Congressional Record, Volume 144 Issue 26 (Thursday, March 12, 1998)

[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 26 (Thursday, March 12, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H1122-H1135]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS ACT TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS OF 1998

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Pursuant to House
Resolution 384 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the
consideration of the bill, H.R. 2883.

1122

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 2883) to amend provisions of law enacted by the Government
Performance and Results Act of 1993 to improve Federal agency strategic
plans and performance reports, with Mr. Brady in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) and the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn).
Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, we are going to open on this bill, which has various
technical corrections.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Burton), distinguished chairman of the Committee on Government Reform
and Oversight.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, the traditional way of doing
business in Washington is to create yet another program or spend more
money whenever we want to solve a problem. It is just more programs and
more money. The President's fiscal year 1999 budget reflects this
reliance on expanding government whenever possible.
For example, the President wants to expand the Federal role in local
schools. The President wants to expand job training, even though the
Federal Government has 163 different job training programs. His budget
contains 85 new spending programs, including 39 new entitlements. These
entitlements add nearly $53 billion to Federal spending over the next 5
years.
In short, 1 year after declaring that the era of big government is
over, President Clinton is busy reinventing the era of big government.
We are being asked to spend all of this additional money without ever
having decent answers to some very common-sense questions, like, what
is the purpose of the new program? Are there similar programs already
in existence? Is it appropriate that the Federal Government should even
do it? Or should it be done at the State or local level, or even by the
private sector?
In 1993, under a Democrat Congress, we passed the Results Act, a law
to apply basic business principles to Federal bureaucracies. Last
September, every Federal agency was required by this act to submit
strategic plans which clearly outlined where the agency is going, how
it will get there, and whether it is headed in the right direction.
But when congressional teams of Republican, General Accounting
Office, and in many cases Democrat staff reviewed these plans, the
majority of Federal agencies failed to make the grade. The average
score was 46.6 percent, and that fails in any school.
Take a look at these statistics right here. Only two agencies of the
Federal Government got above 70 percent. The reasons for low scores are
obvious. The General Accounting Office best summed it up in testimony
on February 12, and it is on this other poster.
They said, ``The strategic plans often lacked clear articulations of
agencies' strategic directions; in short, a sense of what the agencies
were trying to achieve and how they proposed to do it. Many agency
goals were not results-oriented. The plans often did not show clear
linkages among planning elements, such as goals and strategies. And
furthermore, the plans frequently had incomplete and underdeveloped
strategies.''
If the Results Act is going to work, the strategic plans must give us
a solid foundation for an informed policy debate about funding programs
based on results. If we do not pass this bill asking for better plans
by September 30, 1998, we will have to wait until the year 2000 before
we get updated strategic plans. I guarantee that no successful
businessman or woman would sit around for 3 years before getting their
strategic plan right. If they did, they would be out of business.
Before my committee considered this bill, we offered to OMB and the
Democrats to sit down and work out any problems that they had. We
offered flexibility on the September due date. We offered to narrow the
bill's coverage to only the agencies with the worst scores. We asked if
there was anything we could do to bring them to the table, and they
rejected everything we offered outright. Their reaction seems to oppose
the Results Act goal of changing the old ways of doing business here in
Washington.
I believe opposition to this bill comes from its threat to the status
quo, a threat to the belief that Federal government programs are the
answer to all of our problems. There seems to be a lot of talk by this
administration about wanting to change the way government works for
people. But as we try to change how government is run, true colors
begin to show.
Let me be clear. If Members vote against this bill and they vote to
let agencies off the hook, they vote to continue to accept low quality
as a government standard. Vote in favor of this bill, and we vote for
accountability in the Federal Government, and vote against failure,
inefficiency, ineffectiveness, waste, and mismanagement.
Mr. Chairman, this effort started out as a bipartisan effort 5 years
ago. It should remain a bipartisan effort.

{time} 1130

I urge all of my colleagues to vote yes on H.R. 2883.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman), distinguished former chairman of the Committee
on Government Reform and Oversight.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.

[[Page H1123]]

I want to speak on this bill. In 1993, we adopted this law. It is
called the Government Performance and Results Act. It was proposed by
the administration, the Clinton administration, under the guidance of
the Vice President, who was trying to figure out how to reform
government, make it work more efficiently. It received bipartisan
support in the Congress.
The law asked each agency to set up a plan, and that is what each
agency has done. The General Accounting Office reviewed the plans, and
they said they are workable, they are adequate, they are sufficient for
the purposes intended.
The Office of Management and Budget reviewed the plans. They said
that some plans in some agencies are better than others, but by and
large, they are doing a pretty good job. So what do we have today? A
bill to throw out all the plans that were done and require that they
all be redone by October.
Now, the best thing it seems to me, if we want plans to be workable,
is to work with the agencies to be sure their plans make sense, to work
in partnership. Instead, what we have is a bill that is a partisan
bill. It is going to be supported by Republicans and opposed by
Democrats and opposed by this administration because the only reason
this bill is on the floor is to try to say that every agency in the
Clinton administration has failed.
Well, who fails them? The staff, the Republican staff of the
Republican majority of the Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight.
If we want to deal with the problem of government inefficiency, we
ought to adopt the amendment that is going to be offered by my good
friend and colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich). He is
suggesting that we apply the same rules to the Congress that we apply
to the executive branch agencies. That will be challenged, as we heard
in the discussion on the rule, as something that is not germane or
appropriate to this bill because it deals with the legislative branch.
Our committee has dealt with executive and legislative branch at the
same time. There is no reason it could not consider the same rules to
apply to the Congress in this kind of setting.
What we have is opposition from the Republicans who control the
Congress. Nothing could be more hypocritical than our committee, the
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, coming to the floor and
accusing other government offices of wasting money.
The House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight is the poster
child for government waste. We burn money on that committee. And we
ought to have the rules that apply to the executive branch apply to
Congress because of the waste of this committee.
No private business would run its organization and spend money the
way the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight has handled it.
For the past year, the House and the Senate conducted identical and
redundant campaign finance investigations. Democrats asked the
Republicans to coordinate these efforts. They refused, so we had the
Senate hiring staff, the House hiring staff. They have an army of staff
on our committee.
We went out and our committee issued subpoenas. We issued subpoenas
to the same people that had already been subpoenaed by the Senate
committee. We deposed witnesses and we deposed the same witnesses that
had already been deposed. We did it without any coordination. In just
the House itself, we have two or three committees also doing the
campaign finance investigation. So we are not only duplicating the
efforts of what the Senate has done, but our committee is duplicating
the work of other committees. These committees have hired staff. They
have deposed the same people.
When I say ``people,'' who are they deposing? They are often deposing
government agencies. For example, the White House counsel's office is
now under attack in a subcommittee somewhere, maybe it is an
Appropriations subcommittee, because they are accused of hiring too
many lawyers. This is an accusation from one of many House committees
that is investigating them.
And they keep on sending subpoenas over to them, requests for
information from them. They have to hire more people just to respond to
the duplicative efforts of both the House and the Senate and all the
subcommittees in the House. The money is taxpayers' money. It is paying
for the Government Reform and Oversight staff; it is paying for the
Senate Government Reform staff. It is paying for the Committee on
Economic and Educational Opportunities staff that is doing
investigations.
All these committees are having the taxpayers pay for staffs, and
then we have to use taxpayer money for the White House counsel's
office, the Department of Commerce, every government agency that has to
respond to the out-of-control campaign finance investigation where
there is no duplication or focus.
The Committee on Government Reform and Oversight alone is going to
spend $10 million on this investigation, and we are wasting a
scandalous amount of that money. We sent people on foreign trips that
produced, despite their expense, very little. We are wasting it on a
gold-plated investigation where, as my colleague, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Condit), who is well known as a watchdog of government
spending, said, we have a staff of 79 lawyers, investigators, support
staff working on this investigation.
We have spent over $5 million to date. We are going to end up
spending $10 million. And what have we produced? Only four campaign
finance hearings over nine days. Let us compare that to the Senate.
They held 32 days of hearings, and they have already filed an 1,100
page report with a budget of only $3 million. So we are very, very
wasteful in spending taxpayers' dollars.
I think we ought to stop pointing fingers at the executive branch.
Oh, the executive branch. They ought to redo all of their plans. We
ought to throw them out and make them spend more taxpayers' money,
redoing those plans, while at the same time the Republicans are going
to urge that we now not allow the same rules to be applied to the
Congress. It makes no sense. It is a blueprint for wastefulness,
duplication and it is taxpayers' dollars that are being used.
I am going to urge that, when we get to it, that the Members support
the Kucinich amendment. I hope that that amendment is not ruled out on
a technicality. Members want to invoke these technicalities so they do
not face the substance of what is involved. The substance is that the
rules that apply to the executive branch apply to Congress.
We ought to coordinate our activities. We ought to develop a plan.
And for the chairman of the committee earlier to have said to us that
they have a plan makes no sense, if they do have one, when we see the
amount of waste that has gone on in our committee.
It is scandalous. It should not be one that should be sanctioned. We
have so much money that could be saved. If we want to use money that
could be saved for tax cuts or for other needed efforts, that is where
we ought to put that money, not on wasteful, redundant efforts by the
Congress of the United States.
I urge a vote for the Kucinich amendment, if we can get a chance to
vote on it, and to vote against this bill because the bill is only a
partisan one. It is not worthy of the House to consider it, because we
are not really trying to make the government more efficient. We are
only trying to make political statements by the Republican majority.
Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The bill before us today H.R. 2883, Government Performance and
Results Act Technical Amendments of 1997 is critical to the successful
implementation of the ``results'' act passed in 1993. As I said
earlier, we want the executive agencies to get it right. Many of those
agencies did not even relate their goals to the statutory
authorization. We need to develop the performance indicators. Only
then, will the executive branch have a way to choose between
programmatic options on the various programs that exist in the
executive branch. Regardless of who is in control in the executive
branch, Congress needs to give scrutiny to those data. The agencies
need to give us programs that make some sense fiscally and that are
achieving the goals that have often been approved in this Chamber on a
bipartisan basis.
This bill essentially does three things. First, it asks the Federal
agencies to add details to their strategic

