[House Report 109-26]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



109th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                     109-26
======================================================================

 
                   PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AND RESULTS ACT

                                _______
                                

 March 17, 2005.--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. 185]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Government Reform, to whom was referred 
the bill (H.R. 185) to require the review of Government 
programs at least once every 5 years for purposes of evaluating 
their performance, having considered the same, reports 
favorably thereon without amendment and recommends that the 
bill do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Committee Statement and Views....................................     2
Section-by-Section...............................................     5
Explanation of Amendments........................................     7
Committee Consideration..........................................     7
Rollcall Votes...................................................     7
Application of Law to the Legislative Branch.....................    15
Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the 
  Committee......................................................    15
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives............    15
Constitutional Authority Statement...............................    15
Federal Advisory Committee Act...................................    15
Unfunded Mandate Statement.......................................    15
Committee Estimate...............................................    15
Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate...    16
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill as Reported.............    17
Minority Views...................................................    20

                     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 some of the programs to which it has been 
applied over the three-year period in which assessments were 
conducted. Although the percentage of programs receiving a 
score of ``results not demonstrated'' has decreased over the 
past two years, 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 January 4, 2005, Representative Todd R. Platts (R-PA), 
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Government Management, Finance 
and Accountability of the Committee on Government Reform, along 
with Representative Tom Davis (R-VA), Chairman of the Committee 
on Government Reform, introduced H.R. 185, 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.
    On March 10, 2005, the full Government Reform Committee 
held a business meeting to mark up H.R. 185.
    During the markup Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-NY), the ranking 
member of the Government Management, Finance and Accountability 
Subcommittee, offered an amendment seeking to require 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. The amendment also sought to add a 
``sunset'' provision to the bill, which would have terminated 
the program assessments required under the legislation in 2013. 
This amendment was defeated by a vote of 16 ``nays'' and 15 
``yeas''.
    Also, 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 vote of 17 
``nays'' to 15 ``yeas''.
    The committee approved H.R. 185 by a vote of 19 ``yeas'' 
and 14 ``nays'' and ordered it 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. 185 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 Homeland Security and 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) of section 1120 requires that at least 90 
days prior to completing the assessments required 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 Homeland Security and 
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) of section 1120 establishes that the 
functions and activities authorized by this section shall be 
considered inherently governmental functions and performed only 
by Federal employees.
    Paragraph (b) of Section 4 provides that the Director shall 
have 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act to issue 
guidance to implement the requirements of section 1120.
    Paragraph (c) of section 4 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. 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 Committee did not adopt any amendments.

                        Committee Consideration

    On March 10, 2005, the Committee met in open session and 
ordered reported favorably the bill, H.R. 185, by rollcall 
vote, a quorum being present.

                             Rollcall Votes



              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. 185. 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 bill 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. 185. 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. 185 from the Director of 
Congressional Budget Office:

                                                    March 17, 2005.
Hon. Tom Davis,
Chairman, Committee on Government Reform,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 185, the Program 
Assessment and Results Act.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Matthew 
Pickford.
            Sincerely,
                                       Douglas Holtz-Eakin,
                                                          Director.
    Enclosure.

H.R. 185--Program Assessment and Results Act

    H.R. 185 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, to be performed by government 
employees, would focus on the purpose, design, strategic plan, 
management, results, and other appropriate measures of each 
program. Results of those reviews would be submitted to the 
Congress.
    Most of the provisions of H.R. 185 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. Based on information from OMB, CBO 
estimates that implementing this bill would not significantly 
increase the ongoing costs of reviewing federal programs. To 
the extent that reviews lead to improved program performance, 
subsequent legislation could modify the budgets of federal 
program operations.
    Enacting the bill would not affect direct spending or 
revenues. H.R. 185 contains no intergovernmental or private-
sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
and would not affect the budgets of 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 italics, existing law in which no change 
is proposed is shown in roman):

               CHAPTER 11 OF TITLE 31, UNITED STATES CODE


   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.
                              ----------                              


               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. 185, 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. Finally, the 
bill permanently authorizes these reviews whereas it should 
have a termination date to ensure its usefulness.
    During full Committee markup, we proposed amendments to 
PARA addressing these three 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. 
Another amendment by Rep. Ed Towns would have sunsetted the 
bill in the year 2013. Because these three amendments were 
rejected, we cannot support PARA as reported by the Committee 
on Government Reform.

