[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.

                          ____________________