[[Page H1124]]

plan about overlapping programs and management problems. The agencies
would submit the revised plans by the end of Fiscal Year 1998
[September 30, 1998]. If we do not do that, you are going to have three
years where the executive branch does absolutely nothing, and that is
the problem.
Second, it requires inspectors general to audit agency performance
measures. The inspectors general are now celebrating their 20th year.
That has been a bipartisan effort of this committee in the past. It is
a worthy effort. But we need to tie down who does the audit of
performance measures.
It certainly is appropriate within the executive branch to have an
inspector general that reports directly to Congress and the President
and to the Cabinet officer but is not under the control of the Cabinet
officer in charge.
Third, it requires the Office of Management and Budget to submit
government-wide performance reports on the same schedule as annual
agency performance reports.
Amendments were added during the subcommittee-full committee markup
to require that the Council on Environmental Quality be subject to the
Results Act and to require that agencies provide a determination of
full cost of each program activity for the performance indicators in
the performance plans. That way, everybody will know what the ground
rules are.
The core requirement of this bill to have agencies resubmit their
strategic plans is essential because as I have noted twice already, the
plans as they now stand are severely deficient. It does not mean every
agency failed. It does not mean that they did not get some things
right. They just did not get the things right that are required under
the basic act that was adopted in the 103rd Congress.
Congressional teams graded the plans with the General Accounting
Office staff, and in many cases Democratic staff were at the table as
well. Democrats were invited to participate in every single team that
went over these strategic plans. As was noted by the chairman (Mr.
Burton of Indiana), the average score of those plans is now 46.6 on an
absolute scale, up from 29.9. That is progress.
We want more progress. We want them to answer about overlapping
programs. We need their advice. They are the people who administer
these programs. The President needs their advice. If there is something
where there is a big gap and they do not seem to have statutory
authority and they are doing it, we need to know that.
If they tell us the interrelations with comparable agencies where you
find various job programs which are spread all over the Federal
Government, we will perhaps change the law in the belief that maybe
there ought to be a little more focus. Most of the plans scored low for
failing to identify the results of their programs, failing to identify
and address these overlapping and duplicative programs and failing to
address the reliability of their data systems.
If the Results Act is going to work, the strategic plans must be able
to lay a foundation for an informed policy debate in Congress about
funding decisions based on results. Right now agency strategic plans
are too deficient to serve as a sound foundation for agency or
congressional decisionmaking. Without this legislation, we will have to
sit around with poor strategic plans for three more years because the
current law, which did not anticipate such low quality, does not call
for updated plans until the end of the year 2000.
That is the basis for this legislation. Anyone that votes against
this legislation, frankly, is showing that they do not care about the
output and results of the executive branch of the government.
If they do not care, they ought to go to New Zealand or Australia,
the two most reform-oriented governments in the world. They are making
the system work, and certainly the United States of America can make
the system work. That is the basis for the legislation. We need to
require that the agencies get the fundamentals right so they can submit
better quality strategic plans by September 30, 1998.
Again, it is time for us, Mr. Chairman, to do the right thing. We
need to pass this important legislation without delay. It has been
considered with great care. We have had excellent help at the staff
level and some Members of the subcommittee on proposing worthwhile
amendments. We have tried to accept those. It is exactly the kind of
reform the taxpayers of this Nation expect and that they deserve from
their representatives in Congress.

{time} 1145

I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 2883.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski).
Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to respond to some of the
impassioned arguments on the other side. Listening to the other side,
one would think that they have just discovered performance and results.
The fact of the matter is, this administration came into office in 1993
and made a commitment to the American people to reform government and
to correct government as best it could. The President assigned the Vice
President, Al Gore, to head up that effort.
And what is the success of that effort? It is the most efficient
Federal Government that we have had in place in more than 30 years. The
accomplishments of this administration are evident across the board;
340,000 fewer Federal employees, a government that is more active and
more responsive, with fewer people and less cost than any government we
have known in the last 30 years.
The other side has wailed about the success of the Results Act. Let
us be quite certain that the performance in the Results Act was the
process required and requested by this administration and carried out
by this administration. The other side has even recognized a 60 percent
improvement in the reform of the Federal Government on their own
scores.
What are they asking for now? They are only asking for political
performance. They are asking for issues which may mislead the people
and have them believe the scores are not high enough. But the American
people are not stupid.
As my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman)
indicated, the other side has had the chance to respond in every
respect. Whether it was the 1993 Budget Act or the 1993 Results Act,
the cries were, it will not work, it will not work, we will not attain
it. If I remember the Budget Act of 1993, the sky was going to fall,
depression was going to occur.
Why will our friends on the other side not admit that for the first
time in 30 years this administration has balanced the budget in
America? This administration presides over the strongest economy in the
history of the United States. This administration has the lowest
unemployment rate in the recent history of the United States. This
administration has the lowest interest rates in the recent history of
the United States.
And lo and behold, this Congress is probably spending more money than
ever spent before to tie up the administration in court processes, and
to investigate every department, agency and bureau of the government.
For what purpose? For political advantage.
I suggest to my colleagues today that if we are really serious about
the Performance and Results Act and finding out how government works,
we should continue to support what the administration put in place in
1993; support the strategic plans of all these bureaus, departments and
agencies and do not require them to go back and waste all that money
and time rewriting these plans for political purposes. This is just
another attempt to block the progress of a very useful, efficient and
effective administration of government.
I urge my colleagues, if they support good performance in government,
to vote ``no'' on H.R. 2883.
Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. DeLay), our distinguished majority whip.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. Before I start my prepared remarks, I just have to answer my good
friend who just spoke, Mr. Chairman.
The President balanced the budget? The President lowered interest
rates? The President has the lowest unemployment figures in history?

[[Page H1125]]

The President did nothing to accomplish any of those things. This
Congress balanced the budget. I can remember the President fighting
against the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I can
remember the President laughing and vetoing our balanced budget the
first time we took over in 1995. This President is taking a lot of
credit for things he did not do, and the American people understand
that.
But I will tell my colleagues what this President is doing. He has
his agencies out there legislating like there is no tomorrow and
promulgating all kinds of new rules and new regulations. Because he
knows he cannot get legislation out of this Republican Congress, he is
legislating by using his agencies and his executive orders to do things
that the American people would reject if they were legislation on this
floor.
So I rise in support of this very important piece of legislation and
I urge my colleagues to vote for it.
The key question here today is very, very simple. Should the Federal
bureaucracy become more accountable? It has nothing to do with the
President balancing the budget, but should the Federal bureaucracy
become more accountable?
Now, we believe that the administration should become more
accountable to the taxpayers. We believe that the taxpayers deserve to
know how their hard-earned money is being spent. It is not our money,
it is their money.
We believe that the Federal agencies should develop very common sense
plans, just little common sense plans to outline clear objectives so
that we can track their performance goals. That just makes sense.
We believe that our Federal bureaucracy is too big and it spends too
much. We believe that effective reforms can save taxpayers billions of
dollars in wasted Washington spending.
Now, the opponents to this legislation, which I can not believe
anyone would oppose this great piece of legislation, these opponents
will come with all kinds of excuses why the government should be more
careful with the taxpayers' dollars. But these excuses just cannot
measure up to one simple fact: This legislation, in the end, will lead
to a smaller and a smarter government. That is why my colleagues should
support it.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
(Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) for yielding me this time. And I would likewise
like to thank my colleague from the other side of the aisle, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Horn), for working in a truly bipartisan
fashion throughout this year on so many concerns, and for adopting and
accepting several amendments put forward by the minority both in
amendment form and in the underlying language of the bill, specifically
changes in the roles of the IG, and broadening the bill's language to
include legal authorities other than just statutory authorities.
It is, therefore, very unpleasant that I must oppose this bill, given
the long history that we have had in this subcommittee of bipartisan
cooperation and truly the long history that we have had of bipartisan
support for the Government Performance and Results Act.
It began truly under the Bush Administration. The Office of
Management and Budget began working on it. Vice President Gore's Task
Force on Reinventing Government contributed substantially to the
formation of this language, and it ended up being the Democratic
Congress' and President Clinton's first major step to reinvent
government when it was passed in 1993. And it truly was the first bill
that I managed on the floor of the House of Representatives, being
elected in that year.
GPRA was intended to improve government management by requiring the
executive agencies to set measurable goals for themselves and then
report annually on whether or not those goals were met. Federal
managers are just beginning to set the program goals and performance
measurements which GPRA requires. GPRA will provide new ways of getting
things done. Implementing it will be difficult, but its benefits will
be great.
Despite the difficulties of implementing GPRA, OMB reports that about
95 percent of covered agencies submitted timely and compliant strategic
plans by September 30, as required by the act. This should be an ``A''
in anyone's book, not the ``F'' that my colleague and chairman of the
committee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), spoke about on the
floor.
Both OMB and the General Accounting Office are on record as opposing
statutory changes to the bill at this time. The General Accounting
Office has further noted that the strategic plan provides, and I quote,
a workable framework for the next step of GPRA. So the basic premise of
the bill that is before us today, that the strategic plans were so
universally poor in quality that they must be done all over, has yet to
be demonstrated.
I would like to put into the Record a letter from the General
Accounting Office really stating that; that it is working fine now,
should not be redone, and has a workable framework. More in the ``A''
category than the ``F'' that the gentleman from Indiana mentioned. And
also a letter from OMB really disputing the grading mechanism or so-
called scores put forth by the Republican majority.
If the basic premise and approach of this legislation is doubtful,
when one turns to the specifics of the legislation, even more questions
arise. This bill requires the resubmission of strategic plans by
September 30th of '98. Even if the Senate were to act with record
speed, that would give the agencies only 4 to 5 months to redo plans
that they have already done.
The bill provides no additional funding for this time-consuming and
burdensome process which will take agencies away from other really
needed work that they need to do. The resubmission of plans 6 months
after they were originally done is not consistent with the goals of
reducing duplication and waste.
Mr. Chairman, I would really urge my colleagues to vote against this
bill. And I would like to say that I will be supporting the amendment
of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) to apply GPRA to Congress. We
can learn by doing, not just by reviewing others. And this committee's
campaign finance investigation is a prime example of the waste and
duplication in Congress that could be eliminated by the Results Act,
which the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) spoke about.
So I hope my colleagues will support the Kucinich amendment, having
GPRA apply likewise to Congress.
Mr. Chairman, I include the letters referred to for the Record:

Executive Office of the President, Office of Management
and Budget,
Washington, DC, March 4, 1998.
Hon. Henry A. Waxman,
Ranking Member, Committee on Government Reform, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Ranking Member Waxman: I am writing to clarify what I
understand may have been an inaccurate characterization of
our position with respect to ``scores'' associated with
agency strategic plans that are required under the Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA).
To be clear, the Office of Management and Budget believes
strategic and annual plans need to be evaluated but we have
never developed or endorsed a scorecard approach to that
evaluation. In particular we have never endorsed specific
scores, specific scoring techniques, or the weight given to
different factors contained in the scorecard used by the
House Majority leadership.
While I do believe the dialogue between agencies and
Congress and other stakeholders is useful and will result in
better, more usable plans, I do not believe the utility of a
plan can be fairly captured using a scoring process similar
to that used by the Majority leadership to grade the
strategic plans.
I hope this clarification is helpful to you. Please let me
know if you have further questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
G. Edward DeSeve,
Acting Deputy Director for Management.
____

U.S. General Accounting Office,

General Government Division,

Washington, DC, March 11, 1998.
Hon. Dan Burton,
Chairman, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, House
of Representatives.
Dear Mr. Chairman: This letter responds to your request for
our perspective on the primary provisions of H.R. 2883, the
Government Performance and Results Act Technical Amendments
of 1998. Among other things, the bill would require that
executive

[[Page H1126]]

agencies revise and resubmit strategic plans not later than
September 30, 1998, to the Director, Office of Management and
Budget, and Congress; that new elements be included in those
and subsequent strategic plans; and that each agency develop
separate strategic plans for each major mission-related
component as well as for the agency as a whole.
Under the Government Performance and Results Act (Results
Act), the strategic and annual plans and performance reports
that agencies produce are intended to serve a wide range of
stakeholders within the executive branch, Congress, and the
public. In our assessment of major agencies' September 30,
1997, strategic plans--produced at the request of you, the
Majority Leader, and other key Committee Chairmen in the
House--we noted that each of the plans we reviewed contained
at least some discussion of each strategic planning element
required by the Results Act and that, on the whole, the plans
appeared to provide a workable foundation for Congress to
use.\1\
However, we also noted that agencies' strategic planning
efforts were still very much a work in progress, and we
identified critical challenges that had limited the success
of agencies' planning efforts. In crafting the Results Act,
Congress recognized that it may take several planning cycles
to perfect the process and that strategic plans would be
continually refined as various planning cycles occurred. We
have urged agencies to recognize that strategic planning does
not end with the submission of a plan to Congress and that a
constant dialogue with Congress is part of a purposeful and
well-defined strategic planning process.\2\
We have found that leading results-oriented organizations
believe that strategic planning is a dynamic and inclusive
process rather than a static or occasional event.\3\ If done
well, strategic planning is continuous and provides the basis
for everything the organization does. Leaders in successful
organizations seek to be continuously alert to the need to
adjust their organizations' strategic directions to better
reflect changes in the internal and external circumstances
and the views and expectations of key stakeholders.
In that regard, we understand that a number of agencies
have identified opportunities to improve their strategic
plans based on input from congressional and other
stakeholders or as a result of developing their first set of
annual performance plans. Our reviews of agencies' plans, as
well as the experiences of leading organizations, suggest
that the opportunities to improve the plans that have been
identified were to be expected.
The strategic plans developed under the Results Act are
intended to be helpful to Congress in making policy, funding,
and oversight decisions, and Congress needs plans of
sufficient quality, detail, and scope to meet its
decisionmaking responsibilities. Congress is in the best
position to determine whether statutory change is necessary
to achieve this objective.
We are sending a copy of this letter to the Ranking
Minority Member, House Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight. Please do not hesitate to contact me on (202) 512-
8676 if you have any questions.
Sincerely yours,

J. Christopher Mihm,

Associate Director, Federal Management
and Workforce Issues.

footnotes

\1\ Managing for Results: Agencies Annual Performance Plans
Can Help Address Strategic Planning Challenges (GAO/GGD-98-
44, Jan. 30, 1998).
\2\ Managing for Results: Critical Issues for Improving
Federal Agencies' Strategic Plans (GAO/GGD-97-180, Sept. 16,
1997).
\3\ Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government
Performance and Results Act (GAO/GGD-96-118, June 1996).
Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Radanovich).
Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I have long been a supporter of the
Government Performance and Results Act and I am pleased that Congress
is strengthening the law today through H.R. 2883. In a nutshell, the
Results Act holds Federal programs accountable for producing clear,
tangible results in exchange for the money that they spend.
I can think of no better place to apply the common sense principles
of the Results Act than in the environmental protection area. I, like
most Americans, am unequivocally committed to achieving the highest
standards of environmental protection in America. My experience in my
district has taught they we cannot have a strong, prosperous America if
we do not preserve our natural resources.
I have also learned that prosperity and a clean environment is not an
either/or proposition but a both/and proposition. It is a balance the
Federal Government must create in its own policies if we are to have
the highest level of environmental protection. But we can only be
prosperous and have a clean environment if we are true to a few simple
principles Americans hold accountable; that is accountability for
results, personal and community responsibility, and effective use of
our entrepreneurial genius through sound science and technological
advances.
The Results Act offers a chance to examine whether government
programs are consistent with these values, especially whether they are
focused on producing tangible environmental results through the most
effective and efficient means possible.
Unfortunately, the Clinton Administration does not see things the
same way I or most Americans do on this issue. Last year I was deeply
troubled when the administration issued a waiver exempting the Council
on Environmental Quality from the common sense requirements of the
Results Act. Because this council is supposed to play a key role in
setting policy and reviewing approaches and performances of all Federal
environmental programs, the administration was, in essence, signaling
that results do not matter.
This action occurs at the very same time when the council, along with
a host of other Federal environmental programs, are coming under fire
from reputable institutions such as the National Academy of Public
Administration for lacking a clear picture of what environmental
outcomes are sought and achieved by our government.

{time} 1200

The Results Act provided the administration the perfect opportunity
to address this imbalance and focus itself on producing the best
environmental outcomes possible. Unfortunately, by exempting the
Council on Environmental Quality, the administration has left Congress
and the American people with no accounting of whether the Council is
achieving its objectives through what means, at what cost, and at what
time schedule, and so on.
It is time to get back to basics and focus on environmental programs,
on producing tangible results rather than safeguarding their outdated
command and control regulation-driven methods. H.R. 2883 gets us back
on track by requiring the Council on Environmental Quality to comply
with the Results Act, as well as outlining stronger provisions for the
rest of our environmental programs to follow, as well.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 2883 so that we
can hold the Council on Environmental Quality and all Federal programs
to these common-sense principles of accountability that the American
people expect from their Government.
Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding.
Madam Chairman, today I rise in opposition to this bill. The
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 sought to streamline
Government and make it more efficient and effective in its delivery of
services to the people. The Government Performance and Results Act,
GPRA's, objectives are laudable goals on which all of us can agree.
However, these amendments at this time would undermine the original
goals of the bill, which are to reduce waste and inefficiency in
Government. In fact, this bill would require all 100 Federal agencies
to resubmit their strategic plans less than 6 months after their
original submission. To require agencies to redo their plans in just 6
months is untenable, unreasonable, costly to the taxpayers, and would
be an administrative nightmare.
Moreover, at the subcommittee's recent hearing on this legislation,
not a single witness testified in support of this universal
resubmission requirement. The Government Accounting Office and the
Office of Management and Budget both agree that the plan submitted by
the agencies provide a workable foundation for Congress to use in
helping to fulfill its appropriations, budget, authorization, oversight
responsibilities, and for the continuing implementation of GPRA.
Therefore, these amendments are premature, unwarranted; and I certainly
would urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.
In addition, if we are serious, then we will support the Kucinich
amendment, which suggests that Congress itself comply with the
requirements of GPRA. I have always been told that ``you cannot lead
where you are unwilling to go.'' And if we are serious, then we would
comply so that we do not

