Hearing of the
Subcommittee on Rules and Organization of the House
Subcommittee hearing on "The Government Performance and Results Act and the Legislative Process of House Committees."
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to testify regarding the impact of the Government Performance and Results Act's (GPRA) implementation on the legislative process in House committees. As you know, GPRA requires agencies to set strategic goals, measure performance, and report to the President and Congress on the degree to which goals are met. This month, for the first time, agencies government-wide are required to report annually on their results in achieving their goals.
I believe that GPRA is an effective tool for enhancing government performance and efficiency. It is intended to fundamentally shift the focus of federal management and accountability from a preoccupation with staffing and activity levels to a focus on "outcomes" of federal programs. Outcomes are results expressed in terms of the real difference federal programs make in people's lives, such as the increase in real wages earned by graduates of an unemployment training program or a reduction in the fatality and injury rates in workplaces or on highways.
While we have often focused on the agencies role under GPRA, I am pleased to shift the focus to the role of congressional committees under this Act. A comprehensive reassessment of agencies' roles and responsibilities is central to any congressional committee that seeks to bring about a government that is not only smaller but also more efficient and effective. In crafting GPRA, Congress recognized the vital role that consultations with stakeholders should have in defining agencies' missions and establishing their goals. These consultations are an important opportunity for Congress and the executive branch to work together in reassessing and clarifying the missions of federal agencies and the outcomes of agencies' programs.
My first impression is that, unfortunately, there is no current, comprehensive means of determining how the House committees have used GPRA. This makes it difficult to adequately analyze GPRA's impact on the legislative process. Like other forms of legislative oversight, congressional involvement in GPRA may be underestimated and undercounted. Underestimation occurs, for example, when a congressional committee's use of GPRA occurs off the record, that is, through monitoring and review by staff and/or support agencies, such as the General Accounting Office and the Congressional Research Service. Underaccounting occurs, for instance, when a panel examines an agency's compliance with GPRA requirements in hearings that do not specifically cite such a focus. As an illustration, hearings may be devoted to a policy matter, and GPRA may be brought into the consideration as a way of determining several related aspects, but the use of GPRA would not necessarily be cited or specified be the panel in its examination of the policy.
Despite limitations on objective measurements on how Congress is implementing GPRA, there are a number of different ways Congress and its standing committees can be, have been, and should be involved in GPRA at all stages. Committees have the means to develop the initial strategic plan, amend the strategic plan, and develop and review the annual performance plan. Committees are endowed with numerous tools to oversee an agency's programs and operations, including formal hearings on agency compliance with GPRA's requirements and its impact, informal meetings between members or committee staff and agency officials, contact with relevant agency personnel such as the inspector general and the chief financial officer, and contact with outside policy organizations and think tanks which have studied GPRA in general or in a particular field.
While GPRA provides many benefits, we must make sure that we do not lose sight of this law's limitations. As congressional committees become more and more involved in the GPRA process, we must acknowledge that once we help an agency set its goals, we give them ample flexibility to achieve their goals. Despite good intentions, Congress can sometimes mandate goals, but then not provide adequate funding levels in order to achieve them. As we know, often funding levels are sacrificed in order to meet political expediency and pass legislation. We cannot hold an agency accountable for meeting statutorily imposed goals if we do not provide them the adequate resources to achieve these goals. Moreover, legislative mandates may be unclear and Congress, the executive branch, and other stakeholders may not agree on the goals an agency and its programs should be trying to achieve, the strategies for achieving those goals, and the ways to measure their success.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify today. Strong and sustained congressional attention to GPRA is needed to ensure the success of this Act. Agency officials have said that evidence of real involvement and interest on the part of congressional committees in using performance goals and information to help in congressional decision making would help to build and sustain support for GPRA within their agencies. As members of Congress, we have an obligation to work with the executive branch to use GPRA as a tool in the decision making as we grapple with the formidable policy, program, and resource challenges of reducing the deficit and managing the federal government.
This concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to respond to any questions.
