Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?


105th Congress                                                   Report
 2d Session             HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES                105-429
_______________________________________________________________________


 
  GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS ACT TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS OF 1998

                                _______
                                

 March 10, 1998.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______


  Mr. Burton of Indiana, from the Committee on Government Reform and 
                   Oversight, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 2883]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, to whom 
was referred the bill (H.R. 2883) to amend provisions of law 
enacted by the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 
to improve Federal agency strategic plans and performance 
reports, having considered the same, report favorably thereon 
with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do 
pass.

                                CONTENTS

Summary of Legislation...........................................     4
  I. Background and Need for Legislation.........................     4
 II. Legislative Hearings and Committee Actions..................    10
III. Committee Hearings and Written Testimony....................    11
 IV. Explanation of the Bill--Section-by-Section Analysis........    13
  V. Compliance With Rule XI.....................................    15
 VI. Budget Analysis and Projections.............................    15
VII. Cost Estimate of the Congressional Budget Office............    15
VIII.Specific Constitutional Authority for This Legislation......    17
 IX. Changes in Existing Law.....................................    17
  X. Committee Recommendation....................................    22
 XI. Congressional Accountability Act; Public Law 104-1..........    22

  The amendment is as follows:
  Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
thereof the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS RELATING TO STRATEGIC PLANS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SEC. 5. SUBMISSION OF AGENCY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

  Section 3515(a) of title 31, United States Code, is amended--
          (1) by striking ``1997'' and inserting ``1999''; and
          (2) by inserting ``the Congress and'' after ``and submit 
        to''.

                      Short Summary of Legislation

    H.R. 2883 amends the Government Performance and Results Act 
of 1993 (Results Act) to require Federal agencies to add 
details about overlapping programs, major management problems, 
and reliability of data resources to their 5-year strategic 
plans and re-submit them by the end of September 1998. The bill 
also requires agency inspectors general, (or comparable 
officials if the agency has no inspector general), to assess 
and report to Congress on the reliability and integrity of 
agency performance plans and reports. Under the legislation, 
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) must submit 
government wide performance reports on the same schedule as 
annual agency performance reports.

                 I. Background and Need for Legislation

    The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (P.L. 
103-62) was passed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness 
of Federal programs by requiring agency managers to set goals 
for program performance and to measure results. While the 
Results Act was passed in 1993, the Act provided for a phase-in 
period for three years preceding 1997, to allow for strategic 
planning and performance budgeting pilot projects managed by 
OMB. 1997 was the year that all Federal agencies had to consult 
with Congress on their draft 5-year strategic plans in order to 
submit final plans in September 2000. Currently under the 
Results Act, agency 5-year strategic plans are not due for re-
submission for another three years after September 1997.

         CONGRESSIONAL EFFORTS TO ENSURE RESULTS ACT COMPLIANCE

    To ensure Federal agency compliance with the Results Act, 
House Majority Leader Dick Armey began in January 1997 to 
engage Congress-wide attention to the consultation process 
agencies must engage in with Congress regarding their draft 
strategic plans. In the spring of 1997, in anticipation of 
these consultations, congressional teams were formed around 
each of the 24 largest Federal agencies and departments--those 
whose total annual outlays make up 98% of the Federal budget. 
Republican and Democratic staff from the authorizing, Budget, 
and Appropriations committees were invited to participate on 
the teams. Senate staff and specialists from the General 
Accounting Office (GAO) also participated. Each team then 
became involved in an effort to communicate and consult with 
agencies regarding their strategic plans.
    In most cases, even though the plans were due September 
30--and to OMB 45 days prior to that--Federal agencies had not 
initiated the consultation process with Congress in the spring 
of 1997. It appeared that many agencies had not given adequate 
priority to the requirement to consult with Congress on the 
draft plans, and thus had no draft plan ready with which to 
engage with Congress in a consultative process regarding the 
direction and policies of their agencies.

               STRATEGIC PLANS LACK FUNDAMENTAL ELEMENTS

    Finally, by mid-summer of 1997, Congress and the GAO had 
obtained a majority of the 24 draft plans. However, as reviews 
of the plans got underway, it became apparent that major 
statutorily required elements were missing from the plans. For 
example, many agencies' mission statements did not cover the 
agency's primary functions, nor were they focused on results. 
Most of the plans were missing an explanation of key external 
factors that could affect accomplishment of their goals. A 
description of what program evaluations were used to develop 
the plan was also missing from most plans.
    In addition to the elements required by statute, 
congressional reviews found that several common-sense elements 
were missing from the plans as well. OMB guidance and GAO 
reports had recommended that agencies include clear linkages to 
their statutory authorities in their mission statements and 
strategic goals. Including such linkages provides a check 
against ``mission creep,'' or, in other words, goals that 
conflict with or go beyond the agency's mandates. During 
consultations, many congressional staff teams even encouraged 
agencies to append a list of their statutory authorities to 
their strategic plan, thinking this might force agencies to 
maintain focus on their given purpose. Such an exercise might 
also get agencies to recognize where there might be 
conflicting, or duplicative mandates. However, very few 
agencies linked their mission statements and goals to statutory 
authorities in their draft plans. H.R. 2883 makes this linkage 
mandatory.
    Working with the Democratic staff, the original language in 
H.R. 2883 was amended to clarify that agencies should also link 
their mission statements and goals to other legal authorities 
(such as executive orders, court orders, and regulations), not 
just those mandated by the legislative branch. The Results Act 
envisions clear, concise, succinct mission statements, goals, 
and objectives, and expects them to be clearly grounded in the 
agency's legal authorities.
    In addition to linkage problems, most agency draft plans 
either ignored or gave insufficient attention to OMB and GAO 
guidance suggesting that plans address major management 
weaknesses, data capacity and reliability, and duplicative, or 
``cross-cutting'', functions and programs. All of these areas 
are highly relevant to most, if not all, major agencies. 
However, it appeared that because these elements were not 
actually required by law, many agencies felt it was not 
necessary to include them in their strategic plans. H.R. 2883 
thus mandates these common-sense elements.