[[Page H1127]]

continue to have unwarranted, unnecessary investigations where
individuals come and testify and give the same information that they
have already given. And we know that that is precisely what is going to
happen. No, if we are serious, we will vote in favor of the Kucinich
amendment and vote down this bill.
Mr. HORN. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I just want to set the record straight. Here is a letter to Chairman
Burton from the Acting Comptroller General of the United States, James
F. Hinchman.
``Dear Mr. Chairman, I am writing to correct the misleading
impression in the March 11, 1998, Statement of Administration Policy on
H.R. 2883, the Government Performance and Results Act Technical
Amendments of 1998, that we oppose the bill. This is not our
position.'' I repeat to my friends across the aisle, the Acting
Comptroller General, speaking for the General Accounting Office says
that they do not oppose this bill.
``This is not our position,'' writes Mr. Hinchman, who adds: ``As we
noted in our letter March 11, 1998, sent to you, the strategic plans
developed under the Results Act are intended to be helpful to Congress
in making policy, funding, and oversight decisions, and Congress needs
plans of sufficient quality, detail, and scope to meet its decision-
making responsibilities. We therefore believe that Congress is in the
best position to determine whether statutory change is necessary to
achieve this objective and accordingly do not have a position on H.R.
2883.'' He closes with ``I am sending a copy of this letter to the
Ranking Minority Member, House Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight.'' That is the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Sessions), who has had a leading role in this. He is the founder and
chairman of the Results Caucus. He has done an outstanding job as a new
Member to this House. He takes his assignments seriously, and we can
always depend upon him to show up and to have constructive suggestions.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Chairman, the discussion that we are having today
is about whether we will go back and look at those strategic plans that
have been presented by agencies and whether they not only fit the
criteria that they were supposed to and, also, whether we will go back
now and ask them to revisit what they have done.
What I would like to point out to my friends on the other side of the
aisle is that we have repeatedly attempted to work with agencies. This
law was passed in 1993. When I came to Congress, I was very careful to
work with not only Inspector Generals, but also each agency head, to
let them know that we were serious about getting their strategic plans
so that we could make determinations, including those that would be
appropriations-related, about the business that they were doing.
As my colleagues can see from this chart, every single time we
attempt to work with the administration, their plans get better. The
fact of the matter is that some 19 out of 24 are still in an F-grade
status. We are attempting to be honest and to accept the responsibility
that is given to us through the American people when we ask the
administration to please justify the work that they are doing to where
we can make the appropriate decisions about money.
When I spent 16 years in the private sector, I had to fill out a
strategic plan. Of course, I did not like it. But it was given to the
people who appropriated money to me in my business and that they would
know what I was doing; and what I expected to be done was on that sheet
of paper.
I will politely tell my friends and remind them again that the plans
that have been presented by these agencies will make it very difficult
for us to appropriate money for all the things that need to be done. I
am disappointed with what they are doing, and I am going to support
this to ask that we get clear and better towards the people's business.
Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Chairman, the Government Performance and Results Act was
strongly supported by Democrats when it became law in 1993. It was
fully consistent with efforts by the administration to reinvent
government.
Let us be fair about this. Spearheaded by Vice President Gore's
National Performance Review, the administration has made great strides
in bringing greater accountability, efficiency, and economy to the
Federal Government. It is actually the longest running reform effort in
U.S. history.
The policies have already saved American taxpayers over $130 billion.
Now that is economy. The size of the Federal work force has been
reduced through attritions and buyouts by over 300,000 employees. That
is efficiency. We now have the smallest Federal work force since John
F. Kennedy was President. That is economy and efficiency.
Federal agencies have eliminated more than 16,000 pages of
regulations. That is efficiency. Agencies have been cutting red tape,
empowering Federal employees, and putting the public first.
Government works. The American people know that government works.
People know government can do better. They also know that government is
doing its job. This is our government. We have a responsibility to make
it work for us.
That is what the Government Performance and Results Act is intended
to do, to make government work, to make it work better, to make it work
more efficiently, working for the people.
We, the people of the United States, this is our government. Our
government was required to do strategic plans by October 1, 1997. And
each agency, Madam Chairman, has done the plans that they were required
to do.
When we tell each agency that after they have already submitted
plans, in this case 100 agencies each submitting a plan that they have
spent a year working on, when we tell those agencies that they should
throw all those plans out and start all over again, we need to look at
that process.
I ask the Members of this House, is it possible that all the agencies
submitted plans which should be failed? Let us say it is possible that
one could have. One agency possibly may not have done the plans right.
Do the plan again.
But I ask, is it possible that every single agency in the Federal
Government, Labor, HHS, Treasury, the FTC, the SEC, and all of those
other agencies which the American people are familiar with, is it
possible that none of these agencies know what they are doing? That
they all have to be failed? Is that possible?
Madam Chairman, I was a college associate professor for a while. I
have had the opportunity to have classrooms full of students. I was in
a role of a teacher. I had my objectives.
At the end of the period, at the end of the course, I gave a test.
What would it say about me if everyone in the class failed? The
administration of the college would come back to me, and they would not
say, what is wrong with your class? They would say, what is wrong with
you?
Think about that, all the people who have kids in school. If you had
someone who failed every one of the kids in the class, would you say
the kids were wrong, or would you say there is something wrong with the
teacher?
Let us look at this legislation. This legislation says everybody in
the Federal Government failed. That is not credible. That is not even
possible. Telling the American people that the entire Federal
Government is in a shambles at a time when there is a balanced budget,
at a time when we are making government work, at a time when we have
lowered interest rates, and I say ``we'' because it has been the
Congress and the administration, at a time that unemployment is down,
at a time that we are making government work, at a time that we are
making government accountable, this legislation stands all that on its
head.
If anyone believed that the entire government is a mess, then this
Congress itself cannot escape the consequences of such logic. We smear
ourselves by advancing such a proposition, ladies and gentlemen.
It has been my experience in my first year in Congress that there is
a lot of good men and women on both sides of the aisle. I want the
American people to know that this is a Congress that can work for the
people; that there are

[[Page H1128]]

good people on both sides of the aisle. Sure we could do better. We can
make the government work better.
The executive branch has done a lot of good. Men and women who are in
that branch ought not to be told that their work is worthless. They
ought not to be told that they failed.
If all of the agencies failed, then perhaps it is not the agencies
that have failed, but the law which holds them to criteria and
performance standards which are unobtainable because they are
unreasonable.
We all want government to work. We all want a results-oriented
government. I believe that we can work with the administration to get
them to do a better job. But let us not tell all these agencies their
work is meaningless, because if that is what someone really believes,
then what you are saying is you just do not believe in government. You
do not like government.
We are the government. That is my point. We should not promote this
hatred of government. Because in doing so, we inspire bad feelings
about the Congress itself. As I said, there are a lot of good men and
women in this House.
So do not tie up our government by telling 100 agencies they should
do their work all over again. Do not create a paperwork mess by asking
for another hundred plans. Do not tell the American taxpayers they
should pay money and have those agencies do something again that they
have already done once. Let the agencies do their jobs for the American
people.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KUCINICH. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I have some questions. How many of these
plans did the gentleman from Ohio look at?
Mr. KUCINICH. I would say I looked at a few of them. I think all the
plans could be done better. But should they all be done over again? No.
Mr. SESSIONS. What we are trying to say is that we have looked at
them. We have reviewed them. We have been in constant contact with
agencies. We have given them specific feedback about the things that
are lacking. It was not like an F grade with no comments.

{time} 1215

They are specific comments directly to the agencies about how they
can make that better to where we can have the language between that and
appropriations.
Mr. KUCINICH. I would like to ask the gentleman who did the grading.
Mr. SESSIONS. The grading was done by the people who had been working
directly with the agencies. That was done with consent of the staffs.
The minority staff was there the entire time that this was done and
given every opportunity to participate.
Mr. KUCINICH. I would like it stated for the record that we took
issue with this whole process because it established criteria which
were absolutely impossible. The fact of the matter is, it defies logic,
it absolutely defies logic, that every agency in the Federal Government
does not know what it is doing. I would be afraid to get on an airplane
if that were the case.
I think that we need to understand that government can do better. I
agree with the distinguished gentleman. We can do better. But to pass a
law and as a consequence tell all 100 of those agencies that they do
not know what they are doing and at the same time tell them that they
failed.
Mr. SESSIONS. The assumption is that we were not forthright in what
we did by asking them directly. If what they would do is to listen to
what we were saying about these agencies, we had professionals who were
involved. The bottom line is that the business we are involved in is
serious and we are trying to get the agencies to come and be
responsible.
Mr. KUCINICH. Reclaiming my time, I would respectfully suggest to the
gentleman that we have professionals who are also running this
government. This is not amateur night in the government. If we pass
this bill, it implies that we have a bunch of amateurs running the
government and that is not true.
People across this country are seeing ways in which government works.
People across this country are finding that government can do things
for them when they need the help of the government.
I know I am not here as an apologist for government. I know better. I
know that government can do better. But I also know that it is wrong
for us to start condemning the very institutions which we are here to
represent and to try to make work by asking people to vote for
legislation that would in effect say that nothing is working.
Mr. SESSIONS. There was a report that was issued in the 104th
Congress that talked about $650 billion worth of waste, fraud and error
in the Government of the United States. We are attempting to make sure
that we spend every penny that we should but not a dollar more. What we
are trying to do is to be responsible and do the responsible thing, and
we are asking to be met halfway.
We have given a great deal of information back to every agency, we
have been very specific in what we have talked about, and we think it
is not only fair and right, but it is the proper thing to do for
accountability.
Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Chairman, I would suggest that under existing law
we already have laws to make the agencies do a better job, we do not
need to pass another law that tells all 100 agencies to do their plans
all over again. That is the point of my presentation here, that what we
are asking the agencies to do is unfair. We are smearing the entire
government by proposing this legislation be passed, and we are doing it
in the name of efficiency.
Where is the efficiency in asking 100 agencies to do their plans all
over again, plans that they just completed about 6 months ago? It just
defies logic.
I would like to say that this is not a mystery process here in the
House of Representatives. We just have to ask, does it make sense? That
is what I ask. Does it make sense that 100 agencies all failed in
providing their strategic plans? Does it make sense that we ask 100
agencies to do plans all over again?
Mr. SESSIONS. My point would be this. It should be done until it is
done correctly. There are small businesses, large businesses that all
operate off a strategic plan. If they do their strategic plans such
that they are able to survive, then that will be the determination.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The time of the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) has expired.
Mr. HORN. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
It has been implied that nobody on the other side of the aisle was ever
involved. All Democratic staff that were relevant were invited. I know
that the following participated. It does not mean they were in every
meeting, because staff members have a lot of things to do on the
subcommittee staff.
I thank the Democratic minority staff: Mark Stephenson, a very
valuable staff member that we all rely on is a staff member of the
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the Ranking Minority Member on
the full committee was a participant. So was Howard Bauleke, Minority
Counsel, Committee on Commerce, reporting to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Dingell) who is the Ranking Minority Member. Also
participating was Elana Broitman, professional staff member Committee
on International Relations, reporting to the gentleman from Indiana
(Mr. Hamilton), the Ranking Minority Member. Mary Ellen McCarthy,
Minority Counsel-Benefits, Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
participated. She reports to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans).
I simply want to clear the air since there have been a few false
impressions left here. The Democratic staff was involved. They could
have been involved in every meeting. That is their choice. They were
notified by the majority staff. I cannot help it if they have a lot of
other things to do. I hope that their Ranking Minority Members then do
not come to the floor and say, ``Gee, nobody ever consulted us.''
Baloney.
We have had the rule in my subcommittee that the staff director,
Russell George, notifies the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney),
who was the ranking member during most of this period, on everything
that we are doing. That is why we have had very good cooperation on
both sides of the aisle in that subcommittee.

