[House Report 108-768]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
108th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 108-768
======================================================================
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AND RESULTS ACT
_______
October 8, 2004.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia, from the Committee on Government Reform,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 3826]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Government Reform, to whom was referred the
bill (H.R. 3826) to require the review of Government programs
at least once every 5 years for purposes of evaluating their
performance, having considered the same, report favorably
thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as
amended do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
Committee Statement and Views.................................... 4
Section-by-Section............................................... 8
Explanation of Amendments........................................ 10
Committee Consideration.......................................... 10
Rollcall Votes................................................... 11
Application of Law to the Legislative Branch..................... 12
Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the
Committee...................................................... 12
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives............ 12
Constitutional Authority Statement............................... 12
Federal Advisory Committee Act................................... 12
Unfunded Mandate Statement....................................... 12
Committee Estimate............................................... 12
Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate... 13
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill as Reported............. 13
Minority Views................................................... 17
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Program Assessment and Results Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) inefficiency and ineffectiveness in Federal programs
undermines the confidence of the American people in the
Government and reduces the Federal Government's ability to
adequately address vital public needs;
(2) insufficient information on program performance seriously
disadvantages Federal managers in their efforts to improve
program efficiency and effectiveness;
(3) congressional policy making, spending decisions, and
program oversight are handicapped by insufficient attention to
program performance and results;
(4) programs performing similar or duplicative functions that
exist within a single agency or across multiple agencies should
be identified and their performance and results shared among
all such programs to improve their performance and results;
(5) advocates of good government continue to seek ways to
improve accountability, focus on results, and integrate the
performance of programs with decisions about budgets;
(6) with the passage of the Government Performance and
Results Act of 1993, the Congress directed the executive branch
to seek improvements in the effectiveness, efficiency, and
accountability of Federal programs by having agencies focus on
program results; and
(7) the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993
provided a strong framework for the executive branch to monitor
the long-term goals and annual performance of its departments
and agencies.
SEC. 3. PURPOSE.
The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to improve the Government Performance and Results Act of
1993 by implementing a program assessment and evaluation
process that attempts to determine the strengths and weaknesses
of Federal programs with a particular focus on the results
produced by individual programs;
(2) to use the information gathered in the assessment and
evaluation process to build on the groundwork laid in the
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 to help the
executive branch make informed management decisions and
evidence-based funding requests aimed at achieving positive
results; and
(3) to provide congressional policy makers the information
needed to conduct more effective oversight, to make better-
informed authorization decisions, and to make more evidence-
based spending decisions that achieve positive results for the
American people.
SEC. 4. PROGRAM ASSESSMENT.
(a) Requirement for Program Assessments.--Chapter 11 of title 31,
United States Code, as amended by the Government Performance and
Results Act of 1993, is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:
``Sec. 1120. Program assessment
``(a) Assessment.--The Director of the Office of Management and
Budget to the maximum extent practicable shall conduct, jointly with
agencies of the Federal Government, an assessment of each program at
least once every 5 fiscal years.
``(b) Assessment Requirements.--In conducting an assessment of a
program under subsection (a), the Director of the Office of Management
and Budget and the head of the relevant agency shall--
``(1) coordinate to determine the programs to be assessed;
and
``(2) evaluate the purpose, design, strategic plan,
management, and results of the program, and such other matters
as the Director considers appropriate.
``(c) Criteria for Identifying Programs to Assess.--The Director of
the Office of Management and Budget shall develop criteria for
identifying programs to be assessed each fiscal year. In developing the
criteria, the Director shall take into account the advantages of
assessing during the same fiscal year any programs that are performing
similar functions, have similar purposes, or share common goals, such
as those contained in strategic plans under section 306 of title 5. To
the maximum extent possible, the Director shall assess a representative
sample of Federal spending each fiscal year.
``(d) Criteria for More Frequent Assessments.--The Director of the
Office of Management and Budget shall make every effort to assess
programs more frequently than required under subsection (a) in cases in
which programs are determined to be of higher priority, special
circumstances exist, improvements have been made, or the head of the
relevant agency and the Director determine that more frequent
assessment is warranted.
``(e) Publication.--At least 90 days before completing the
assessments under this section to be conducted during a fiscal year,
the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall--
``(1) make available in electronic form through the Office of
Management and Budget website or any successor website, and
provide to the Committee on Government Reform of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Governmental Affairs of
the Senate--
``(A) a list of the programs to be assessed during
that fiscal year; and
``(B) the criteria that will be used to assess the
programs; and
``(2) provide a mechanism for interested persons to comment
on the programs being assessed and the criteria that will be
used to assess the programs.
