports to implementing this is a harder
    job and it is a job at which we are still at the initial steps.
    So his analysis covers most of the things you can see right
    now.
        I wouldn't want it to be seen as the complete measure
    because the best reports in the world, the clearest reports in
    the world with the finest measures in the world, if they are
    not actually used, are just paper. So we hope we in our
    analysis, and you in your oversight, will not stop at judging
    the quality of reports, that you will continually ask agencies,
    ``This is great, you got a good report, but what are you doing
    with this information? Are you managing to it? Are you changing
    your management systems? Are you changing your information
    systems? Are you really doing what GPRA was supposed to do?''
        Mr. Horn. We went through this with Y2K. Nothing was being
    done by OMB, period. Nothing was being done by the
    administration in April 1996. We had to just get them in here
    and say, what are you doing, started the grading aspect and all
    that, and that finally shook them up a little. Two Cabinet
    office friends of mine said keep at it. It is the only way I
    can get this bureaucracy working. It worked.
        I am not a Mr. Fuzzy type. I am anything but that. All I
    can say is the question has been asked, it should be answered,
    you are under oath and we want the information. I want to know
    what are the ones that have not done as good a job as they
    should have. That ought to help you, unless they cry too much
    and say, I won't do it. That is nonsense. Tell us which ones
    aren't producing.
        Mr. Gotbaum. I think that this is a case that is in some
    respects different from Y2K for a bunch of reasons. Frankly, it
    is a harder, more complicated job. As I mentioned in my
    testimony, I think this is a case in which we at OMB have
    turned on the heat progressively, I would hope progressively
    more effectively. We started by saying send us reports, then
    saying send us information but these are, as Mr. Turner
    mentioned, as Mr. Armey mentioned and Mr. Sessions mentioned,
    sufficiently early days in that process so that I don't think
    we can say and I wouldn't pretend that we are there. We are not
    at the promised land. I kind of think of this in biblical terms
    as maybe we have crossed the Red Sea but we have a long time in
    the desert yet.
        I really do think that we can be most effective not by
    dropping the dime on people but by talking about what are the
    standards we think they should meet, hoping you will agree or
    disagree.
        Mr. Horn. People have had 8 years and you don't say they
    shouldn't be noted if they haven't produced much after 8 years?
        Mr. Gotbaum. The issue is not whether agencies are
    producing plans and reports. They are. This is not a case in
    which any significant agency has just dropped the ball entirely
    and said, I am not going to implement GPRA. That is not what is
    going on here.
        Every significant agency--we have 100 strategic plans, 100
    performance plans, almost 100 performance reports. The issue is
    a little more subtle than that which is, when you read these
    things, are they picking measures that are relevant, then
    getting to the point that Chris mentioned and Ellen mentioned,
    are they picking measures, are they picking goals that are
    either too high or too low. We get a lot of that.
        I guess if I wanted to be a cheerleader, I could say the
    good news is we have 100 agencies complying with the law, they
    are turning out reports but I think and I hope your oversight,
    like our oversight, goes beyond that and says, are they picking
    the right measures. We have a huge range. We have agencies like
    DOT that did pretty well the first time and are doing OK and we
    have agencies like Education that didn't do so well the first
    time and SSA that didn't do so well the first time and are
    getting better, and we have agencies where I think it is clear
    they have a ways to go in terms of their measures.
        If the question is, are they complying with the law, they
    are complying with the law, but I know our goal and I believe
    your goal as well is that they do more than comply with the
    law, that they use the stuff and incorporate it, that they are
    working on it.
        Mr. Horn. Have you got a unit under your control in OMB
    that is working on types of measurement across the various
    parts of the executive branch?
        Mr. Gotbaum. We have some efforts and I don't want to
    mislead the committee. We have some efforts that are cross-
    cutting efforts. For example, on the procurement side, the
    Office of Federal Procurement Policy, which is in OMB,
    developed a set of Governmentwide measures for efficacy on the
    procurement side which they are now putting out which will
    enable people to benchmark procurement.
        On the grant side, partly as a result of pressure under a
    different law, Public Law 106-107, an act out of this
    committee, that said review grants. We have set up a process
    where we are trying to get agencies to come together and talk
    about where grant programs are on either a common constituency
    or for a common purpose, how we can simplify and consolidate
    and measures will be part of that effort.
        I can say yes, we are making some efforts in that area.
        Mr. Horn. So there is a unit that you can count on in terms
    of developing measurements for various programs?
        Mr. Gotbaum. Yes.
        Mr. Horn. Mr. Mihm, since the witness from the
    administration refuses to answer the question, will you answer
    the question and we will follow your advice and have them all
    in here. Please tell us what you think are the ones that aren't
    really conforming and have been unsuccessful in implementation.
        Mr. Mihm. If I was going to pick out of the 24 CFO Act
    agencies a handful of agencies having the biggest trouble with
    this, I would include the Office of Personnel Management, the
    Department of State and the Small Business Administration.
        One of the things that brings the three of them together is
    that they are agencies that have real challenges to try to