         AGENCIES GET FAILING GRADES FOR DRAFT STRATEGIC PLANS

    In order to fully ascertain compliance with the law, and to 
get a sense of the overall quality of the draft strategic 
plans, the congressional teams developed a list of scoring 
criteria against which to review--with consistency--all of the 
24 agency strategic plans. The criteria were shared with OMB. 
In what became regular telephone conferences between 
congressional staff and OMB officials, OMB agreed as to the 
validity of the criteria. No official criticism or endorsement 
of the criteria was put forth by OMB officials before 
congressional grading began. While OMB and some agency 
officials have voiced their opposition to the congressional 
assessments, or grading, of the strategic plans, there is clear 
evidence that this activity stimulated agencies to improve 
their plans by an average of close to 50% in just a few weeks 
time.

Grading criteria

    Congressional grading criteria consisted of 7 requirements 
from the Results Act itself, and 3 others taken from the Act's 
legislative history, OMB Circular A-11 Part 2, and a May 1997 
GAO review guide for strategic plans:
    Mission Statement: Does it cover the agency's major 
functions, reflect its statutory authority, and bring the 
agency into focus in a results-oriented way?
    General (strategic) goals and objectives: Are they 
comprehensive, consistent with statutory authority, results-
oriented, measurable, and realistic?
    Strategies to achieve goals: Do they explain specifically 
and clearly how the agency will accomplish its goals?
    Relationship between general goals and annual performance 
goals: Does the agency demonstrate that it will be accountable 
for its accomplishments through tangible, outcome-oriented 
performance measures?
    Key external factors: Has the agency identified factors 
beyond its control that could impede attainment of its goals 
and say how it plans to mitigate their impact?
    Program evaluations: Has the agency explained what program 
evaluations were used in developing its plan and tell how it 
will use them in the future?
    Treatment of cross-cutting functions: Does the plan 
describe agency functions and programs that are similar to 
those of other agencies and indicate how it has coordinated 
them?
    Treatment of major management problems: Does the plan 
address major problems of fraud, waste, and mismanagement 
affecting the agency and demonstrate a firm commitment to 
resolve them?
    Data capacity: Does the agency have adequate data and 
accounting systems to implement its plan, and if not, does it 
acknowledge weaknesses and explain how it will deal with them?
    Congressional and stakeholder consultations: Was the agency 
timely, open-minded, and constructive in soliciting and 
responding to feedback on its plan from Congress and other 
stakeholders?
    Congressional teams spent the month of August 1997 grading 
the agency draft strategic plans using the criteria set forth 
above. The grades were released the first week of September and 
are shown in the chart below.

Grades for Agencies' Draft Strategic Plans

Social Security Administration....................................   62 
Education.........................................................   60 
Justice...........................................................  52.5
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.....................................   50 
State.............................................................   42 
National Science Foundation.......................................   42 
Veterans Affairs..................................................  37.5
General Services Administration...................................   35 
Federal Emergency Management Agency...............................  32.5
Transportation....................................................   28 
Environmental Protection Agency...................................   27 
Interior..........................................................  26.5
Treasury..........................................................  26.5
Agency for International Development..............................  25.5
Defense...........................................................   25 
Health and Human Services.........................................   24 
NASA..............................................................  23.5
Small Business Administration.....................................   21 
Energy............................................................  18.5
Commerce..........................................................  15.5
Housing and Urban Development.....................................  15.5
Agriculture.......................................................   11 
Office of Personnel Management....................................   11 
Labor.............................................................   6.5

    The results of these interim evaluations were alarming. 
Only 4 of the 24 agencies received grades of 50 or more for 
their draft strategic plans. The highest grade was 62 out of a 
possible 105. The average grade was 29.9. Many plans were 
missing statutory elements and fell short of minimal quality 
standards. Seventeen out of 24 plans graded a ``0'' for a least 
one statutory element. Half of the agency plans graded ``0'' on 
two or more statutory elements. The Labor Department's plan was 
missing 5 of the 6 statutorily required elements.
    Clearly, agencies' technical compliance with the elements 
required by law was a significant problem in the draft plans. 
With these fundamental elements missing from the draft plans, 
Congress had been unable to have the substantive policy 
consultations with agencies that the Act had envisioned.

              AGENCIES FINAL PLANS ALSO GET FAILING GRADES

    Using the same criteria used to assess the draft strategic 
plans, the congressional teams graded the final plans as they 
came due several weeks later on September 30, 1997. The average 
grade was 46.6 for the final plans, up from 29.9 for the draft 
plans. Much of this improvement is attributable to agency 
compliance with the letter of the law. Unlike the drafts, all 
of the final plans now have some content addressing each of the 
six statutorily required elements for strategic plans. However, 
very few of the final plans are acceptable in terms of quality. 
Only two of the 24 agencies, Transportation and Education, 
submitted final plans that can be considered adequate from a 
technical quality (although not necessarily a policy) 
viewpoint.

Grades for Agencies Final Strategic Plans

Transportation....................................................   75 
Education.........................................................   73 
National Science Foundation.......................................   69 
Social Security Administration....................................   68 
NASA..............................................................   67 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.....................................   59 
Treasury..........................................................  52.5
Federal Emergency Management Agency...............................   51 
Justice...........................................................  49.5
Veterans Affairs..................................................  49.5
Environmental Protection Agency...................................   44 
Health and Human Services.........................................   43 
Energy............................................................  42.5
State.............................................................   41 
General Services Administration...................................  40.5
Housing and Urban Development.....................................  40.5
Agriculture.......................................................   39 
Agency for International Development..............................   36 
Office of Personnel Management....................................   31 
Small Business Administration.....................................   31 
Interior..........................................................  29.5
Labor.............................................................  29.5
Defense...........................................................  28.5
Commerce..........................................................   28 

        AGENCIES NEED TO RESUBMIT STRATEGIC PLANS SEPTEMBER 1998

    The core requirement of H.R. 2883 is that agency strategic 
plans be updated and revised sooner, rather than later. Most of 
the draft plans submitted for Congressional consultations were 
so defective, they failed to provide a basis for the 
substantive policy review and dialogue that the consultation 
requirement was intended to stimulate. In addition, the final 
plans still do not provide clear answers to core Results Act 
questions, such as where the agency is going, how it will get 
there, and whether it is headed in the right direction. As 
Chris Mihm of GAO testified on February 12, 1998:

          *  *  * [T]he strategic plans often lacked clear 
        articulations of agencies' strategic directions; in 
        short, a sense of what the agencies were trying to 
        achieve and how they proposed to do it. Many agency 
        goals were not results oriented. The plans often did 
        not show clear linkages among planning elements, such 
        as goals and strategies. And, furthermore, the plans 
        frequently had incomplete and underdeveloped 
        strategies.