``(f) Report.--(1) The results of the assessments conducted during a
fiscal year shall be submitted in a report to Congress at the same time
that the President submits the next budget under section 1105 of this
title after the end of that fiscal year.
``(2) The report shall--
``(A) include the performance goals for each program
assessment;
``(B) specify the criteria used for each assessment;
``(C) describe the results of each assessment, including any
significant limitation in the assessments;
``(D) describe significant modifications to the Federal
Government performance plan required under section 1105(a)(28)
of this title made as a result of the assessments; and
``(E) be available in electronic form through the Office of
Management and Budget website or any successor website.
``(g) Classified Information.--(1) With respect to program
assessments conducted during a fiscal year that contain classified
information, the President shall submit on the same date as the report
is submitted under subsection (f)--
``(A) a copy of each such assessment (including the
classified information), to the appropriate committees of
jurisdiction of the House of Representatives and the Senate;
and
``(B) consistent with statutory law governing the disclosure
of classified information, an appendix containing a list of
each such assessment and the committees to which a copy of the
assessment was submitted under subparagraph (A), to the
Committee on Government Reform of the House of Representatives
and the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate.
``(2) Upon request from the Committee on Government Reform of the
House of Representatives or the Committee on Governmental Affairs of
the Senate, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall,
consistent with statutory law governing the disclosure of classified
information, provide to the Committee a copy of--
``(A) any assessment described in subparagraph (A) of
paragraph (1) (including any assessment not listed in any
appendix submitted under subparagraph (B) of such paragraph);
and
``(B) any appendix described in subparagraph (B) of paragraph
(1).
``(3) In this subsection, the term `classified information' refers to
matters described in section 552(b)(1)(A) of title 5.
``(h) Inherently Governmental Functions.--The functions and
activities authorized or required by this section shall be considered
inherently Governmental functions and shall be performed only by
Federal employees.
``(i) Termination.--This section shall not be in effect after
September 30, 2013.''.
(b) Guidance.--Not later than 6 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget shall prescribe guidance to implement the requirements of
section 1120 of title 31, United States Code, as added by subsection
(a), including guidance on a definition of the term ``program''.
(c) Conforming and Clerical Amendments.--
(1) Section 1115(g) of title 31, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``1119'' and inserting ``1120''.
(2) 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:
``1120. Program assessment.''.
SEC. 5. STRATEGIC PLANNING AMENDMENTS.
(a) Change in Deadline for Strategic Plan.--Subsection (a) of section
306 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by striking ``No later
than September 30, 1997,'' and inserting ``Not later than September 30
of each year following a year in which an election for President
occurs, beginning with September 30, 2005, ''.
(b) Change in Period of Coverage of Strategic Plan.--Subsection (b)
of section 306 of title 5, United States Code, is amended to read as
follows:
``(b) Each strategic plan shall cover the 4-year period beginning on
October 1 of the year following a year in which an election for
President occurs.''.
Committee Statement and Views
PURPOSE AND SUMMARY
The main purpose of the Program Assessment and Results
(PAR) Act is to improve the Government Performance and Results
Act (GPRA) of 1993, P.L. 103-62, by implementing a program
review and evaluation process that attempts to determine the
strengths and weaknesses of Federal programs with a particular
focus on the results produced by individual programs.
Furthermore, the information gathered in the review and
evaluation process established by the PAR Act will build on the
groundwork laid by GPRA to help the executive branch make
informed management decisions and evidence-based funding
requests aimed at achieving positive results. Finally, the
program reviews created by the PAR Act will provide
congressional policy makers with the information needed to
conduct more effective oversight, to make better-informed
authorization decisions, and to make more evidence-based
spending decisions that achieve positive results for the
American people.
The PAR Act amends GPRA to require the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to review each Federal
program, as defined by OMB, at least once every five fiscal
years. The choice of a five-year cycle divides the workload of
evaluating all Federal programs into manageable segments for
OMB. Attempting to evaluate the performance of all Federal
programs in one year was a major impediment to the success of
past attempts at performance measurement by previous
Administrations. The five year cycle also parallels the time
frame used by OMB in its Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART),
which OMB has used to evaluate programs, representing 20% of
all Federal spending each year beginning with the fiscal year
2003 budget cycle. The PAR Act does not interfere with OMB's
timeline for using PART to complete program assessments of each
program in the Federal budget, nor does the PAR Act attempt to
codify the specific methodology used by PART. Instead, the PAR
Act directs OMB to conduct reviews of programs in consultation
with the relevant agency that administers the program and to
evaluate each program's purpose, design, strategic plan,
management, results, and any other matters that OMB considers
appropriate.