[[Page H1129]]

Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Madam
Chairman, I have been listening to this debate. It has been a good
debate.
I want all Members to be reminded of something the gentleman from
Ohio just said. He said that we are here to represent these agencies. I
think that that is true, that that side is here to represent those
agencies, the Washington bureaucracies. I think it is very important
because it not only defines this debate, but a central difference
between the Republicans and the Democrats. Because we are here to
represent the taxpayers, the American people, we see this as a
bureaucrat reality check. ``Bureaucracies, you have a budget of $1.7
trillion. We want to know where you are going with the money, how you
are getting there, is it being done properly or not?''
I was here when we started the Reinvent Government and served on a
bipartisan panel. I found out that reinventing the government is more
than a photo op or a PR tour. You cannot just talk the talk; you have
to walk the walk. There comes times, yes, for some heavy lifting. What
we are saying is, ``Do what the private sector does.''
``Isn't that horrible? The government bureaucracies whom we love on
this side must do what the private sector has to do. This is
horrible.''
Can my colleagues imagine Coca-Cola working or operating without a
mission statement? Can my colleagues imagine Mr. Ivester, the chairman
of Coca-Cola, saying, ``What we need to do is follow the Post Office
example.'' Or could my colleagues imagine Gates at Microsoft saying,
``I know. Let's follow the IRS when it comes to computer technology.''
The private sector is not going to do that.
All we are saying to government agencies is, do what the private
sector does.
Let us put it in terms for the defenders of the status quo; let us
put it in terms of the middle class. You are sitting around the kitchen
table, you have finally paid off your credit card for one month, but
you still have a debt, in this case it is $4.5 trillion. So you have to
ask yourself, is it cheaper to buy eggs by the dozen or should we buy
them individually? Should I wear the clothes and wash them or should I
just discard them once they are dirty? When my car needs a tuneup,
should I trade it in or should I tune it up and keep going with it?
This is what middle-class America has to do every single day, every
single paycheck, every single month. They simply have to ask themselves
the questions which we are saying to these high, exalted Washington
bureaucrats: ``Look, you've got to go through things because we're
still $4.5 trillion in debt.''

We are delighted that the United States Congress has played a role in
balancing the budget, but it is not good enough. We still pay about
$240 billion a year, almost more than we spend on the military, just in
interest on the national debt. I think we owe it to the people.
I am on the Appropriations Committee. When a government bureaucracy
comes to ask for their share of the $1.7 trillion, I want to know, are
you doing it well? Are you doing it efficiently? Can you do it better?
Can it be farmed out to a nonprofit organization or to a for-profit
organization? Could it be done locally, could it be done on the State
level? These are important questions. That is why we are here to
represent the taxpayers, not the bureaucracies.
Mr. HORN. Madam Chairman, I am delighted to have the following
speaker follow the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) because if
W.C. Fields were alive he would say, ``Never follow Jack Kingston,''
but we have the talented majority leader, and I am delighted to yield
such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey).
Mr. ARMEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Madam Chairman, I want to begin by commending the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Burton) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) and
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for bringing this bill to the
floor. I want also to express my appreciation to the minority side of
the committee.
GPRA, the Government Performance and Results Act, or as we know it,
the Results Act, was passed into law in 1993. It was passed by a
Democrat majority in Congress and signed by President Clinton.
The object of the legislation at the time was to acknowledge the fact
that every agency of this government is a creature of the Congress of
the United States working in conjunction with the executive branch of
the United States, that every agency of this government is created, and
has been in the past created, to serve a purpose on behalf of the
American people; and that it is an ongoing responsibility of the
Congress and the executive branch, and should be a responsibility
fulfilled on both a bicameral and a bipartisan basis to provide
oversight and encouragement to each of these agencies, to have a
clearly defined set of objectives consistent with the law of the land
from which they were created, and to have clearly and closely monitored
courses of action for their performance with respect to the fulfillment
of those objectives.
It is called oversight. It is not optional. It is a responsibility
and a duty of the Congress to provide that.
That was recognized, on this floor, in those debates, by the majority
as we passed this bill in 1993. It was recognized by the White House
and the President as they signed the legislation in 1993, and it has
been recognized by this Congress.
Now, I must say, to a large extent what we have been doing for the
last couple of years under the Government Performance and Results Act
is going to each and every agency of the United States Government and
saying, you ought to be doing a service for the American people. You
ought to be giving the American people some value for their tax dollar
by doing something that is in fact meaningful in their lives and doing
that on the most cost-effective basis possible. We ask you to plan, to
create a plan, and to rigorously execute a plan that is consistent with
those goals and objectives that you yourself define.
In a sense, we have been asking each and every agency of the
government to learn a new rigor in how they conduct the people's
business.
Know a lot of my colleagues will not believe this, but I am 58 years
old. I can tell Members it is not always easy to learn new ways of
doing things, especially if you happen to be an agency that is 58 years
old or a 58-year-old person in that agency. But sometimes I think it
becomes in fact just plain necessary.
The American people are not happy. The American people do not believe
they are getting good value for their dollar. The American people do
not believe that every agency knows what its mission is or has any idea
whether or not they are accomplishing their mission.
I have to tell Members, I am proud of the way the responsibilities of
GPRA have been picked up by both the Republicans and the Democrats in
the House and the Senate, by the White House, as we worked with the
office of OMB, and by the agencies themselves as they have struggled to
get it right. It has taken time. It has been difficult. It certainly
has not been a very happy experience, I am sure, in the lives of many,
many people. But we have made great progress.
We have had a better understanding in Congress of what our
responsibilities are, and we now see GPRA provisions being written into
the law as we go into the process, and we have seen the agencies work
and respond. And some have responded more effectively than others, but
they have all made the effort.
What this bill says today is, ``Let's update the 1993 act. Let's give
ourselves the opportunity to take the time to really truly do it right.
Get it done correctly.''

{time} 1230

We will discuss in this body among ourselves, and have done so,
whether or not there ought to be this objective of Federal public
policy, or that objective; should there be this kind of an agency, or
that. But once that is settled and the agency is in place and money is
appropriated for its operation, and people are employed to carry out
the purposes of the agency on behalf of the American people, can

[[Page H1130]]

they, in fact, do so as any other enterprise, whether it be a family or
a business, after review, reconsideration of objectives, reaffirmation
of purpose, and reconstruction of methodology, do that thing which they
have set out to do in a more effective and complete way at less cost to
the taxpayers.
We do these things as we conduct ourselves in the ordinary business
of life in the private sector. The Federal Government should do that
with the tax dollars it takes from people in the ordinary business of
life from the private sector. And in the end, if we do it well, we will
have a government that is, in its ordinary business of life, day in and
day out, a service in the lives of our constituents.
Each and every one of us as a Member of Congress has two jobs. I have
a job in Washington where I am involved in making the laws and creating
the agencies and creating the programs, and I have a job in my
district, working hand-in-hand with real people in their real lives as
they struggle to live with those agencies and those programs. We call
that back home in our district constituency service.
Is there any Member of Congress whose heart does not break every year
when they look at the number of times constituents from their districts
have come to them, troubled because the red tape, the procedures, the
process by which an agency has related to their lives with respect to
something that is important in their lives have been so cumbersome, so
bothersome, so ineffective that they just feel a desperate frustration
and come to you and say, ``Now, beyond my case, can you not make it
work?'' That is really what we are about here.
The committee has done a great job of reviewing this act and
reviewing the efforts that have been made, efforts that are
commendable, and seeing where we might reconstruct the law and just
that little bit of fine-tuning that allows our ability to achieve these
real results, to proceed with even better results.
So again, let me encourage all Members of this body on both sides of
the aisle, if in fact we want a government that is a real service in
the lives of our constituents, and a government that does not result in
us having beleaguered constituents flocking to our offices back in our
districts saying, ``Please help me with this frustrating experience of
trying to work with this agency,'' and if we want to give the agency a
word of encouragement and support for their magnificent efforts to in
fact get it right.
The agencies are not complaining about this effort. The agencies are
saying, we understand the need to perform better and we want to do so.
We just need more time to learn some new tricks, and I can tell my
colleagues, I understand that. This old dog always needs more time to
learn new tricks, but I hope I learn, and I know the agencies will
learn, and I know that Congress wants to give them that kind of
encouragement.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today is
characterized as merely offering technical amendments to the Government
Performance and Results Act of 1993. If that were true, I could support
the bill. However, the bill moves beyond technical amendments to
include a requirement that every agency produce a new Strategic Plan to
be submitted by September 30, 1998. This is probably the most anti-
strategic planning requirement we could possibly conceive of.
The idea of entering into a strategic planning process is that
Agencies will begin to clarify their priorities, develop solid measures
of performance and begin to tie their priorities, performance and
budgeting together in a thoughtful and coherent fashion.
While most agencies, at some level, have always engaged in planning
and priority setting in budgeting; what is new about GPRA is the
requirement that this be done agency-wide, by every agency and that
these agencies develop credible measures of performance.
The process envisioned in the original act called upon agencies to
produce a five year strategic plan that would lay out general goals.
Then each year's budget submission would elaborate how the dollars
being spent would be used to further the goals of those plans and
propose measures for performance in achieving the goals.
After each fiscal year, each agency would be responsible for
reporting back to Congress on how it performed as measured against its
own goals. We haven't even been through one cycle of this process and
already we are seeing technical amendments. Further, rather than let
agencies see how the process works, look for ways to improve their
processes and learn by doing, we are imposing on all of them that they
go back to the drawing board and redo another round of strategic plans.
And how are they going to do that when we can't even predict when or
if this bill will ever pass into law? By requiring that agencies redo
their strategic plans you interfere in their ability to carry out their
efforts to develop measures, tie budgets to priorities and learn how to
do all of that better. Worse, we cannot tell agencies when this burden
will be imposed on them or even if it will because there is no one in
this body who can predict when or if this bill will become law. In
short, this is an irresponsible provision.
The only folks who are going to benefit from the requirement are the
beltway bandits who have been making millions of dollars advising
agencies on how to be GPRA-compliant. This is a giveaway to
contractors, nothing more nor less.
While I could support some of the technical amendments in this bill,
I find the requirement that agencies redo their plans so pernicious and
contrary to any honest spirit of improving the planning efforts of
Federal agencies that I must oppose this leglislation.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). All time for general debate
has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute printed in the bill is considered as an original bill for
the purpose of amendment, and is considered read.
The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is
as follows:

H.R. 2883

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Government Performance and
Results Act Technical Amendments of 1998''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS RELATING TO STRATEGIC PLANS.

(a) Content of Strategic Plans.--Section 306(a) of title 5,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting before the semicolon ``,
that is explicitly linked to the statutory or other legal
authorities of the agency'';
(2) in paragraph (2), by inserting before the semicolon ``,
that are explicitly linked to the statutory or other legal
authorities of the agency''; and
(3) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (5), by
striking the period at the end of paragraph (6) and inserting
a semicolon, and by adding at the end the following new
paragraphs:
``(7) a specific identification of any agency functions and
programs that are similar to those of more than one component
of the agency or those of other agencies, and an explanation
of coordination and other efforts the agency has undertaken
within the agency or with other agencies to ensure that such
similar functions and programs are subject to complementary
goals, strategies, and performance measures;
``(8) a description of any major management problems
(including but not limited to programs and activities at high
risk for waste, abuse, or mismanagement) affecting the agency
that have been documented by the inspector general of the
agency (or a comparable official, if the agency has no
inspector general), the General Accounting Office, and
others, and specific goals, strategies, and performance
measures to resolve those problems; and
``(9) an assessment by the head of the agency of the
adequacy and reliability of the data sources and information
and accounting systems of the agency to support its strategic
plans under this section and performance plans and reports
under sections 1115 and 1116 (respectively) of title 31, and,
to the extent that material data or system inadequacies
exist, an explanation by the head of the agency of how the
agency will resolve them.''.
(b) Resubmission of Agency Strategic Plans.--Section 306 of
title 5, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (b), by striking ``submitted,'' and all
that follows through the end of the subsection and inserting
the following: ``submitted. The strategic plan shall be
updated, revised, and resubmitted to the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget and the Congress by not later
than September 30 of 1998 and of every third year
thereafter.''; and
(2) in subsection (d), by inserting ``and updating'' after
``developing'', and by adding at the end thereof: ``The
agency head shall provide promptly to any committee or
subcommittee of the Congress any draft versions of a plan or
other information pertinent to a plan that the committee or
subcommittee requests.''.
(c) Format for Strategic Plans.--Section 306 of title 5,
United States Code, is amended by redesignating subsection
(f) as subsection (g), and by inserting after subsection (e)
the following new subsection:
``(f)(1) The strategic plan shall be a single document that
covers the agency as a whole and addresses each of the
elements required by this section on an agencywide basis. The
head of an agency shall format the strategic plans of the
agency in a manner that clearly demonstrates the linkages
among the elements of the plan.
``(2)(A) The head of each executive department shall submit
with the departmentwide strategic plan a separate component
strategic plan

[[Page H1131]]

for each of the major mission-related components of the
department. Such a component strategic plan shall address
each of the elements required by this section.
``(B) The head of an agency that is not an executive
department shall submit separate component plans in
accordance with subparagraph (A) to the extent that doing so
would, in the judgment of the head of the agency, materially
enhance the usefulness of the strategic plan of the
agency.''.

SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS RELATING TO PERFORMANCE PLANS AND
PERFORMANCE REPORTS.

(a) Governmentwide Program Performance Reports.--Section
1116 of title 31, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (f) as subsection (g); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (e) the following new
subsection:
``(f)(1) No later than March 31, 2000, and no later than
March 31 of each year thereafter, the Director of the Office
of Management and Budget shall prepare and submit to the
Congress an integrated Federal Government performance report
for the previous fiscal year.
``(2) In addition to such other content as the Director
determines to be appropriate, each report shall include
actual results and accomplishments under the Federal
Government performance plan required by section 1105(a)(29)
of this title for the fiscal year covered by the report.''.
(b) Inspector General Review of Agency Performance Plans
and Performance Reports.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 11 of title 31, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

``Sec. 1120. Inspector general review of agency performance
plans and performance reports

``(a) The inspector general of each agency (or a comparable
official designated by the head of the agency, if the agency
has no inspector general) shall develop and implement a plan
to review the implementation by the agency of the
requirements of sections 1115 and 1116 of this title and
section 306 of title 5. The plan shall include examination of
the following:
``(1) Agency efforts to develop and use performance
measures for determining progress toward achieving agency
performance goals and program outcomes described in
performance plans prepared under section 1115 of this title
and performance reports submitted pursuant to section 1116 of
this title.
``(2) Verification and validation of selected data sources
and information collection and accounting systems that
support agency performance plans and performance reports and
agency strategic plans pursuant to section 306 of title 5.
``(b)(1) In developing the review plan and selecting
specific performance indicators, supporting data sources, and
information collection and accounting systems to be examined
under subsection (a), each inspector general (or designated
comparable official, as applicable) shall consult with
appropriate congressional committees and the head of the
agency, including in determining the scope and course of
review pursuant to paragraph (2).
``(2) In determining the scope and course of review,
consistent with available resources, each inspector general
(or designated comparable official, as applicable) shall
emphasize those performance measures associated with programs
or activities for which--
``(A) there is reason to believe there exists a high risk
of waste, fraud, or mismanagement; and
``(B) based on the assessment of the inspector general,
review of the controls applied in developing the performance
data is needed to ensure the accuracy of those data.
``(c) Each agency inspector general (or designated
comparable official, as applicable) shall submit the review
plan to the Congress and the agency head at least annually,
beginning no later than October 31, 1998.
``(d) Each agency inspector general (or designated
comparable official, as applicable) shall conduct reviews
under the plan submitted under subsection (c), and submit
findings, results, and recommendations based on those reviews
to the head of the agency and the Congress, by not later than
April 30 and October 31 of each year. In the case of reviews
by an agency inspector general, such submission shall be made
as part of the semiannual reports required under section 5 of
the Inspector General Act of 1978.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 1115(f) of title 31,
United States Code, is amended in the matter preceding
paragraph (1) by striking ``1119'' and inserting ``1120''.
(3) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 11 of title 31, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``1120. Inspector general review of agency performance plans and
performance reports.''.

(c) Requirement To Use Full Costs as Performance
Indicator.--Section 1115(a)(4) of title 31, United States
Code, is amended by inserting before the semicolon at the end
the following: ``, which shall include determination of the
full costs (as that term is used in the most recent
Managerial Cost Accounting Standards of the Federal Financial
Accounting Standards) of each program activity''.

SEC. 4. LIMITATION ON AUTHORITY TO EXEMPT THE COUNCIL ON
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY.

Section 1117 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by
inserting before the period the following: ``, except that
the Director may not exempt the Council on Environmental
Quality''.

SEC. 5. SUBMISSION OF AGENCY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

Section 3515(a) of title 31, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by striking ``1997'' and inserting ``1999''; and
(2) by inserting ``the Congress and'' after ``and submit
to''.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. During consideration of the bill for
amendment, the Chairman may accord priority in recognition to a Member
offering an amendment that he or she has printed in the designated
place in the Congressional Record. Those amendments will be considered
read.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
Are there any amendments to the bill?

Amendment Offered by Mr. Kucinich

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Kucinich:
Page 5, after line 8, insert the following:
(d) Application of Requirements to Congressional
Committees.--Section 306(g) of title 5, United States Code,
as redesignated by subsection (c) of this section, is further
amended by inserting after ``section 105,'' the following:
``and any committee of the House of Representatives or the
Senate,''.