    Because these plans are still severely deficient in many 
regards, H.R. 2883 calls on agencies to submit another round of 
strategic plans by September 30 of next year, instead of 
waiting for three years for revised plans as the original Act 
provides.

                      BI-PARTISAN EFFORTS REJECTED

    The Republican staff of the committee made several attempts 
to bring both OMB and the Democratic staff to the table to work 
out their concerns with H.R. 2883. Offers were made to push the 
due date back past September 30; to narrow the scope of 
agencies asked to re-submit their plans to the worst of the 24 
major agencies; to work on legislation that would consolidate 
redundant reporting requirements that may be contained in the 
various management reform laws. We asked OMB if there was 
anything we could do to get their support for this legislation. 
We were turned down flat.
    It concerns a number of the Members of this Committee that 
this Administration does not support bringing agency strategic 
plans up to standard. It is disturbing that OMB, in particular, 
may not fully support the Results Act and its potential to 
change the way our federal government does business. Instead, 
it appears that the Results Act is viewed as a burdensome paper 
exercise to be suffered through, rather than a worthwhile 
culture change an agency undertakes to improve inefficiencies 
and provide better quality performance to the American public.

               OTHER CONCERNS--FORMAT FOR STRATEGIC PLANS

    OMB Circular A-11 Part 2 allows agencies to submit separate 
plans for their component organizations along with an agency-
wide ``overview'' document that contains only a mission 
statement and general goals. This option was intended for use 
by ``conglomerate'' federal departments--such as the Commerce 
or Treasury Departments--made up of component organizations 
that perform essentially unrelated functions. It is 
questionable whether the Results Act permits agencies to avoid, 
in this manner, preparing a comprehensive and cohesive plan 
that addresses all of the statutory requirements for strategic 
plans. In any event, this option has not worked in practice. 
Agency draft plans using this option were the most deficient 
that were reviewed. They were generally incoherent, and many of 
the statutory elements simply were not there. Examples are the 
plans for the Departments of Agriculture, Interior and Labor.
    While component plans are not a substitute for agency-wide 
plans, they can be quite useful. They are particularly 
important for Cabinet departments, which tend to contain 
diverse functions. Therefore, H.R. 2883 requires that Cabinet 
departments submit component plans for their major line 
organizations. Other agencies are encouraged to submit 
component plans where doing so would materially enhance the 
presentation of the agency's plan.
    In reviewing most draft plans, it was difficult to 
understand how, or even whether, the various plan elements fit 
together. H.R. 2883 is intended to require that plans clearly 
demonstrate the linkages among the plan's components while 
leaving agencies flexibility to decide how best to do this. 
Highlighting these linkages will both enhance understanding of 
the plans and impose a useful discipline on agencies to ensure 
that the linkages in fact exist.

     OTHER CONCERNS--INSPECTOR GENERAL REVIEWS OF PERFORMANCE DATA

    Until now, agency offices of inspectors general (OIGs) have 
not been required by law to play a role in helping ensure 
Results Act compliance by their agencies. However, in an August 
1996 report issued by the President's Council on Integrity and 
Efficiency (PCIE), appropriate approaches to Results Act work 
by agency inspectors general were determined according to 
survey responses from 54 out of the 57 OIG's. The survey's 
principal conclusion was that most IG's believe their offices 
should perform independent audits and reviews of agency 
performance data and indicators. In fact, a significant number 
of the PCIE respondents (about 70%) said they planned to 
conduct audits/reviews on data collection techniques, results 
measurement and reporting, data reliability, relevance of 
agency performance measures, data systems reliability and 
validity of reported results. Inspectors general are the ideal 
source to ensure that performance reports are accurate and are 
based on the best available data. They are located within the 
agency and have complete and immediate access to agency 
information and personnel. Republican and Democratic 
congressional staff worked closely with several key IG's to 
ensure that H.R. 2883 clearly defines the role for IG's in 
working with Congress to come up with a review plan to 
accomplish this important activity.

      OTHER CONCERNS--GOVERNMENT-WIDE PROGRAM PERFORMANCE REPORTS

    The Results Act now requires annual performance plans and 
reports from each federal agency, and an annual government-wide 
performance plan from OMB. However, it fails to require an 
annual government-wide performance report from OMB. H.R. 2883 
addresses this oversight. An annual government-wide performance 
report is a natural complement to the other requirements and 
provides an essential means to assess the results of the 
applicable government-wide plan.

             II. Legislative Hearings and Committee Actions

    H.R. 2883 was introduced on November 7, 1997 by the 
Honorable Dan Burton (R-IN), Chairman of the Government Reform 
and Oversight Committee. The bill was referred to the Committee 
on Government Reform and Oversight on November 7, 1997, then 
referred to the Subcommittee on Government Management, 
Information, and Technology. The subcommittee held a 
legislative hearing on February 12, 1998. A mark up was held by 
the subcommittee on March 3 and March 4, 1997. Mr. Horn (R-CA) 
offered a set of en bloc amendments to the bill defining the 
role of inspectors general under the Results Act. Mr. Horn's en 
bloc amendments were approved by voice vote. Mr. Horn offered a 
second amendment to the bill to require the use of full costs 
as performance indicators. Mr. Horn's second amendment passed 
by voice vote. Mr. Horn offered a third amendment to the bill 
to require that agency financial statements be submitted to 
Congress. Mr. Horn's third amendment passed by voice vote. An 
amendment was offered by Mr. Sessions (R-TX) to require that 
the Council on Environmental Quality be subject to the Results 
Act. Mr. Sessions amendment passed on voice vote. An amendment 
was offered by Mr. Waxman (D-CA) to apply the Results Act to 
Congress. Mr. Waxman's amendment failed on voice vote. Mr. 
Kucinich (D-OH) offered an amendment to strike the requirement 
that agencies re-submit their strategic plans by September 30, 
1998. Mr. Kucinich's amendment was failed on voice vote. Mr. 
Kucinich offered a second amendment regarding linking mission 
statements to statutory authorities. Mr. Kucinich's second 
amendment was withdrawn. Mr. Kucinich offered a third amendment 
regarding reporting requirements under the Federal Managers' 
Financial Integrity Act of 1982. Mr. Kucinich's third amendment 
was withdrawn. Ms. Maloney (D-NY) offered an amendment to apply 
the Results Act to the Federal Reserve. Ms. Maloney's amendment 
was withdrawn. The measure was ordered favorably reported to 
the full Committee by a voice vote.
    On March 5, 1998, the full Committee met to consider the 
bill. Representative Horn offered an amendment in the nature of 
a substitute. An amendment to the amendment was offered by Mr. 
Horn to add ``or other legal authorities'' to the requirement 
that agencies link their strategic plans to statutory 
authorities. Mr. Horn's amendment was approved by voice vote. 
Mr. Kucinich offered an amendment to the amendment to apply the 
Results Act to the committees of the House of Representatives 
and the Senate. Mr. Kucinich's amendment was defeated by voice 
vote. Mr. Kucinich offered a second amendment to the amendment 
to strike the requirement that agencies re-submit their 
strategic plans by September 30, 1998. Mr. Kucinich's second 
amendment was defeated by voice vote. The committee approved 
the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, by 
voice vote. The committee approved the bill, as amended, by 
recorded vote, 21 ayes, 12 noes. The committee then favorably 
reported the bill, as amended, to the House by voice vote.