As OMB develops its criteria for which programs to review
each fiscal year, the PAR Act requires OMB to take into account
the advantages of reviewing program activities with similar
functions or purposes during the same fiscal year. The intent
of this language is to ensure that the functions of government
that cut across several programs and potentially cut across
several agencies are reviewed at the same time. This
information can then be used to compare the performance of
programs against one another and to seek managerial and budget
changes that capitalize on the best practices of the programs
that are most successful in achieving the outcomes they were
designed to achieve. In addition to considering the
crosscutting nature of government functions, the PAR Act also
directs OMB to review program activities more frequently than
every five fiscal years in cases in which programs are
determined to be of higher priority, special circumstances
exist, improvements have been made, or the head of the relevant
agency and OMB determine that more frequent review is
warranted. Requiring more frequent reviews in these
circumstances will ensure that the lessons learned from
programs that make improvements may be cultivated more
frequently and that programs that continually fail to achieve
their goals will be scrutinized more closely.
The results of program reviews conducted under the PAR Act
will be reported to Congress with the President's next budget
following the end of the fiscal year in which the program
reviews were conducted. OMB currently uses this method of
reporting in conjunction with the PART. The Committee is
pleased with the high level of transparency that OMB has
exhibited in reporting the results of the programs that have
been evaluated using the PART. In an effort to maintain this
level of transparency under the PAR Act, the Act requires that
OMB make every effort to ensure the transparency of the report.
For any program reviewed, OMB should publish the information
necessary for the public to understand what methods were used
to evaluate the program, what information was derived from the
application of those methods to the program, and what
conclusions were drawn from the information derived. There is
some concern that the PART has been unable to complete
evaluations for 152 of the 407 programs--37.1% of the
programs--to which it has been applied over the two-year period
in which assessments were conducted. Although the percentage of
programs receiving a score of ``results not demonstrated''
decreased in year two, it remains too high. We encourage OMB
and the agency community to work to continue to refine the
evaluation criteria to ensure meaningful reporting for all
federal programs, including those programs administered
cooperatively among state and local stakeholders.
Finally, the bill will move the due date for submitting
strategic plans under GPRA to September 30 of each year
following a presidential election and would change the duration
of the coverage of the plans from 5 years to 4 years. These
changes would improve the usefulness and timeliness of
strategic plans by giving the management team of the most
recently elected President enough time to assemble and set its
goals for the President's term.
Background and Need for the Legislation
The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993,
P.L. 103-62, has laid a solid foundation for agencies working
with Congress to set strategic goals and begin to utilize
performance-based information. Building on GPRA, Congress must
take the next step toward reforming the way the government
conducts its business.
Prior efforts to make the Federal government more
effective--the Hoover Commission, Zero-Based Budgeting, the
Planning-Programming-Budgeting System, and 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.
GPRA requires that agencies focus attention on program
evaluation as one of six aspects of their strategic plans.
Unfortunately, the Government Accountability Office
reports(GAO-04-38) that 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.
By creating and using the Program Assessment Rating Tool,
or PART, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has gone a
step beyond the strategic plans required by GPRA and
implemented a system for evaluating the performance and results
of individual Federal programs. The next logical step is to
codify the requirement for a coordinated evidence-based review
of programs. Clearly, developing a better understanding of how
government operates program by program is a good idea. As such,
the PAR Act is necessary to ensure that program assessments be
required for this and future Administrations.
The PAR Act does not seek to codify the use of the PART
specifically. Rather, the Act amends GPRA by establishing a
requirement for program reviews. Specifically, the OMB is
required under the Act to review each program activity at least
once every five years. Requiring OMB to be responsible for
overseeing program assessment data will be a great step forward
in realizing the reforms envisioned by GPRA and will make the
Federal government more efficient and results oriented.
Information gleaned from these program reviews will 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 results. Further, the PAR Act
will facilitate data comparisons among different programs and
across 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.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
On February 25, 2004, Representative Todd R. Platts (R-PA),
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Government Efficiency and
Financial Management of the Committee on Government Reform,
along with Representative Tom Davis (R-VA), Chairman of the
Committee on Government Reform, introduced H.R. 3826, the
``Program Assessment and Results Act'' to amend and improve the
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993, P.L.