Point of Order

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Chairman, I have a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of
order.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Chairman, the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) violates clause 7, House Rule 16, which
states, in pertinent part, that no motion or proposition on a subject
different from that under consideration shall be deemed admitted under
the color of amendment.
The amendment before the committee is not germane to the subject
matter under consideration. The amendment would apply the Government
Performance and Results Act to the legislative branch. GPRA, the
Results Act, is a provision of law that only applies to the executive
branch. Neither the bill before us nor the public law which it seeks to
amend applies to the legislative branch.
The Precedents of the House suggest that amendments which bring the
legislative branch within the ambient of bills with general
accountability to the executive branch are not germane. Therefore,
Madam Chairman, the amendment is not germane, and I insist on my point
of order.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Ohio wish to be
heard on the point of order of the gentleman from Texas?
Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Chairman, yes, I do.
We had presented this amendment in hopes that a point of order would
not be insisted on because we simply believe that Congress ought to be
required to abide by the same laws which we would insist that the
executive branch be required to abide by.
I thank the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from Texas makes a point of order that the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) is not germane. The
bill is considered as read and open to amendment at any point, so the
test of germaneness is the relationship of the amendment to the bill as
a whole.
The bill, H.R. 2883, seeks to alter what is required of Federal
executive branch agencies in the area of strategic plans and
performance reports. Specifically, the bill seeks to change agency
responsibilities relating to content, submission and format of the
strategic plan under the Government Performance and Results Act of
1993. The bill also prescribes additional responsibilities for the
Inspector General of each agency and the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget. In addition, the bill seeks to alter the
submission requirements for certain agency financial statements.
The amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio seeks to apply the
requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act to entities
in the legislative branch, specifically, the committees of the House
and Senate.
Clause 7 of rule XVI of the rules of the House requires that an
amendment

[[Page H1132]]

be germane to the proposition to which offered. As recorded on page 611
of the House Rules and Manual, a general principle of the germaneness
rule is that an amendment must relate to the subject matter under
consideration. The Chair will note a relevant precedent. In the 100th
Congress, the Committee of the Whole was considering legislation
requiring a study of pay practices of the executive branch. The Chair
ruled that an amendment which would have extended the study to the
legislative branch was not germane. This precedent is cited on page 620
of the House Rules and Manual and codified in Deschler-Brown
Precedents, Volume 10, Chapter 28, section 13.8.
Corollary principle of the germaneness rule is that an amendment
should be within the jurisdiction of the committee reporting the bill.
The present bill was reported by and is confined to the jurisdiction of
the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. The amendment offered
by the gentleman from Ohio addresses the applicability of the
Government Performance and Results Act to entities of the legislative
branch. The internal operation of the Congress falls within the
jurisdiction of other committees of the House.
Accordingly, the amendment is not germane and the point of order is
sustained.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there other amendments?

Amendment Offered by Mrs. Maloney of New York

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mrs. Maloney of New York:
Page 5, after line 8, insert the following:
(d) Limited Applicability to Federal Reserve Board and
Banks.--(1) Section 306(g) of title 5, United States Code (as
redesignated by subsection (c)), is amended by inserting
``(including the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System and the Federal Reserve banks, but only with respect
to operations and functions that are not directly related to
the establishment and conduct of the monetary policy of the
United States)'' after ``105''.
(2) Such section is further amended by adding at the end
the following new subsection:
``(h) Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b), the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal
Reserve banks shall not be required to submit a strategic
plan under this section to the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget.''.
Page 9, after line 2, insert the following:
(d) Limited Applicability to Federal Reserve Board and
Banks.--(1) Section 1115 of title 31, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(g) The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
and the Federal Reserve banks--
``(1) shall not be required to submit a performance plan to
the Director of the Office of Management and the Budget under
this section; and
``(2) shall submit to Congress, not later than March 1 of
each year, a performance plan containing the information
described in subsection (a), but only with respect to
operations and functions that are not directly related to the
establishment and conduct of the monetary policy of the
United States.''.
(2) Section 1116 of such title is amended by adding at the
end the following new subsection:
``(h) Notwithstanding subsection (a), the Federal Reserve
Board and the Federal Reserve banks shall not be required to
submit a report on program performance to the President under
this section.''.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York (during the reading). Madam Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed
in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
(Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Madam Chairman, our bipartisan amendment
clarifies the intent of Congress that the Government Performance and
Results Act should apply to the Federal Reserve System. The Federal
Reserve has disputed this legal interpretation, but has so far agreed
to voluntarily comply with all requirements of the Results Act. This
amendment would simply make the congressional intent on coverage
clearer.
This Congress, when they enacted this, intended it to cover all
agencies. The Federal Reserve has claimed that they are unique because
they are off-budget and so-called independent, yet all other
independent agencies are covered, such as, to give two examples, FDIC
and Social Security. The statutory language and history surrounding the
Federal Reserve Act of 1913 makes it clear that the Federal Reserve is
a creature of Congress and a Federal agency for all intents and
purposes.
I believe, as well as the Office of Management and Budget and the
General Accounting Office, that the Results Act does cover the Fed and,
if fully implemented, would help improve Fed operations.
We have drafted our amendment to very carefully exclude monetary
policy, yet a GAO report in 1996 said that approximately 90 percent of
the Fed's activities and functions are not directly related to monetary
policy. In fact, according to this report, 93 percent of the operating
budget accounts for salaries and costs associated with supervision and
regulation of banks and provision of payment services in the banking
industry. That amounts to approximately $2 billion to $2.5 billion
annually.
Earlier, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) argued very
eloquently that the Results Act should apply to all agencies, even if
they were smaller than the threshold. I support him in that
interpretation, and I appreciate his support in expanding this
amendment to cover the Fed.
I would like to enter into the record this statement that clarifies
our intent with the advice and consent of the chairman of the Committee
on Banking and Financial Services, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach);
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions); the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Bentsen); myself; and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney).
I want to make the intent of Congress completely clear. In no way
should these reporting requirements be used to influence in any way
monetary policy, and it expressly exempts monetary policy. OMB, with
the language of this amendment, shall not dictate the way in which the
Federal Reserve makes its report to Congress. And, thirdly, by this
amendment we do not mean that each Federal Reserve Bank submit a
separate report to Congress, but that the organizations submit unified
reports, organization-wide reports.
Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) for his support, and the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for his leadership and support, and the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) for cosponsoring this amendment with me.
Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Maloney
amendment and I commend the gentlewoman from New York for crafting a
thoughtful and carefully considered change to this bill. This amendment
clarifies that the Results Act applies to the Federal Reserve System,
while preserving the traditional independence of the Fed from the
executive branch.
When the Results Act first passed, the administration concluded that
the Fed was a covered agency, and this was presumably the intent of
Congress as well. The Fed has disputed this legal interpretation, but
has agreed to voluntarily comply with the Act. The Maloney amendment
would simply make this coverage clear, and I urge support.
Mr. NEY. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Very briefly, Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of the
amendment. The Government Performance and Results Act encourages
greater efficiency and effectiveness. A lot of the points have been
stressed. This is an amendment that accepts the Fed operations in
regards to monetary policy. I just want to commend my colleague. This
is a very good accountability amendment for the House. I want to praise
her for her work on it and urge everyone to support it.

{time} 1245

Mr. HORN. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Madam Chairman, I also commend the former ranking member (Mrs.
Maloney of New York) of the subcommittee. I think she, the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Ney), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), and all

[[Page H1133]]

those who have been involved in this, including the chairman of the
Committee on Banking and Financial Services (Mr. Leach) have done
commendable work here. This is long overdue.
As I told the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) several days
ago, I strongly support her effort. The majority is delighted to accept
it and put it in the bill.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment offered by Mr. Kucinich

