[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 142 (Tuesday, October 4, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 4, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
              FEDERAL PAYMENT REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1994

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 2902, Federal Payment 
Reauthorization Act of 1994, just received from the House; that the 
bill be deemed read the third time, passed, and the motion to 
reconsider be laid upon the table; that any statements relating to this 
matter be placed in the Record at appropriate place as if read.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  So the bill (H.R. 2902) was deemed read the third time, and passed.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, the legislation now before us, the Federal 
Payment Reauthorization Act of 1994, is much more than a simple 1-year 
reauthorization of the Federal payment to the District of Columbia. Its 
most important features are its amendments to the District's Home Rule 
Act, which strengthen the city's accountability to the Congress for its 
fiscal and programmatic management.
  In recent years Congress has sought to improve these forms of 
accountability within the Federal Government itself. In 1990, it aimed 
at financial accountability, with enactment of the Chief Financial 
Officers Act. Then last year it enacted my legislation, the Government 
Performance and Results Act, which aims at accountability for program 
performance. Now Congress is addressing those concerns within D.C. 
government.
  Under the Constitution, Congress has exclusive legislative 
jurisdiction over the District of Columbia. With the Home Rule Act 20 
years ago, Congress delegated primary responsibility for the affairs of 
the District to the D.C. government. But under the constitutional 
scheme, the District government must remain accountable to Congress, as 
well as to its own citizens, for its stewardship of that 
responsibility.
  Unfortunately, the D.C. government is widely recognized to have 
fallen far short in the effectiveness of its fiscal and programmatic 
management. H.R. 2902 represent a bipartisan acknowledgement in the 
Congress of this fact. As such, it is an effort to help the District 
help itself, by requiring systematic goal-setting, measurement, and 
reporting of program performance and financial management.
  I would like to address in particular the requirement for program 
performance accountability, as this provision was inspired by the 
Federal Government reform I authored--the Government Performance and 
Results Act. Each year from now on, the Mayor of the District is 
required to submit a performance accountability plan for all 
significant activities of all departments, agencies, and programs of 
D.C. government. Each plan will include performance goals that are 
measurable and objective, for both the quantity and quality of the 
activities, and will include measures of program outcomes and results. 
And very important, the manager most directly responsible for achieving 
each goal, and that person's immediate supervisor, will be identified.

  The idea is to instill something that many people believe has been 
missing from District government--personal accountability for the 
effectiveness of program management. To measure that effectiveness, 
each significant activity will have two goals: one for an acceptable 
level of performance, and one for a superior level. It is my hope that 
the District will now take it upon itself to tie achievement of those 
goals into a meaningful pay-for-performance and promotion system, so 
that Congress won't feel the need to do so.
  With respect to the actual activities that will be covered by goals, 
it should be emphasized that the legislation envisions a large number 
of such measurements. We are not talking about a mere handful. The 
report on this legislation by the House Committee on the District of 
Columbia points out that this type of goal-based performance 
measurement has its roots in the city of Sunnyvale, CA.
  In that city, which has a much narrower range of responsibilities 
than does the District, the annual budget shows over 300 different 
service level objectives. I might add, Sunnyvale's budget also 
identifies the name and title the responsible manager for each such 
goal, and their pay can go down as well as up, depending on how well 
they meet or exceed their goals.
  There are a wide variety of ways the performance of government 
programs can be measured. There are measures for response time, error 
rates, percentage of reduction in the incidence of a problem, 
processing time, participation rates, and the cost-per-unit of 
activity, to name just a few. The most important measures are of 
program efficiency and effectiveness--not just how much was done, but 
how well. And perhaps the single most important measure of all is the 
citizen satisfaction survey. Every program dealing with the public 
ought to ask its customers how they rate the experience.
  Mr. President, I sincerely believe that with today's legislation, we 
are not just requiring useful information for the Congress. Perhaps 
even more important, the mandated program performance and financial 
management information will be available tools for the District itself 
as it seeks to strengthen the effectiveness of home rule, and for the 
citizens of the District as they seek to hold their own government 
accountable for their tax dollars.

                          ____________________