103-62. The bill was subsequently referred to the Committee on
Government Reform. The Committee on Government Reform then
referred H.R. 3826 to the Subcommittee on Government Efficiency
and Financial Management, which has jurisdiction over GPRA and
all matters relating to the overall efficiency and management
of government operations.
On May 19, 2004, the Subcommittee on Government Efficiency
and Financial Management held a business meeting to mark up
H.R. 3826. Subcommittee Chairman Todd Platts (R-PA) offered an
amendment in the nature of a substitute, which enhances
coordination between OMB and the relevant agency in determining
the programs to review, as well as enhances the transparency of
the programmatic review report provided to Congress by ensuring
that this report specifies (1) the performance goals for each
program review, (2) the criteria used to evaluate, (3) the
results of the evaluation, and (4) is available in electronic
form through the OMB website. The amendment also provided for
the termination of the review requirement as of September 30,
2013, essentially after two complete review cycles have been
completed. The amendment also made a number of other technical
changes to the legislation. The amendment in the nature of a
substitute was adopted by voice vote.
The Subcommittee also adopted an amendment offered by Rep.
Edolphus Towns (D-NY), which required the head of the Office of
Management and Budget to provide notice and an opportunity for
public comment in the Federal Register on a detailed
description in draft form of each program to be assessed, the
draft performance goals for each such program and the draft
criteria used to evaluate each program. The amendment also
called for the publication in the Federal Register of the final
list of programs to be assessed, the final performance goals
and final criteria used to evaluate, along with a summary of
all public comment. This amendment was adopted by voice vote.
H.R. 3826 was reported to the full Committee on Government
Reform, as amended, by voice vote.
On June 3, 2004 the full Committee on Government Reform
held a business meeting to mark up H.R. 3826. Chairman Platts
of the Subcommittee on Government Efficiency and Financial
Management offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute
which makes additional changes from the Manager's Amendment
approved by the Subcommittee. Recognizing that this law places
some additional burden on OMB and the agencies the amendment
gives the OMB Director some latitude to exempt certain programs
from the review requirement. This amendment also respects the
privacy of classified information by excluding it from the
reporting requirement.
The amendment also made changes to the amendment adopted by
the Subcommittee originally offered by Mr. Towns. Mr. Towns'
amendment sought to ensure that stakeholders and others with an
interest in the programs being assessed would have an
opportunity to comment on the programs and the criteria used to
assess them. While the amendment changed the language of the
original amendment, it ensures that there is a provision
providing for the publication of programs to be assessed and
the criteria that will be used in those assessments. The
Manager's Amendment, requires that this information be posted
on the OMB web site at least 90 days prior to completion of the
assessments and requires that the Director of OMB provide a
mechanism for interested parties to comment. The Manager's
Amendment was adopted by the committee by voice vote.
Rep. Towns offered an amendment to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute to restore the language of his amendment
approved by the Subcommittee on GovernmentEfficiency and
Financial Management. This amendment was defeated by a rollcall vote of
15 ``nays'' and 9 ``yeas''.
During the business meeting Rep. Waxman (D-CA) offered an
amendment that required program reviews conducted pursuant to
the bill to be performed by the heads of agencies, rather than
by OMB. The amendment failed on a voice vote.
Also during the business meeting, two amendments were
offered by Rep. Van Hollen (D-MD) and subsequently withdrawn.
Rep, Van Hollen offered an amendment that directed the
functions and activities required by the bill to be classified
as inherently governmental activities and an amendment that
required the submission to Congress of any classified
information as a result of the bill.
H.R. 3826, as amended, was approved by voice vote and
ordered reported favorably to the full House of Representatives
for consideration.
Section-by-Section
SECTION 1--SHORT TITLE
The Act may be cited as the ``Program Assessment and
Results Act.''
SECTION 2--FINDINGS
This section summarizes the findings of Congress with
respect to the following: the lack of program performance
information available to Federal managers and Congress for
decision-making; the importance of performance information to
making good managerial and budget decisions; and the foundation
that the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA),
P.L. 103-362, has laid for program performance reviews.
SECTION 3--PURPOSE
This section states the purposes of the Act, which are: to
amend and improve GPRA by implementing program reviews that
determine the strength and weakness of Federal programs; to use
the information gathered for the executive branch to make
informed management decisions and evidence-based funding
requests; and to provide Congress with information necessary to
conduct more effective oversight, to make better-informed
authorization decisions, and to make more evidence-based
spending decisions.