             III. Committee Hearings and Written Testimony

    On February 12, 1998, the Subcommittee on Government 
Management, Information, and Technology held formal hearings on 
H.R. 2883. Witnesses at the hearing were: Chris Mihm, Assistant 
Director, Federal Management and Workforce Issues of the 
General Government Division, U.S. General Accounting Office 
(GAO); Professor Robert M. Grant, School of Business 
Administration, Georgetown University; the Honorable Maurice P. 
McTigue, distinguished visiting scholar, Center for Market 
Processes, George Mason University; and the honorable G. Edward 
DeSeve, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Management and 
Budget.
    Chris Mihm testified that, according to GAO's review, the 
agencies' final strategic plans are minimally compliant with 
the six statutory requirements of the Results Act, but are 
sorely deficient in several areas of critical importance. In 
his words:

          * * * [A]lthough agency plans include the basic 
        legislative requirements, I think there can be little 
        argument that substantive challenges remain. In our 
        view, among the most pressing challenges are: first, 
        the need to better articulate a strategic direction; 
        second improve the coordination of crosscutting program 
        efforts; and, third, build reliable data systems and 
        analytic capacity.
          * * * [T]he strategic plans often lacked clear 
        articulations of agencies' strategic directions; in 
        short, a sense of what the agencies were trying to 
        achieve and how they proposed to do it. Many agency 
        goals were not results oriented.
          The plans often did not show clear linkages among 
        planning elements, such as goals and strategies. And, 
        furthermore, the plans frequently had incomplete and 
        underdeveloped strategies.

    Mr. Grant testified that private sector firms do not do 
strategic planning just for the sake of creating strategic 
plans. ``The reason why companies do it is in order to improve 
the quality of their decision-making and, through that, to 
enhance their performance,'' he stated. He discussed four ways 
in which strategic planning can enhance performance of an 
organization. First, it forces establishing a consensus 
regarding medium and long-term goals and how the goals are to 
be achieved. Second, it forces top management focus on long-
term performance rather than on day-to-day operational issues 
that occupy much of their time. Third, it creates a dialogue 
within the organization between people at different levels, 
departments, and divisions of the organization. Finally, 
strategic planning establishes a structure within which 
objectives can be agreed and in which performance can be 
reviewed to the extent objectives are achieved.
    Mr. Grant also spoke about general trends taking place with 
regard to private sector strategic planning. One trend is that 
strategic plans have become less focused on detailed decisions 
about resource allocation, and much more upon establishing the 
overall direction and clear performance targets. He indicated 
that one effect of that close emphasis on linking strategic 
planning with performance targets has been that financial 
planning has become much more closely integrated in the 
strategic planning process. Another trend he said was that 
there is much greater involvement of top management along with 
a recognition that the responsibility for strategic management 
lies with top management.
    Mr. McTigue based his testimony on his experiences having 
been an elected representative of the Parliament of New Zealand 
and having spent a period of time as a cabinet minister in the 
Government of New Zealand during a time when that country was 
undergoing major changes as a result of management reforms 
similar to the Results Act. He said that the major winners of 
the Results Act process are the Members of Congress, whom it 
empowers with information regarding what it is that the 
Executive is doing and how successfully it is doing those 
things. Without this information, he said, Congress cannot 
exercise the authority that is vested in it to oversee, on 
behalf of taxpayers, the activities of the Executive.
    With regard to Congress' efforts to ensure quality 
strategic plans, Mr. McTigue stressed that we have to be very 
careful in accepting plans that are not up to standard. The 
risk, he stated, ``is that you set a precedent by a laissez-
faire attitude that will make it acceptable for plans in the 
future to be submitted that don't meet those standards.''
    On behalf of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Mr. 
DeSeve testified regarding his opposition to H.R. 2883. His 
concern is that enactment of this legislation could impede 
successful implementation of the performance planning efforts 
under the Results Act. Under the Act, agencies are to submit 
annual performance plans which provide much more detail about 
how the agencies plans to meet its mission and goals as stated 
in the strategic plans.
     According to Mr. DeSeve, the requirements of H.R. 2883 
would be too burdensome and the net results of having to 
concurrently prepare revised strategic plans, revised 
performance plans for FY 99, and initial performance plans for 
FY 2000 ``would be to substantially diminish the quality of all 
three. Instead, Mr. DeSeve is not opposed to individual 
agencies deciding on their own to revise their plans. ``To be 
clear,'' he said, ``agencies that believe it is advantageous to 
resubmit their strategic plans can and should do so.''
    Asked to respond to the point made by Mr. DeSeve that 
agencies should decide whether to resubmit their plans, Mr. 
McTigue pointed out that he would not advocate this course of 
action. Accountability, he explained, ``means that somebody 
else can look at your actions and decide whether or not they 
meet the standard required.''
    Mr. DeSeve explained that revisions to the Act should wait 
until authorizers and appropriators are more engaged in using 
the plans. Representative Sessions, who was chairing the 
subcommittee hearing, then submitted a letter for the record 
addressed to full committee Chairman Dan Burton from the 
following members of Congress: Majority Leader Armey, Senate 
Republican Policy Chairman Larry Craig, Budget Committee 
Chairman John Kasich, Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, 
International Relations Chairman Ben Gilman, Science Committee 
Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner, Committee Chairman Tom Bliley, 
Veterans' Affairs Chairman Bob Stump, Small Business Committee 
Chairman Jim Talent, and Education and Workforce Committee 
Chairman Bill Goodling. The members in this letter voiced their 
support for agencies to resubmit their strategic plans by 
September 30th, 1998, rather than waiting 3 years for improved 
plans.
    Implying again that H.R. 2883's mandate would be too 
burdensome, Mr. DeSeve expressed concern that the directive for 
agencies to revise their strategic plans was too generalized. 
He said that while Congress might intend for agencies to ``look 
at those very specific elements in the plan that are 
troublesome and revise them,'' agencies would not get that same 
message. However, GAO and congressional assessments of the 
agency strategic plans are very specific about the weaknesses 
within each agency plan. H.R. 2883 is also specific about 
requiring agencies to address three fundamental, but not 
statutorily-required elements: longstanding management 
problems, cross-cutting functions, and data capacity and 
integrity.