    determine that critical point of how what they do makes a
    difference. All of them are really struggling with that.
        In the case of OPM and SBA, it is an even larger issue as
    to their relevance and it is something that is beginning to be
    raised and questioned. Those are the agencies that are really
    having a real struggle.
        I would agree with one thing Mr. Gotbaum raised and that is
    there is no agency that has got this entirely licked and no
    agency that hasn't made improvement over the last couple of
    years. Everyone is moving and moving in the right direction but
    clearly there are some agencies that are lagging the rest. I
    think those three are among them.
        Mr. Horn. What do you think is the reason on the three you
    picked?
        Mr. Mihm. I think in part it deals with the difficult in
    connecting what they do on a day to day basis to a larger
    result; in some cases it was because of that difficulty I think
    senior leadership at the agency was slow to embrace GPRA and
    understand the seriousness of the Congress. The first couple of
    annual performance plans from the Department of State, I hope
    senior management wasn't too involved in putting those
    together. The most recent one does reflect the use of
    qualitative goals which is allowed by the Act with OMB's
    authorization. As a result, you now have a far more
    sophisticated discussion of what State is trying to achieve and
    how it will hold itself accountable.
        In the case of SBA, we have seen a couple of years in a row
    where their mission statement is right in the sense that it is
    based on statute and the goals are now outcome oriented goals.
    The performance measures for those goals are things like
    contacts to small businesses, numbers of loans made. This is
    little connection between those performance measures and the
    results they are trying to achieve.
        In the case of the Office of Personnel Management, there is
    an agency whose relevance and real fundamental mission is now
    under question. It is not as though the annual performance plan
    is going to resolve that but the annual performance plan I
    don't think gives a real indication of the struggle or how they
    are trying to work their way out of that.
        Mr. Horn. Mr. McTigue, do you agree with Mr. Mihm's OPM,
    State, SBA? Is that what your study would confirm?
        Mr. McTigue. I couldn't actually confirm that. I suspect
    that what he is saying is correct because we haven't actually
    conducted a study of who are those organizations that missed
    their goals by the most. Even that may not be very informative
    because in the first instance, some organizations set really
    strict goals and 95 percent of that goal might be very good
    performance where others set fairly easy goals and 100 percent
    performance may not be very adequate.
        I think we have been able to note what I would call the
    conglomerate organizations, like Agriculture, Justice and
    Labor, those that have a huge number of stovepipes have found
    it more difficult to implement GPRA because there is not a
    common mission. Some of that is due to mission creep over a
    long period of time inside the government, so they are doing
    some odd things that don't really belong in their portfolio.
        The other is that it is quite difficult to get a single
    purpose or an imperative for that organization and they are
    still battling with what is the imperative that drives us as
    the Department of Agriculture or the Department of Commerce. I
    think you will find that is one of the missing factors with
    those organizations. They are trying but they are finding it
    more difficult. It's easy to write a mission statement, it is
    easy to have an imperative if you are NASA, FEMA or
    Transportation or something like that. It is much more
    difficult if you are the Department of Agriculture with 78
    different stovepipes that you have to account for.
        Mr. Horn. Mr. Gotbaum, would you agree with what Mr. Mihm
    has selected there in terms of the three agencies.
        Mr. Gotbaum. Actually, no, I wouldn't. The State Department
    has conceded publicly that they were late to the party and that
    they are now paying more attention, that they have a ways to go
    and I agree with that.
        On SBA and OPM, I guess everything in life is relative but
    I can't remember personally the OPM report but in the SBA
    report, they were clearly making efforts to link their programs
    to results and to benchmark them, so let us just say there are
    other agencies which as I say I would prefer not to name, that
    have not, as far as I am concerned, made that attempt, made
    that basic linkage, whereas SBA I know has and I think OPM too,
    at least attempted to make the linkage.
        So I allow the State example and I would suggest there are
    some other places that GAO might want to look.
        Mr. Mihm. We will take your suggestions off-line.
        Mr. Horn. The gentleman from Texas?
        Mr. Turner. Nothing else, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
        Mr. Horn. Thank you very much.
        We appreciate your coming. We do expect the answer to that
    question.
        With that, we are in adjournment.
        [Whereupon, at 12 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [Additional information submitted for the hearing record
    follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.093

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.094

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.095

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.096

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.097

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.098

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.099

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.100

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.101

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.102

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.103

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.104

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3837.105

                                       -