SECTION 4--PROGRAM REVIEW AND EVALUATION
Paragraph (a) establishes a requirement for program reviews
by amending chapter 11 of title 31, United States Code, as
amended by GPRA.
This amendment to GPRA adds ``Section 1120. Program review
and evaluation.'' to the end of chapter 11 of title 31, United
States Code. Paragraph (a) of the new section 1120 requires the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to review
each program activity at least once every 5 fiscal years.
The bill as passed by the committee includes language
stating that the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget shall ``to the maximum extent practicable'' conduct a
review of each program every five years. This language was
included in the final version of H.R. 3826 to give minimal
flexibility to the Director should a special circumstance arise
where an assessment of a certain program is deemed unneeded.
The clause, ``to the maximum extent practicable'' is not
intended to give the Director wholesale flexibility or the
ability to exempt any programs from review without a legitimate
reason. Should the Director seek to exempt any program from
this review requirement he shall notify the Congress, including
the House Committee on Government Reform and Senate Committee
on Governmental Affairs, in writing explaining the specific
reasons why the review is deemed unneeded.
Paragraph (b) of section 1120 requires the Director in
conducting a review of a program activity to coordinate with
the relevant agency and evaluate each program activity's
purpose, design, strategic plan, management, results, and any
other matters that the Director considers appropriate.
Paragraph (c) of section 1120 requires the Director to
develop criteria for deciding which program activities to
review each fiscal year. It further instructs the Director to
take into account the advantages of reviewing program
activities with similar functions or purposes during the same
fiscal year.
Paragraph (d) of section 1120 requires the Director to make
every effort to review program activities more frequently than
every 5 fiscal years in cases in which programs are determined
to be of higher priority, special circumstances exist,
improvements have been made, or the head of the relevant agency
and the Director determine that more frequent review is
warranted.
Paragraph (e) requires that at least 90 days prior to
completing the assessments require under this section that the
Director publish on the OMB website or successor website and
provide to the House Committee on Government Reform and Senate
Committee on Governmental Affairs a list of all programs to be
assessed during a fiscal year and the criteria to be used in
those assessments. This section further requires that OMB
provide a formal mechanism for interested persons to comment on
the programs being assessed and the criteria used to assess
those programs.
Paragraph (f) of section 1120 requires:
(1) The Director to submit the results of the reviews for a
fiscal year to the Congress along with the President's next
budget following the end of the fiscal year in which the
reviews were conducted;
(2) Specifies the criteria that shall be required for the
report.
Paragraph (g) of section 1120:
(1) Establishes provisions for the submission of program
assessments containing classified information.
(A) requires that a copy of the assessment (including
the classified information) be provided to the
appropriate committees of the House of Representatives
and the Senate, and
(B) requires that, consistent with statutory law, an
appendix containing a list of each assessment
referenced in (A) be provided to the Committee on
Government Reform of the House of Representatives and
the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate.
(2) Establishes that upon request from the Committee on
Government Reform of the House or the Committee on Governmental
Affairs of the Senate, the Director of OMB shall provide to the
requesting committee a copy of any assessment or appendix
referenced in subparagraph (A) or (B) respectively.
(3) Establishes that the term ``classified information''
refers to matters in section 552(b)(1)(A) of title 5 U.S.C.
Paragraph (h) establishes that the functions and activities
authorized by this section shall be considered inherently
governmental functions and performed only by Federal employees.
Paragraph (i) terminates the review requirement in 2013,
essentially after two complete review cycles have been
completed.
Paragraph (b) of Section 4 provides that the Director shall
have 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act to issued
guidance to implement the requirements of section 1120.
Paragraph (c) makes conforming amendments to Section
1115(g) of title 31.
SECTION 5--STRATEGIC PLANNING AMENDMENTS
Paragraph (a) amends section 306 of title 5, United States
Code, to change the date for submitting strategic plans as
required under GPRA to September 30 of each year following a
presidential election, beginning with September 30, 2005. This
change in date makes the release of strategic plans correspond
with the change in leadership from one Administration to the
next.
Paragraph (b) amends section 306 of title 5, United States
Code, to change the period of coverage for strategic plans from
five years to four years, again corresponding with a
presidential term.
Explanation of Amendments
The provisions of the substitute are explained in this
report.
