Chairman Linder and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to be here today to discuss congressional oversight of the implementation of the Government Performance and Results Act.

The Results Act encourages greater efficiency, effectiveness and accountability in Federal spending by requiring agencies to set goals and use performance measures for management and budgeting. The law calls for Federal departments and agencies to develop long-range strategic plans and annual performance plans, which are to be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget and to Congress. Based on these agency plans, the Office of Management and Budget is then required to develop and submit to Congress a government-wide performance plan.

The Results Act demands a significant cultural shift within Federal agencies. Historically, agencies have linked their budget requests to their annual expenses. Those comfortable days should soon end. The Results Act requires agencies to perform the more complex task of linking their budget requests to the results achieved by their programs. Once this link is achieved, agency managers, as well as congressional decision-makers, will be in a position to make informed management and budgetary decisions.

Unfortunately, the Results Act is off to a slow start. The General Accounting Office, which assessed the agencies' fiscal year 1999 performance plans, found that only 14 of 35 agency plans defined some type of relationship between the program activities listed in their proposed budgets and the performance goals cited in their plans. However, few of those 14 agencies translated those relationships into budgetary terms — that is, most agencies did not explain how they would use their funding to achieve their goals.

Agencies did make some progress in linking their planning with their budget requests. However, much work remains before performance information will be a useful tool in critical decision-making.

Sustained oversight is essential to the success of the Results Act. Congressional appropriators and authorizers are in the best position to provide that oversight. There is evidence that Congress is beginning to use of the Results Act as a management and oversight tool.

House Majority Leader Dick Armey has demonstrated his continuing interest in the Results Act in numerous statements, including his testimony before the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology, which I chair. Senator Fred Thompson from Tennessee, chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee has also played a key role.

Over the last three (3) Congresses, the Government Management Subcommittee has conducted eight (8) hearings, assessing the implementation of various phases of the Results Act, including the level of leadership being provided by the Office of Management Budget.⁽¹⁾

A recent study conducted by the Congressional Research Service confirmed that Congress is increasingly focused on agency performance. According to the CRS, the 105th Congress enacted 28 public laws containing performance-related language, nearly doubling the number of laws with similar language enacted in the 104th Congress.

Additionally, the 105th Congress produced a total of 78 legislative committee reports that included language relating to the Results Act or other performance measures, compared to 27 produced in the 104th Congress.

The Congressional Research Service also identified a number of instances in which Congress enacted legislation that contained language, specifically requiring agencies to set goals or performance indicators. In some cases, agencies were given responsibility for setting their goals. In other cases, congressional committees and agencies were directed to work together to set goals. Occasionally, Congress specified detailed goals and performance indicators that must be met in order for a program or activity to receive continued funding. This activity appears to indicate that congressional committees are, in fact, using the Results Act plans.

A key expectation of the Results Act is that Congress will gain a clearer understanding of what is being achieved in relationship to what is being spent. The Act specifically required that pilot programs be used to test performance-based budgeting. The Office of Management and Budget, in consultation with the head of each agency, was to designate at least five agency pilot programs for fiscal years 1998 and 1999. Under these pilots, the selected agencies were to prepare budgets for one or more of their major functions, presenting the varying levels of performance that would result from varying budget amounts.

Last year, the Government Management Subcommittee learned that the OMB had failed to initiate any of these pilot programs. In July, our subcommittee held a hearing to find out when the OMB planned to begin complying with the law's mandate. Three months after the hearing, the OMB selected five agencies to conduct the pilots. I would be interested in learning more about the status of these programs from your witness from the Office of Management and Budget who is on the next panel.

This month marks a significant milestone in the life of the Results Act. The Act requires that by March 31, 2000, agencies must submit annual performance reports for fiscal year 1999 to the Congress and the President. These reports should link an agency's actual performance with its stated goals. If the goals were not met, the reports should include an explanation of why they were not met and a schedule of when they will be met.

These performance reports should provide agency and congressional decision-makers an indication of whether the goals outlined in the plans are being achieved. The plans should also contain useful information on the performance consequences of budget decisions.

However, without strong, broad-based leadership, compliance with the Results Act will remain a goal rather than an achievement. Widespread, enthusiastic leadership is still missing at all levels of Government – from Congress to the Office of Management and Budget and each Federal department and agency.

Changing an entire bureaucratic culture demands a far greater degree of scrutiny by Congress. If we are to achieve results-oriented decision-making, Congress must demand no less than accurate and timely performance data to evaluate the success of the Federal programs it funds.

The heads of departments and agencies need to display a strong commitment toward implementing the law, which is too often viewed as yet another burdensome task. Agency managers at all levels should greet this reform with the enthusiasm it deserves. They should realize that once the Results Act is implemented, it will create a positive change in the way the Government is managed.

The Office of Management and Budget also needs to provide the executive branch with stronger leadership on this issue. The OMB must take a proactive role in facilitating the new management style required by the Results Act. In addition, it must provide Federal departments and agencies with the guidance and oversight needed to develop realistic strategies and goals, and then evaluate whether those goals are met. Moreover, the OMB must begin to evaluate agency budgets, requiring each agency to justify its funding requests by linking the request to program results.

Clearly, implementation of the Results Act is a work in progress. Once completed, however, American taxpayers will ultimately have the well-managed, fiscally accountable Federal Government they want and, most certainly, deserve.

This concludes my statement, and I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.

1.