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Kucinich:
Beginning on page 3, strike line 21 and all that follows
through page 4, line 11.
Page 4, line 12, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(b)''.
Mr. KUCINICH (during the reading). Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Chairman, the distinguished majority leader, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), in his eloquent presentation earlier,
summed up his remarks by saying that you can teach an old dog new
tricks. My response is, simply, do not beat that dog. Because what we
are doing here is beating up on agencies which serve the people of this
country, and when we ask them to do their plans all over again, we are
wasting taxpayers' money.
This amendment, Madam Chairman, is simple and straightforward. It
eliminates the bill's requirement that all Federal agencies' strategic
plans should be resubmitted on September 30, 1998. The annual
performance plans required by GPRA have only just begun arriving in
Congress. Some will make changes to agencies' strategic plans.
It would be much better to absorb these annual plans fully before
requiring the rewrite of all the strategic plans by this September. As
a purely practical matter, it is now mid March. The best we can
possibly expect from the Senate would be action toward the end of
April. That would leave the agencies about 5 months to draft new plans,
consult with Congress, and submit final strategic plans. That is simply
not long enough.
Also, the submission of these plans this October, less than 6 weeks
from election day, opens the door to a politicization of GPRA, which we
have tried to avoid. At the Subcommittee on Government Management and
Information Technology, on this legislation, not one of the witnesses
testified in support of this universal resubmission requirement. It is
my understanding, Madam Chairman, that in open committee we did not
even take the opportunity to talk to each agency about their plans.
My amendment would save thousands of work hours and millions of
dollars, millions of the taxpayers' dollars, in respect to the Federal
agencies, time and money which would be better spent on productive
activities, rather than repeating an exercise completed 6 months ago.
A more targeted approach would be much wiser. If some of the
strategic plans were inadequate, then the appropriators and authorizers
with direct jurisdiction can and they should request resubmission of
those plans. That can happen under existing law. OMB testified that
they would support such efforts.
Indeed, the existing OMB circular on GRPA states, ``Significant
changes to a strategic plan should be made through a revision of the
strategic plan, even if this accelerates,'' even if this accelerates,
``the required 3-year revision cycle. Minor adjustments to a strategic
plan can be made in advance of a 3-year revision cycle by including
these interim revisions in the annual performance plan.''
Madam Chairman, this guidance is fully consistent with the Government
Performance and Reform Act. This process is proceeding. The Labor
Department is proceeding with a complete revision of their strategic
plan, and at least four other agencies, Interior, HHS, NASA, and
Education, have made minor revisions through their annual performance
plans.
So if Congress wants revisions of specific plans, it can certainly
get them. If the authorizing or appropriating committees of
jurisdiction made a request to an agency for a revision of their
strategic plan, ample authority already exists for that to happen.
Given the power of the purse exercised by Congress, it certainly would
happen.
I would like to comment briefly on the concurrence of the
administration with the scorecard that has been displayed, which has
been implied by some. In the letter to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Waxman), OMB makes clear this is not the case.
``The Office of Management and Budget has never developed or endorsed
a scorecard approach. In particular, we have never endorsed specific
scores, specific scoring techniques, or the weight given to different
factors contained in a scorecard used by the House majority
leadership.''
Even if we were to accept the scoring of these plans, which I
certainly do not, it is important to note that they only examine 24
agencies out of the entire number. Yet under this bill, 76 agencies
whose plans were not even looked at would have to completely redo them.
That is ridiculous. Again, it defies the test of logic. How can we
reject something, sight unseen, unless we simply want to attack the
entire Federal Government, without regard as to the proof which we
would criticize, even not having seen it? In effect, this bill says to
Federal agencies, we do not care how hard you may or may not have
worked to develop sound strategic plans; everyone has to do them
anyway. We penalize indiscriminately.
I would like to take this moment to thank the men and women of all
the government agencies who are trying to do a job despite this kind of
pressure, and ask them to continue to try to do better, and let them
know that the American people do appreciate the service which they are
rendering, and they do not deserve this kind of an attack with this
legislation.
Mr. HORN. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Madam Chairman, if adopted, this amendment essentially guts the bill.
I ask every Member to disagree with this proposal. It makes absolutely
no sense.
We are not saying every agency was wrong, but when we first reviewed
the plans of 24 major agencies, there were very few that were above 50
out of a scale of 105. I am looking at the Social Security
Administration. It moved from 62 to 68. That was a well-run
organization 35 years ago when I was on the Senate staff. It still is.
Education moved from 60 to 73. In other words, they improved their
plans. Some, however, will need to go over and look at practically
every section. They have not answered basic questions that we asked or
that are required under the 1993 law. We are trying to get them to face
up to that.
Regrettably, when we tried to have a more targeted approach, we were
told by a high official in the Office of Management and Budget that,
``We are not interested in that.'' Are they reflecting the President's
views? I doubt it. Or is it just the fact that maybe some in OMB are a
little stressed down there?
As the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) eloquently noted, private
sector companies constantly revamp their strategic mission, goals, and
tactics. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) brought that up
about Coca-Cola. The Federal Government is not Coca-Cola. On the other
hand, the Federal Government is a large organization and it is only as
effective as its component parts. That is what we are talking about
here.
No organization that wants to be successful and that is successful
would pass up three years and do nothing on their basic strategic plan
when they did not get it right in the first place. We simply want the
agencies to get it right. We want them to get it right by September so
the President can use those goals in submitting the next budget. If we
wait three years, everybody will have an excuse why they cannot give us
the data. We want to require that they give us and the President those
data that we need.
I, frankly, find it just very difficult to believe that the Office of
Management and Budget would oppose this bill. With Vice President
Gore's efforts to reinvent government and make

[[Page H1134]]

agencies more businesslike, we wonder what he is doing about this. If I
were he I would be begging to do this. I cannot imagine a high official
in any administration letting a staff get away with not doing what the
law requires--a law which was enacted on a bipartisan basis.
That is where we are. I ask that this amendment be defeated.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
(Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the
Kucinich amendment resubmission requirement. The underlying bill,
unfortunately, is the antithesis of the Results Act. Rather than
streamlining government, it will require agencies to repeat the work
they have just completed.
This bill will create the very waste and duplication in our
government that the bill purports to eliminate.
In 1993, a Democratic Congress and a Democratic administration began
an effort to reinvent our government--to make it more efficient and
responsive to the American people. As a part of that effort, we passed
the Government Performance and Results Act, or ``GPRA.'' This
legislation had overwhelming bi-partisan support. We asked agencies to
undertake strategic planning and timely performance evaluations so that
we could streamline government and make it more efficient.
This bill, unfortunately, is the antithesis of GPRA. Rather than
streamlining government, it will require agencies to repeat the work
they've just completed.
Those agencies covered by GPRA--over 100 of them--have submitted
their strategic plans to Congress and the Administration. According to
the General Accounting Office, a non-partisan Congressional office,
``On the whole, agencies' plans appear to provide a workable foundation
for Congress to use in helping to fulfill its appropriations, budget,
authorization, and oversight responsibilities and . . . for the
continuing implementation of the [GPRA].'' And the Office of Management
and Budget testified before the Government Management, Information, and
Technology subcommittee that they agreed with the GAO's assessment.
If the GAO and OMB believe that these are workable strategic plans,
why are we considering a bill that would require these agencies to
submit new plans just a few months after the original plans were
submitted.
The Republicans claim that the agencies' plans are not sufficient. I
have no doubt that some of the agency plans can be improved, but
scrapping all of the plans is a blunderbuss that would waste taxpayer
dollars. We should not ``fail'' these agencies just because we don't
like what they have to say. If we have problems with these plans, then
we should work with these agencies to bring their plans up to speed. We
should not just tell them we don't like it and tell them to do it over.
That will accomplish nothing: the majority is liable to not like the
new plans, either. What are they going to do then?
This amendment addresses these problems. It strikes the bill's
requirement that all federal agencies revise and resubmit their
strategic plans to Congress by the end of FY 1998, thereby giving
Congress and the agencies sufficient time to work on improvements
before the next plan must be submitted in two more years.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
The amendment was rejected.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there other amendments to the bill?

Amendment offered by Mr. HORN

Mr. HORN. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment, which is a technical
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment Offered by Mr. Horn:
Page 7, line 24, strike ``to the Congress and''.
Page 7, line 25, after the period insert the following new
sentence:

In the case of reviews by an agency inspector general, such
submission shall be made as part of the semiannual reports
required under section 5 of the Inspector General Act of
1978. Not later than 30 days after the date of the submission
of the review plan to the agency head under this subsection,
the agency head shall submit the review plan to Congress.
Page 8, line 5, strike ``and the Congress''.
Page 8, line 10, after the period insert the following new
sentence:

Not later than 30 days after the date of the submission of
the findings, results, and recommendations to the head of the
agency under this subsection, the agency head shall submit
the findings, results, and recommendations to Congress.

Mr. HORN (during the reading). Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. HORN. Madam Chairman, this is, I believe, unanimously supported
by both majority and minority. It was brought to the attention of the
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight after the legislation was
reported to the House that the submission dates drafted in the section
of the bill dealing with the role of the Inspectors General were
incorrect and needed to be brought into conformance with the existing
law.
When the Inspectors General discovered that, they contacted our
staff, and this is the technical amendment. It is not a substantive
change. I understand it has the support of leadership on the other side
of the aisle. I ask that this be adopted without further debate.
Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HORN. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Chairman, I simply want to say that I want to
thank the chairman. This is, indeed, a technical amendment made at the
request of the Inspectors General.
I have had the opportunity to review it, and we have no objection to
its adoption.
Mr. HORN. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for that.
Before asking that we have a rollcall on the final vote, I will
include in the Record our thanks to both majority staff and minority
staff members who have worked on this legislation. I am sure my
colleague will want to read the minority staff that were involved.
The majority staff who helped with the bill were, from the full
committee on Government Reform and Oversight: Daniel Moll, the Deputy
Staff Director; Jane Cobb, Professional Staff Member; William
Moschella, the Deputy Counsel and Parliamentarian.
From the Office of the Majority Leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Armey), we had Ginni Thomas and Jaylene Hobrecht.
From the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and
Technology which I chair: Staff Director and Chief Counsel J. Russell
George; Dianne Guensberg, Professional Staff Member, on loan from the
General Accounting Office; Robert Alloway, Professional Staff Member;
Matthew Ebert, Clerk; and David Coher, a U.S.C. student working in
Washington, D.C., for a semester, and doing very fine work with us.
From the Office of the Representative Pete Sessions, chairman of the
Results caucus: Robert Shea, Legislative Director.
Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich),
the ranking member of the subcommittee, for the listing of their staff.
Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding,
and his work on this, and I look forward to continuing work with him.
We may have differences of opinion, but I have a great deal of respect
for his approach to things. I am grateful to the ranking member of the
committee on which he is the chair.
Madam Chairman, I would like to thank our Democratic staff, Phil
Schiliro, Phil Barnett, Mark Stephenson, David Sadkin of the committee,
and Julie Moses of my personal staff. As Members of Congress will
understand, we are able to be present here engaged in this debate
because of the remarkable work of individuals who pour their hearts and
souls into providing us with this information, much the same way as the
Federal employees in the agencies do.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there other amendments?
If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.

{time} 1300

Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Petri)

[[Page H1135]]

having assumed the chair, Mrs. Emerson, Chairman pro tempore of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
the Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2883) to
amend provisions of law enacted by the Government Performance and
Results Act of 1993 to improve Federal agency strategic plans and
performance reports, pursuant to House Resolution 384, she reported the
bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of
the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 242,
nays 168, not voting 20, as follows:

[Roll No. 50]

YEAS--242

Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Brady
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doggett
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Graham
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Rivers
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stabenow
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--168

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gordon
Gutierrez
Hamilton
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hooley
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E.B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lowey
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Skaggs
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Turner
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates

NOT VOTING--20

Berman
Brown (CA)
Bunning
Cummings
Doyle
Furse
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Goss
Harman
Hinojosa
Hutchinson
John
Lofgren
Nadler
Poshard
Redmond
Sanchez
Schiff
Tanner

{time} 1321

Mr. MOAKLEY and Mr. HEFNER changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Mr. LUTHER and Ms. RIVERS changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________