Committee Consideration
On June 3, 2004, the Committee met in open session and
ordered reported favorably the bill, H.R. 3826, as amended, by
rollcall vote, a quorum being present.
Application of Law to the Legislative Branch
Section 102(b)(3) of Public Law 104-1 requires a
description of the application of this bill to the legislative
branch where the bill relates to the terms and conditions of
employment or access to public services and accommodations.
This bill improves the Government Performance and Results Act
(GPRA) of 1993, P.L. 103-62, by implementing a program review
and evaluation process that attempts to determine the strengths
and weaknesses of Federal programs with a particular focus on
the results produced by individual programs. As such this bill
does not relate to employment or access to public services and
accommodations.
Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the Committee
In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause
(2)(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, the Committee's oversight findings and
recommendations are reflected in the descriptive portions of
this report.
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives
In accordance with clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee's performance
goals and objectives are reflected in the descriptive portions
of this report.
Constitutional Authority Statement
Under clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, the Committee must include a statement
citing the specific powers granted to Congress to enact the law
proposed by H.R. 3826. Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of the
Constitution of the United States grants the Congress the power
to enact this law.
Federal Advisory Committee Act
The Committee finds that the legislation does not establish
or authorize the establishment of an advisory committee within
the definition of 5 U.S.C. App., Section 5(b).
Unfunded Mandate Statement
Section 423 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act (as amended by Section 101(a)(2) of the Unfunded
Mandate Reform Act, P.L. 104-4) requires a statement whether
the provisions of the reported include unfunded mandates. In
compliance with this requirement the Committee has received a
letter from the Congressional Budget Office included herein.
Committee Estimate
Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the
Committee of the costs that would be incurred in carrying out
H.R. 3826. However, clause 3(d)(3)(B) of that rule provides
that this requirement does not apply when the Committee has
included in its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the
bill prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act.
Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section
308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect
to requirements of clause (3)(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives and section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has received
the following cost estimate for H.R. 3826 from the Director of
Congressional Budget Office:
H.R. 3826--Program Assessment and Results Act
H.R. 3826 would amend the Government Performance and
Results Act of 1993 to require the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) to review, to the maximum extent practicable, each
program activity in the federal government at least once every
five years. The review would focus on the purpose, design,
strategic plan, management, results, and other appropriate
measures of each program. Results of these reviews would be
submitted to the Congress. The authority to conduct these
program reviews would expire on September 30, 2013. Finally,
the bill would require agencies to submit comprehensive
strategic plans to OMB by September 2005 instead of the
following September.
Most of the provisions of H.R. 3826 would codify and expand
the current practices of OMB regarding federal program
assessments. OMB currently reviews program performance through
its Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) which was developed
to assess and improve program performance throughout the
federal government. According to OMB, PART will be used to
review 20 percent of all federal programs annually over the
next five years. To the extent that reviews lead to improved
program performance, subsequent legislation could change the
cost of program operations.
Based on information from OMB, CBO does not expect that
changing the September 2006 due date for agencies'
comprehensive strategic plans would require significant
additional resources. Enacting the bill would not affect direct
spending or revenues. H.R. 3826 contains no intergovernmental
or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act and would not affect state, local, or tribal
governments.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Matthew
Pickford. This estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine,
Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
TITLE 31, UNITED STATES CODE
* * * * * * *
Subtitle II--The Budget Process
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 11--THE BUDGET AND FISCAL, BUDGET, AND PROGRAM INFORMATION
Sec.
1101. Definitions.
* * * * * * *
1120. Program assessment.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1115. Performance plans
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(g) For purposes of this section and sections 1116 through
[1119] 1120, and sections 9703 and 9704 the term--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1120. Program assessment
(a) Assessment.--The Director of the Office of Management and
Budget to the maximum extent practicable shall conduct, jointly
with agencies of the Federal Government, an assessment of each
program at least once every 5 fiscal years.
(b) Assessment Requirements.--In conducting an assessment of
a program under subsection (a), the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget and the head of the relevant agency
shall--
(1) coordinate to determine the programs to be
assessed; and
(2) evaluate the purpose, design, strategic plan,
management, and results of the program, and such other
matters as the Director considers appropriate.
(c) Criteria for Identifying Programs To Assess.--The
Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall develop
criteria for identifying programs to be assessed each fiscal
year. In developing the criteria, the Director shall take into
account the advantages of assessing during the same fiscal year
any programs that are performing similar functions, have
similar purposes, or share common goals, such as those
contained in strategic plans under section 306 of title 5. To
the maximum extent possible, the Director shall assess a
representative sample of Federal spending each fiscal year.