    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.
    When Congress passed GPRA, it clearly wanted the agencies 
to set the goals and measures, not OMB. The Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) highlighted this issue when it 
reviewed the Administration's Program Assessment Rating Tool 
(PART), upon which the bill before us is based. When explaining 
that OMB intends to modify GPRA goals and measures in order to 
align them with the PART, GAO found that ``OMB's judgment about 
appropriate goals and measures is substituted for GPRA 
judgments based on a community of stakeholder interests,'' 
including Congress.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Government Accountability Office, Performance Budgeting: 
Observations on the Use of OMB's Program Assessment Rating Tool for the 
Fiscal Year 2004 Budget, 6 (Jan. 2004) (GAO-04-174).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Congress expresses its priorities through statutes 
authorizing agency activities. But OMB is not tasked with 
implementing those statutes. Instead, 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.
    OMB has a history of using the PART review to criticize 
congressional actions and priorities. OMB rated the Community 
Development Block Grant program as ``ineffective'' and proposed 
its virtual elimination in the FY 2006 budget. OMB, in its PART 
analysis, partially blamed Congress. OMB explained that the 
programs mission is not clear because ``throughout CDBG's 
legislative history there has been ambiguity.'' \2\ Similarly, 
OMB criticized the acid rain program, created under the 1990 
Clean Air Act Amendments and widely regarded as a tremendously 
successful program and a model for environmental regulations. 
OMB penalized this program for complying with its explicit 
statutory directives from Congress. OMB's rationale for 
downgrading the acid rain program states that these identified 
program deficiencies would be fixed if Congress passed the 
President's proposal to amend the Clean Air Act.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Office of Management and Budget, Fiscal Year 2006 Budget of the 
U.S. Government, Program Assessment Rating Tool, PART Performance 
Measurements, Housing and Urban Development, 16 (Feb. 2005).
    \3\ Id., Environmental Protection Agency, 3-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition to ignoring the will of Congress, OMB does a 
poor job assessing programs. HOPE VI has been found to be 
effective by the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, 
as well as the GAO and the HUD Inspector General. Yet OMB in 
its FY2006 gave the HOPE VI an ``ineffective'' rating, and then 
used its rating to justify defunding the program in the FY2006 
budget. Also, OMB rated the Superfund removal program as 
``results not demonstrated'' because OMB did not agree with 
EPA's measure of success. The Superfund program clearly has 
been a success. It has cleaned up thousands of hazardous waste 
sites since its creation in 1980 and it is a critically 
important program that addresses threats ranging from polluted 
groundwater to radioactive waste.
    Congress should not authorize OMB to effectively overrule 
Congress and set the goals for federal agency activities.

     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 would provide a period 
for public notice and comment on which programs will be 
reviewed, and what criteria will be used to review them. It 
does not require OMB or agencies to accept those comments, or 
modify their plans in any way. It simply creates a forum for 
public comment.
    Stakeholder participation is fundamental to GPRA, the 
underlying law that this bill seeks to amend. GPRA states that 
when developing its strategic plans, ``the agency shall consult 
withthe Congress, and shall solicit and consider the views and 
suggestions of those entities potentially affected by or interested in 
such a plan.'' \4\ GAO agrees. It has found that ``stakeholder 
involvement appears critical for getting consensus on goals and 
measures.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Government Performance and Results Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 306(d).
    \5\ Government Accountability Office, supra note 1, at 31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Towns amendment was agreed to at the Subcommittee level 
in the 108th Congress. In a departure from customary practice, 
it was taken out and replaced with vague and much weaker 
language in a manager's amendment at full Committee in the 
108th Congress. Similarly, the Towns language was not included 
in the bill as introduced or as passed out of full Committee in 
the 109th Congress.

                     SUNSETTING PARA IS APPROPRIATE

    It is appropriate to sunset PARA in order to give Congress 
the opportunity to review whether the requirements of the bill 
have been effective and whether the bill should be 
reauthorized. The second Towns amendment would have sunsetted 
the bill in 2013.
    The language of this Towns amendment was agreed to at the 
Subcommittee level in the 108th Congress. In addition, this 
language was included when the bill was considered by the full 
Committee in the 108th Congress. The sunset language was 
removed from the bill when it was reintroduced in the 109th 
Congress.

                              OTHER ISSUES

    We are pleased that some provisions were added to PARA at 
the request of the minority. They 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, all program assessments and other requirements of 
PARA be performed by federal employees, and program assessments 
that include classified information be available to Congress, 
but as a classified appendix.
                                   Henry A. Waxman.
                                   Tom Lantos.
                                   Major R. Owens.
                                   Edolphus Towns.
                                   Bernard Sanders.
                                   Carolyn B. Maloney.
                                   Elijah E. Cummings.
                                   Wm. Lacy Clay.
                                   Chris Van Hollen.
                                   C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger.
                                   Brian Higgins.
                                   Eleanor Holmes Norton.

                                  