        IV. Explanation of the Bill--Section-by-Section Analysis

Sec. 1. Short title

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

Sec. 2. Amendments relating to strategic plans

    Subsection (a) amends section 306(a) (1) and (2 ) of title 
5, United States Code, to require that strategic plans 
explicitly link mission statements and strategic goals to the 
agency's statutory and other legal authorities. It also amends 
section 306(a) by adding three new paragraphs providing 
additional content for strategic plans. Specifically, these 
paragraphs require that the plans--
           identify cross-cutting functions and programs within 
        the agency or with other agencies and explain what 
        actions have been taken to ensure that they are subject 
        to complementary goals, strategies, and performance 
        measures;
          describe any major management problems affecting the 
        agency, including high-risk areas, and incorporate 
        specific goals, strategies, and performance measures to 
        resolve them; and
          provide an assessment by the agency head of the 
        agency's capacity in terms of data sources as well as 
        information and financial management systems to support 
        its plans and reports under the Act.
    Subsection (b) amends section 306(b) of title 5 to require 
that agencies update and revise their strategic plans by 
September 30, 1998. It also amends section 306(d) to provide 
explicitly that Congressional committees and subcommittees are 
entitled to information pertaining to the strategic plans.
    Subsection (c) adds a new subsection (g) to section 306 of 
title 5 to establish format requirements for strategic plans. 
It requires each strategic plan to be formatted as a single, 
integrated document that covers the agency as a whole and 
addresses each of the statutory elements on an agency-wide 
basis, and that clearly demonstrates the linkages among the 
elements of the plan. It further requires executive departments 
to submit separate strategic plans for their major mission-
related components to accompany their department-wide plans. 
The separate component plans are to address all of the 
statutorily required strategic plan elements. Finally, it 
encourages agencies other than executive departments to submit 
separate component plans to the extent the agency head 
determines that doing so would materially enhance the 
usefulness of the agency-wide plan.

Sec. 3. Amendments relating to performance plans and performance 
        reports

    Subsection (a) amends section 1116 of title 31, United 
States Code, to require the Office of Management and Budget to 
submit to Congress a Federal Government Performance Report 
beginning no later than March 31, 2000, and no later than March 
31 of each year thereafter.
    Subsection (b) amends Chapter 11 of title 31 to add a new 
section entitled ``Inspector general review of agency 
performance plans and reports.'' The new section requires 
inspectors general (or comparable official if the agency has no 
inspector general) to develop and implement a review plan to 
examine agency efforts to develop and use performance measures. 
The review plan must contain a strategy for verifying and 
validating selected data sources and systems that support 
agency performance plans and reports.
    In developing the review plan, the inspectors general shall 
consult with the appropriatecongressional committees and the 
agency head. In determining the scope and course of review of the 
review plan, each inspector general shall emphasize the performance 
measures and data systems believed to be at higher risk for waste, 
fraud, or mismanagement.
    The inspectors general shall submit their review plans to 
Congress and the agency head at least annually, beginning no 
later than October 31, 1998.
    The inspectors general must also implement their review 
plans and submit findings, results, and recommendations to 
Congress and the agency head by not later than April 30 and 
October 31 of each year, or as part of the inspectors general 
semiannual reports.
    Subsection (c) amends section 1115(a)4 of title 31, to 
require agencies to provide a determination of ``full costs'' 
of each program activity for the performance indicators in 
performance plans.

Sec. 4. Limitation on authority to exempt the Council on Environmental 
        Quality

    This section amends section 1117 of title 31 to require the 
Council on Environmental Quality to comply with the Government 
Performance and Results Act of 1993.

Sec. 5. Submission of agency financial statements

    This section amends section 3515(a) of title 31 to require 
that agencies annual audited financial statements submitted to 
the Office of Management and Budget are also submitted to 
Congress.

                       V. Compliance With Rule XI

    Pursuant to rule XI, clause 2(l)(3)(A) of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, under the authority of rule X, clause 
2(b)(1), the results and findings from committee oversight 
activities are incorporated in the bill and this report.

                  VI. Budget Analysis and Projections

    H.R. 2883, as amended, provides for no new authorization, 
budget authority, or tax expenditures. Consequently, the 
provisions of section 308(a)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act 
of 1994 are not applicable.

         VII. Cost Estimate of the Congressional Budget Office

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                     Washington, DC, March 9, 1998.
Hon. Dan Burton,
Chairman, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, House of 
        Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2883, the 
Government Performance and Results Act Technical Amendments of 
1998.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is John R. 
Righter.
            Sincerely,
                                              James L. Blum
                                   (For June E. O'Neill, Director).
    Enclosure.

H.R. 2883.--Government Performance and Results Act Technical Amendments 
        of 1998

