[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 21 (Wednesday, February 25, 2004)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E226]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         INTRODUCTION OF THE PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AND RESULTS ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. TODD RUSSELL PLATTS

                            of pennsylvania

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, February 25, 2004

  Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce important 
legislation to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of our Federal 
government--the Program Assessment and Results Act, or PAR Act. As 
elected representatives of the people, we have a responsibility to use 
taxpayer dollars in the most effective way possible. As Congress 
formulates its budget each year, we must have the best information 
available to us on which to base our spending decisions.
  The Government Performance and Results Act, or GPRA, has laid a solid 
foundation for agencies working with Congress to set strategic goals 
and begin to utilize performance based information. Building on GPRA, 
we must take the next step toward reforming the way the government 
conducts business.
  One of the key aspects of any reform effort is to change the 
prevailing mind set. If our emphasis is on creating a more results-
oriented government, then we must change our mind set from outputs to 
outcomes. It takes time to achieve this type of cultural shift. The 
reforms of the early 1990s--the CFO Act, GPRA and others--are just 
beginning to work as intended.
  Prior efforts to make the federal government more effective--the 
Hoover Commission, Zero-Based Budgeting, the Planning-Programming-
Budgeting System, Reinventing Government--have come and gone with 
little lasting effect. Federal managers have learned that if they wait, 
each new administration is likely to attempt yet another broad-based 
reform. From a management standpoint, it is difficult in that type of 
environment to make long-range plans; and it's next to impossible to 
achieve the kind of cultural shift needed to reform the management of 
the federal government.
  Major reform takes time. By enacting GPRA, Congress put government 
reform in statute. Because of this statutory framework, federal 
managers now look at the requirements for performance plans and 
strategic plans required by GPRA and know they are here to stay 
regardless of changes in Congress and the Executive Branch. When the 
first round of strategic plans fell short of expectations, the reform 
effort was not scrapped--it was improved. Now, ten years after GPRA was 
enacted, we have strategic plans that are more in line with what was 
envisioned. We have seen slow, sustainable improvement.
  GPRA requires that agencies focus attention on program evaluation as 
one of six aspects of their strategic plans. Unfortunately, according 
to a draft report from the General Accounting Office, program 
evaluation is the one area where departments consistently come up 
short. Not only have agencies failed to comply with this requirement, 
the valuable information that stands to be gained from these 
evaluations is not culled, coordinated, or presented in a useful way.
  We have seen great progress in meeting other objectives set out in 
GPRA. In 1997, only 76 percent of federal managers had developed 
performance measures. By 2003, that number had risen to 89 percent. It 
is now time to strengthen GPRA to address the shortfall we see in 
program evaluation.
  By creating and using the Program Assessment Rating Tool, or PART, 
this Administration has gone a step beyond the strategic plans required 
by GPRA and implemented a system for evaluating the performance and 
results of federal programs. The next logical step is to codify the 
requirement for a coordinated evidence-based review of programs. In 
looking at this legislation that I am introducing today, we must ask 
ourselves, do we believe that better understanding how government 
operates program by program is a good idea. If the answer to that 
question is yes, and I believe it is, then we should work to ensure 
that program assessments be required for this and every future 
administration.
  This legislation does not seek to codify the use of the PART 
specifically. Rather, this bill amends GPRA by establishing a 
requirement for program reviews. Specifically, the Office of Management 
and Budget is required under the Act to review each program activity at 
least once every five years. By requiring OMB to be responsible for 
overseeing program assessment data, we will take a great step forward 
in realizing the reform envisioned by GPRA and make the federal 
government more efficient and results oriented.
  Information gleaned from these program reviews needs to be useful 
across the board to all stakeholders. Members of Congress, taxpayers, 
federal managers and the Executive Branch need to know if programs are 
being managed effectively and if they are achieving the desired result. 
Further, this legislation, once enacted, will allow us to compare data 
among different agencies, to see how different programs with similar 
goals are achieving results. Members of Congress can use the 
information to make informed budget decisions and conduct more 
effective oversight. It will help the taxpayers see what they are 
getting for their money. Most important, federal managers will use the 
information to improve the way they manage programs. The results will 
be a more effective and efficient government for the good of all 
Americans.

                          ____________________