(d) Criteria for More Frequent Assessments.--The Director of
the Office of Management and Budget shall make every effort to
assess programs more frequently than required under subsection
(a) in cases in which programs are determined to be of higher
priority, special circumstances exist, improvements have been
made, or the head of the relevant agency and the Director
determine that more frequent assessment is warranted.
(e) Publication.--At least 90 days before completing the
assessments under this section to be conducted during a fiscal
year, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget
shall--
(1) make available in electronic form through the
Office of Management and Budget website or any
successor website, and provide to the Committee on
Government Reform of the House of Representatives and
the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate--
(A) a list of the programs to be assessed
during that fiscal year; and
(B) the criteria that will be used to assess
the programs; and
(2) provide a mechanism for interested persons to
comment on the programs being assessed and the criteria
that will be used to assess the programs.
(f) Report.--(1) The results of the assessments conducted
during a fiscal year shall be submitted in a report to Congress
at the same time that the President submits the next budget
under section 1105 of this title after the end of that fiscal
year.
(2) The report shall--
(A) include the performance goals for each program
assessment;
(B) specify the criteria used for each assessment;
(C) describe the results of each assessment,
including any significant limitation in the
assessments;
(D) describe significant modifications to the Federal
Government performance plan required under section
1105(a)(28) of this title made as a result of the
assessments; and
(E) be available in electronic form through the
Office of Management and Budget website or any
successor website.
(g) Classified Information.--(1) With respect to program
assessments conducted during a fiscal year that contain
classified information, the President shall submit on the same
date as the report is submitted under subsection (f)--
(A) a copy of each such assessment (including the
classified information), to the appropriate committees
of jurisdiction of the House of Representatives and the
Senate; and
(B) consistent with statutory law governing the
disclosure of classified information, an appendix
containing a list of each such assessment and the
committees to which a copy of the assessment was
submitted under subparagraph (A), to the Committee on
Government Reform of the House of Representatives and
the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate.
(2) Upon request from the Committee on Government Reform of
the House of Representatives or the Committee on Governmental
Affairs of the Senate, the Director of the Office of Management
and Budget shall, consistent with statutory law governing the
disclosure of classified information, provide to the Committee
a copy of--
(A) any assessment described in subparagraph (A) of
paragraph (1) (including any assessment not listed in
any appendix submitted under subparagraph (B) of such
paragraph); and
(B) any appendix described in subparagraph (B) of
paragraph (1).
(3) In this subsection, the term ``classified information''
refers to matters described in section 552(b)(1)(A) of title 5.
(h) Inherently Governmental Functions.--The functions and
activities authorized or required by this section shall be
considered inherently Governmental functions and shall be
performed only by Federal employees.
(i) Termination.--This section shall not be in effect after
September 30, 2013.
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 306 OF TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE
Sec. 306. Strategic plans
(a) [No later than September 30, 1997,] Not later than
September 30 of each year following a year in which an election
for President occurs, beginning with September 30, 2005, the
head of each agency shall submit to the Director of the Office
of Management and Budget and to the Congress a strategic plan
for program activities. Such plan shall contain--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(b) The strategic plan shall cover a period of not less than
five years forward from the fiscal year in which it is
submitted. The strategic plan shall be updated and revised at
least every three years, except that the strategic plan for the
Department of Defense shall be updated and revised at least
every four years.]
(b) Each strategic plan shall cover the 4-year period
beginning on October 1 of the year following a year in which an
election for President occurs.
* * * * * * *
MINORITY VIEWS
H.R. 3826, the Program Assessment and Results Act (PARA),
would require every federal program to be reviewed or evaluated
at least once every five years. We support the concept of
programmatic reviews. However, as drafted, this bill allows the
program review process to be politicized. In addition, the bill
fails to ensure adequate public participation.
During full Committee markup, we proposed amendments to
PARA addressing these two fundamental flaws. An amendment by
Rep. Henry A. Waxman would have required agencies, and not the
partisan Office of Management and Budget (OMB), to perform the
bill's required program assessments. An amendment by Rep. Ed
Towns would have enhanced transparency by requiring a notice
and comment process prior to the conducting of assessments.
Because these two amendments were rejected, we cannot support
PARA as it passed out of full Committee.