    Summary: H.R. 2883 would make several amendments to the 
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), which 
generally requires agencies to define their missions and to 
measure the performance of their activities in fulfilling those 
missions. Specifically, the bill would require agencies to: (1) 
link strategic plans to specific statutory and legal 
authorities; (2) include additional information in their 
strategic plans; (3) revise and resubmit the plans by September 
30, 1998; and for cabinet-level agencies, (4) submit both a 
comprehensive strategic plan and separate plans for major 
agency programs and responsibilities. Additionally, the bill 
would require the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to 
submit an integrated, government-wide performance report by 
March 31, 2000. The bill also would require inspectors general 
to evaluate agency performance plans. Finally, the bill would 
require that agencies include all costs to the federal 
government in estimating the performance of program activities.
    Much of H.R. 2883 would codify current practice. However, 
for at least a few agencies, enacting H.R. 2883 would initially 
increase, perhaps substantially, the cost of implementing GPRA. 
In the time available, CBO has not been able to estimate the 
amount of such costs because, by design, GPRA is an iterative, 
evolving process involving the agency, OMB, and the Congress, 
and it is very difficult to predict the outcome of such a 
process for each agency. Additionally, to the extent that such 
changes improve the quality of the strategic and performance 
plan developed by agencies, H.R. 2883 could save money over 
time by leading to more effective management of government 
agencies. Any effect on spending would be discretionary and 
subject to appropriation action.
    Because the bill would not affect direct spending or 
receipts, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply. H.R. 2883 
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 
defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would 
not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments.
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: Parts of H.R. 
2883 would codify current practice. For instance, the bill 
would require that agencies link their strategic plans to 
specific statutory and legal authorities. According to the 
General Accounting Office (GAO), which extensively reviewed the 
strategic plans submitted last fall by the 24 agencies covered 
by the Chief Financial Officers Act, most agencies already 
include such information.
    The bill also would required that agencies include 
additional descriptive information with their strategic plans, 
including identifying functions and activities that are also 
performed by other agencies, describing major management 
problems, and assessing the adequacy and reliability of 
information and accounting systems for implementing GPRA. 
Again, according to GAO, most agencies already submit much of 
this information.
    Finally, the bill would require that agencies include the 
full costs to the federal government in estimating the 
performance of program activities. The Federal Accounting 
Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) already requires that agencies 
include all costs in their annual financial reports, but it is 
unclear whether all agencies comply with that requirement.
    Other parts of H.R. 2883 would represent new requirements. 
The extend of any additional costs would vary, and several 
provisions could increase costs significantly. For instance, 
the bill would require that agencies revise and resubmit their 
strategic plans by the end of this fiscal year. Under current 
law, agencies do not need to submit a new plan until the end of 
fiscal year 2000, although they can submit revised plans 
sooner. The amount of any additional costs would depend on the 
extend to which agencies revise their initial plans as a result 
of consulting with the Congress, the Administration, and other 
stakeholders. Because GPRA is naturally such an iterative 
process, it is difficult to estimate how much additional time 
and effort would be consumed if many agencies were required to 
resubmit plans formally rather than simply making changes 
informally as a result of internal reassessments or 
consultations with the Congress and OMB.
    For cabinet-level agencies, the bill would require that 
such agencies submit strategic plans for its major components 
in addition to its department-wide plans. According to GAO, 
several agencies, such as the Department of Agriculture, 
Treasury, while other agencies have submitted portions of 
component plans. In these cases, CBO expects the additional 
costswould not be significant. For other agencies, such as the 
Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, and Commerce, which 
submitted single, integrated plans, the additional costs could be 
substantial if they were unable to split their integrated plans into 
separate, component pieces, and instead had to develop entirely new 
plans for their component entities. Because CBO has not had enough time 
to obtain information from these agencies, we cannot estimate the 
amount of such potential costs.
    The bill also would require the inspector general (IG) at 
each agency to review and report on the implementation of the 
agency's strategic and performance plans. Again, because GPRA 
is a fundamental part of most agency budgeting systems, CBO 
expects that agency IGs already are involved under GPRA. 
However, because it would require that agency IGs report on 
their findings and because it could broaden the scope of such 
efforts, H.R. 2883 would increase such costs. CBO currently has 
no basis for estimating the amount of these additional costs.
    Finally, the bill would require that OMB submit an 
integrated performance report for the federal government by 
March 31, 2000. As required by law, OMB included an integrated 
performance plan as part of the Administration's budget for 
fiscal year 1999. In future years, OMB could include a report 
on the government's performance under the previous year's plan 
within the annual budget. Under that scenario, CBO expects that 
any additional costs would not be significant.
    Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.
    Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 2883 
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 
defined in UMRA and would not affect the budgets of state, 
local, or tribal governments.
    Estimate prepared by: John R. Righter.
    Estimate approved by: Robert A. Sunshine, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

      VIII. Specific Constitutional Authority for This Legislation

    Clauses 1, 14, and 18 of Article 1, section 8 of the 
Constitution grant Congress the power to enact this law.

                      IX. Changes in Existing Law

  In compliance with clause 3 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):

               SECTION 306 OF TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE

          * * * * * * *

Sec. 306. Strategic plans

  (a) No later than September 30, 1997, 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) a comprehensive mission statement covering the 
        major functions and operations of the agency, that is 
        explicitly linked to the statutory or other legal 
        authorities of the agency;
          (2) general goals and objectives, including outcome-
        related goals and objectives, for the major functions 
        and operations of the agency, that are explicitly 
        linked to the statutory or other legal authorities of 
        the agency;
          * * * * * * *
          (5) an identification of those key factors external 
        to the agency and beyond its control that could 
        significantly affect the achievement of the general 
        goals and objectives; [and]
          (6) a description of the program evaluations used in 
        establishing or revising general goals and objectives, 
        with a schedule for future program evaluations[.];
          (7) a specific identification of any agency functions 
        and programs that are similar to those of more than one 
        component of the agency or those of other agencies, and 
        an explanation of coordination and other efforts the 
        agency has undertaken within the agency or with other 
        agencies to ensure that such similar functions and 
        programs are subject to complementary goals, 
        strategies, and performance measures;
          (8) a description of any major management problems 
        (including but not limited to programs and activities 
        at high risk for waste, abuse, or mismanagement) 
        affecting the agency that have been documented by the 
        inspector general of the agency (or a comparable 
        official, if the agency has no inspector general), the 
        General Accounting Office, and others, and specific 
        goals, strategies, and performance measures to resolve 
        those problems; and
          (9) an assessment by the head of the agency of the 
        adequacy and reliability of the data sources and 
        information and accounting systems of the agency to 
        support its strategic plans under this section and 
        performance plans and reports under sections 1115 and 
        1116 (respectively) of title 31, and, to the extent 
        that material data or system inadequacies exist, an 
        explanation by the head of the agency of how the agency 
        will resolve them.
  (b) The strategic plan shall cover a period of not less than 
five years forward from the fiscal year in which it is 
[submitted, and shall be updated and revised at least every 
three years.] submitted. The strategic plan shall be updated, 
revised, and resubmitted to the Director of the Office of 
Management and Budget and the Congress by not later than 
September 30 of 1998 and of every third year thereafter.
          * * * * * * *
  (d) When developing and updating a strategic plan, the agency 
shall consult with the Congress, and shall solicit and consider 
the views and suggestions of those entities potentially 
affected by or interested in such a plan. The agency head shall 
provide promptly to any committee or subcommittee of the 
Congress any draft versions of a plan or other information 
pertinent to a plan that the committee or subcommittee 
requests.
          * * * * * * *
  (f)(1) The strategic plan shall be a single document that 
covers the agency as a whole and addresses each of the elements 
required by this section on an agencywide basis. The head of an 
agency shall format the strategic plans of the agency in a 
manner that clearly demonstrates the linkages among the 
elements of the plan.
  (2)(A) The head of each executive department shall submit 
with the departmentwide strategic plan a separate component 
strategic plan for each of the major mission-related components 
of the department. Such a component strategic plan shall 
address each of the elements required by this section.
  (B) The head of an agency that is not an executive department 
shall submit separate component plans in accordance with 
subparagraph (A) to the extent that doing so would, in the 
judgment of the head of the agency, materially enhance the 
usefulness of the strategic plan of the agency.
  [(f)] (g) For purposes of this section the term ``agency'' 
means an Executive agency defined under section 105, but does 
not include the Central Intelligence Agency, the General 
Accounting Office, the Panama Canal Commission, the United 
States Postal Service, and the Postal Rate Commission.
                              ----------                              


                      TITLE 31, UNITED STATES CODE

          * * * * * * *

                    SUBTITLE II--THE BUDGET PROCESS

          * * * * * * *

   CHAPTER 11--THE BUDGET AND FISCAL, BUDGET, AND PROGRAM INFORMATION

Sec.
1101.  Definitions.
     * * * * * * *
1120.  Inspector general review of agency performance plans and 
          performance reports.
          * * * * * * *

Sec. 1115. Performance plans

  (a) In carrying out the provisions of section 1105(a)(29), 
the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall 
require each agency to prepare an annual performance plan 
covering each program activity set forth in the budget of such 
agency. Such plan shall--
          (1) * * *
          * * * * * * *
          (4) establish performance indicators to be used in 
        measuring or assessing the relevant outputs, service 
        levels, and outcomes of each program activity, which 
        shall include determination of the full costs (as that 
        term is used in the most recent Managerial Cost 
        Accounting Standards of the Federal Financial 
        Accounting Standards) of each program activity;
          * * * * * * *
  (f) For purposes of this section and sections 1116 through 
[1119] 1120, and sections 9703 and 9704 the term--
          (1) * * *
          * * * * * * *

Sec. 1116. Program performance reports

  (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
  (f)(1) No later than March 31, 2000, and no later than March 
31 of each year thereafter, the Director of the Office of 
Management and Budget shall prepare and submit to the Congress 
an integrated Federal Government performance report for the 
previous fiscal year.
  (2) In addition to such other content as the Director 
determines to be appropriate, each report shall include actual 
results and accomplishments under the Federal Government 
performance plan required by section 1105(a)(29) of this title 
for the fiscal year covered by the report.
  [(f)] (g) The functions and activities of this section shall 
be considered to be inherently Governmental functions. The 
drafting of program performance reports under this section 
shall be performed only by Federal employees.

Sec. 1117. Exemption

  The Director of the Office of Management and Budget may 
exempt from the requirements of sections 1115 and 1116 of this 
title and section 306 of title 5, any agency with annual 
outlays of $20,000,000 or less, except that the Director may 
not exempt the Council on Environmental Quality.
          * * * * * * *

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

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

                 CHAPTER 35--ACCOUNTING AND COLLECTION

          * * * * * * *

    SUBCHAPTER II--ACCOUNTING REQUIREMENTS, SYSTEMS, AND INFORMATION

          * * * * * * *

Sec. 3515. Financial statements of agencies

  (a) Not later than March 1 of [1997] 1999 and each year 
thereafter, the head of each executive agency identified in 
section 901(b) of this title shall prepare and submit to the 
Congress and the Director of the Office of Management and 
Budget an audited financial statement for the preceding fiscal 
year, covering all accounts and associated activities of each 
office, bureau, and activity of the agency.
          * * * * * * *

                      X. Committee Recommendation

    On March 5, 1998, a quorum being present, the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight ordered the bill, as amended, 
favorably reported.

 COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT--105TH CONGRESS ROLLCALL

    Date: March 12, 1997.
    Summary: Final Passage of H.R. 2883, as amended.
    Offered by: Hon. Dan Burton (IN).
    Recorded vote: 21 ayes; 12 nays.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Name                  Aye       Nay     Present          Name           Aye       Nay     Present 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Burton.....................        X   ........  .........  Mr. Waxman.......  ........        X   .........
Mr. Gilman.....................  ........  ........  .........  Mr. Lantos.......  ........        X   .........
Mr. Hastert....................        X   ........  .........  Mr. Wise.........  ........        X   .........
Mrs. Morella...................        X   ........  .........  Mr. Owens........  ........  ........  .........
Mr. Shays......................        X   ........  .........  Mr. Towns........  ........        X   .........
Mr. Schiff.....................  ........  ........  .........  Mr. Kanjorski....  ........        X   .........
Mr. Cox........................        X   ........  .........  Mr. Condit.......        X   ........  .........
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen...............  ........  ........  .........  Mr. Sanders......  ........  ........  .........
Mr. McHugh.....................        X   ........  .........  Mrs. Maloney.....  ........        X   .........
Mr. Horn.......................        X   ........  .........  Mr. Barrett......  ........        X   .........
Mr. Mica.......................        X   ........  .........  Ms. Norton.......  ........  ........  .........
Mr. Davis (VA).................        X   ........  .........  Mr. Fattah.......  ........  ........  .........
Mr. McIntosh...................        X   ........  .........  Mr. Cummings.....  ........        X   .........
Mr. Souder.....................        X   ........  .........  Mr. Kucinich.....  ........        X   .........
Mr. Scarborough................        X   ........  .........  Mr. Blagojevich..  ........        X   .........
Mr. Shadegg....................  ........  ........  .........  Mr. Davis (IL)...  ........        X   .........
Mr. LaTourette.................        X   ........  .........  Mr. Tierney......        X   ........  .........
Mr. Sanford....................        X   ........  .........  Mr. Turner.......  ........  ........  .........
Mr. Sununu.....................        X   ........  .........  Mr. Allen........  ........        X   .........
Mr. Sessions...................        X   ........  .........  Mr. Ford.........  ........  ........  .........
Mr. Pappas.....................        X   ........  .........                                                  
Mr. Snowbarger.................  ........  ........  .........                                                  
Mr. Barr.......................        X   ........  .........                                                  
Mr. Miller.....................        X   ........  .........                                                  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

         XI. Congressional Accountability Act; Public Law 104-1

    H.R. 2883, as amended by the Committee, amends the 
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 to require 
Federal agencies to re-submit their strategic plans to Congress 
by the end of September 1998. The original Act does not apply 
to the House of Representatives or to the Senate, thus H.R. 
2883 does not apply to the Congress.