THERE IS NO ROOM FOR POLITICS IN THE PROGRAM ASSESSMENT PROCESS
PARA expands on the requirements of the Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA). GPRA requires agencies to
set annual goals and measure their performance in achieving
those goals. PARA adds a periodic five-year review to provide a
detailed analysis at the individual program level.
As drafted, this bill deviates from GPRA in one significant
respect. Instead of requiring agencies to set performance goals
and evaluate the performance of their programs, PARA requires
the White House, through the OMB, to pick the criteria and
evaluate performance. The Waxman amendment sought to fix this
problem.
We already have seen the problems that occur when OMB
reviews programs. Over the last three years, OMB has created
and used a process known as the Program Assessment Rating Tool,
or PART, to review selected activities at the program level.
That process has lead to questionable ratings for a number of
programs.
Some programs, such as HOPE VI and Even Start, have
received poor ratings despite their success. In addition, OMB
created a rating called ``Results Not Demonstrated'' which it
uses when it is unable to properly measure a program. Under the
PART, 37.1%, or 152 out of 407 programs rated, received this
rating. The ``Results Not Demonstrated'' rating implies that
the program is poorly managed or inadequate for meeting its
goals. This is unfair because agencies are often managing
programs under different criteria than under PART. Thus, the
designation of ``Results Not Demonstrated'' is mostly due to
the unknown effectiveness of a program, as opposed to its
ineffectiveness.
Congress should not codify this current practice.
Congressional intent in authorizing and funding government
activities should be faithfully carried out. This bill would
have the effect of shifting power from Congress to the White
House to direct and evaluate agency activities. Congress
expresses its priorities through statutes authorizing agency
activities. But OMB doesn't implement those statutes. OMB
implements the priorities of the White House. In fact, many
agencies, and especially those charged with protecting public
health, worker safety, and the environment, view OMB as hostile
to the agencies' fundamental missions. This bill actually
encourages OMB to infringe on Congress' prerogatives.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IS KEY TO SUCCESSFUL PROGRAM ASSESSMENTS
PARA fails to provide adequately for public input into how
programs should be evaluated. The Towns amendment sought to
address this deficiency. The amendment provides a period for
public notice and comment on which programs will be reviewed,
and what criteria will be used to review them. That's all. It
doesn't require OMB or agencies to accept those comments, or
modify their plans in any way. It simply creates a forum for
public comment. This process is used all the time in many rule-
making activities and is an appropriate parallel to the
Government Performance and Results Act's requirement for input
from stakeholders when developing strategic plans.
This amendment has already been agreed to once at the
Subcommittee level. In a departure from customary practice, it
was taken out and replaced with the vague and much weaker
language in the manager's amendment at the full Committee,
which leaves to OMB the determination of what is an
``appropriate mechanism for public input.'' Given this
Administration's record on secrecy, this approach seems absurd.
OTHER ISSUES
During full Committee markup, two amendments were offered,
and then withdrawn, by Rep. Chris Van Hollen. Mr. Van Hollen's
first amendment required that federal employees perform all
program assessments and other requirements of PARA. This
language tracks GPRA and is important to ensure that this
inherently governmental work is not contracted out. The
majority has agreed to include this Van Hollen language in the
bill as it is brought to the House floor.
Mr. Van Hollen's second amendment amended the provision of
PARA that required OMB to produce program assessment reports.
That provision of PARA stated that classified information could
not be part of those reports. Mr. Van Hollen's amendment
required that classified information regarding program
assessments be available, but as a classified appendix to the
reports. It is imperative that Congress be apprised of the
performance of programs that deal with classified information.
Although it is necessary to ensure that classified information
is not placed in the public domain, it should be available to
Congress. The majority also has agreed to include language in
the bill ensuring Congress has access to classified information
regarding program assessments.
Finally, during Subcommittee consideration of the bill, we
were pleased that a number of provisions were added to PARA,
which were not part of the introduced bill. Those provisions
include language on transparency, diversification of program
assessments to ensure that both domestic and defense/homeland
security programs were being assessed each year, enhanced
coordination between OMB and agencies, and sunsetting the
bill's requirements.
Henry A. Waxman.
Edolphus Towns.
Carolyn B. Maloney.
Danny K. Davis.
Diane E. Watson.
Jim Cooper.
Major R. Owens.
Paul E. Kanjorski.
Elijah E. Cummings.
Wm. Lacy Clay.
Linda T. Sanchez.
Betty McCollum.