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

    Democrats strongly supported the Government Performance and 
Results Act when it became law in 1993. And we continue to 
strongly support its full and timely implementation. The goal 
of GPRA was to make our government more accountable to the 
American people. By requiring agencies to undertake strategic 
planning and timely performance evaluations, we hoped to 
streamline government and make it more efficient. The law 
established a system to set goals for program performance and 
to measure results to reach that end. It requires Federal 
program managers to document the success of their programs and, 
over several years, to tie their programs' successes in meeting 
goals to annual budget requests. The Government Operations 
Committee believed that government agencies must be reoriented 
away from measuring success by inputs (how much money was 
spent) toward measuring a program's success by outputs (what 
measurable result was received for the money spent).
    We must unfortunately oppose H.R. 2883, the ``Government 
Performance and Results Act Technical Amendments of 1998,'' as 
reported by the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. 
We say ``unfortunately'' because the history of the Government 
Performance and Results Act to date has been remarkable for its 
bipartisanship. The Act was, after all, passed by a Democratic 
Congress with Republican support and signed by a Democratic 
President. We all believe that the government needs to be held 
accountable to the American people, and that we must 
continually strive to improve its economy and efficiency.
    H.R. 2883 contradicts this spirit. Rather than streamlining 
government, it will require agencies to repeat work they have 
just completed. Rather than representing careful planning, it 
would impose new burdens on federal agencies without adequate 
consideration to how GPRA is working or what return we can 
expect from those new burdens.
    We fundamentally disagree with the need to amend GPRA at 
this time. Our position is fully supported by the hearing 
record on the implementation of this Act. At the full 
Committee's October 30, 1997, hearing on implementation of the 
Act, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 
Franklin D. Raines, testified that ``In our May, 1997 Report to 
Congress on the implementation of the Results Act, we offered 
no recommendations for changing this Act at this time. Our 
belief then, as it is today, is that it is premature to 
determine what changes might be needed or useful, until we can 
review the value and sue of this first set ofstrategic and 
annual plans and the experience of the agencies introducing them.'' \1\ 
In addition, GAO has testified that ``[GPRA] is a work in progress and 
has a long way to go until it is fully implemented. We didn't come 
across any killing defects in the law, either in concept or 
implementation. And in our view, we should continue implementing what 
we have rather than think about changes at this point.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ ``The Results Act: Are We Getting Results?'' Hearing before the 
Government Reform and Oversight Committee, October 30, 1997, Serial No. 
105-60. p. 41.
    \2\ ``Government Performance and Results Act: Status and Prospects 
of the Results Act,'' Hearing before the Subcommittee on Government 
Management, Information and Technology of the Government Reform and 
Oversight Committee, June 3, 1997, Serial No. 105-55. p. 61.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    If the Majority is intent on moving this legislation 
forward, we should use this bill as vehicle to amend GPRA so 
that it applies to Congress. Sound planning and good management 
practices should apply to all government organizations, not 
only those in the executive branch. Applying GPRA to Congress 
might also help us eliminate some of the duplication and 
overlap which have characterized some Congressional 
investigations, including this Committee's investigation of 
campaign finance violations. As Congress recognized when 
passing the Congressional Accountability Act in the last 
Congress, we in Congress write better laws when we have to live 
by the laws we apply to the Executive branch and the private 
sector. That principle is certainly true in this case.
    If we need an example of why GPRA should apply to Congress, 
we need look no further than the work of this Committee. The 
Majority's campaign finance investigation is a prime example of 
the wastes and duplication in Congress that could be eliminated 
if we required Congressional committees to set out clear goals 
and strategies. We have spent approximately $5 million on an 
investigation with no goals, no parameters, and no direction. 
One week we are discussing allegations of foreign 
contributions, the next we are examining a dog track in 
Wisconsin. The biggest potential abuse of all--that the tobacco 
industry gave $8.8 million in campaign contributions to 
Republicans in exchange for a $50 billion tax credit--the 
Majority has ignored altogether.
    A central requirement of this bill is the re-submission of 
strategic plans by all covered federal agencies by September 
30, 1998, the premise being that the plans submitted less than 
six months ago were of such universally poor quality that they 
must all be re-done. That is not a proposition with which we 
agree. It is difficult to see how requiring the resubmission of 
strategic plans submitted less than six months ago is 
consistent with the goals of GPRA, such as reducing waste and 
redundancy. This requirement would impose a significant 
administrative burden on federal agencies, especially in light 
of the additional data the bill would require. The plans 
submitted on October 1, 1997, were timely and statutorily 
compliant. From the standpoint of effective management, a 
better approach would be for the authorizing committee or 
appropriation subcommittee with direct jurisdiction to exercise 
more targeted oversight or legislative direction.
    The General Accounting Office concluded just last month 
that the strategic plans submitted last year ``provide a 
workable foundation for Congress to use in helping to fulfill 
its appropriations, budget, authorization, and oversight 
responsibilities and . . . for the continuing implementation of 
the Results Act.'' \3\ The Majority's insistence on this 
blanket resubmission is somewhat incomprehensible given OMB's 
willingness to work with Congress on this issue. They have 
offered to write guidance to the agencies directing them to 
revise their strategic plans if they receive specific requests 
from the various authorizing and appropriating Committees of 
jurisdiction. This more targeted approach makes much more 
sense.

                                   Henry A. Waxman.
                                   Dennis J. Kucinich.
                                   Tom Lantos.
                                   Bob Wise.
                                   Major R. Owens.
                                   Edolphus Towns.
                                   Paul E. Kanjorski.
                                   Bernard Sanders.
                                   Carolyn B. Maloney.
                                   Tom Barrett.
                                   Eleanor H. Norton.
                                   Chaka Fattah.
                                   Elijah E. Cummings.
                                   Rod R. Blagojevich.
                                   Danny K. Davis.
                                   Jim Turner.
                                   Tom Allen.
                                   Harold E. Ford, Jr.

                                


--------
    \3\ ``Managing for Results'', General Accounting Office (GAO/GGD-
98-44), January 1998, p. 3.