Congress demands more Results Act measures

Congress is increasingly directing federal agencies to set goals and measure performance, a Congressional Research Service report released this week found.

Twenty-eight laws in the 105th Congress contained references to the 1993 Government Performance and Results Act or to performance measurement, CRS found. In addition, 78 reports accompanying bills enacted into law contained such language.

There is "some indication that congressional interest in the Results Act is increasing," the CRS report said. "While the number of public laws with performance measure provisions nearly doubled from the 104th to the 105th Congresses, the number of committee reports containing performance measure provisions, accompanying a bill subsequently enacted into public law, nearly tripled between the two Congresses."

In some instances, Congress set goals for agencies and made continued funding contingent upon performance. The Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act, for example, instructed the office to reduce unlawful drug use to 3 percent of the U.S. population by Dec. 31, 2003. The Senate report accompanying the bill to reauthorize the Prescription Drug User Fee Act called on the Food and Drug Administration to review and act on 90 percent of drug applications filed during fiscal year 2001 within 12 months.

In other cases, Congress told agencies to establish performance goals and measures themselves. In the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Congress directed the Transportation Department to develop a comprehensive performance management system for surface transportation research and development. The Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for 1999 instructed the Energy Department to submit a fiscal year 2000 budget request for defense environmental restoration and waste management with costs tied to performance measures.

"The current system of identifying activities by operational units and waste streams may be one useful metric for tracking performance, but it tends to lose sight of the overall goal of this program, which is to complete cleanup as quickly and efficiently as possible," the report accompanying the bill said.

Laws and committee reports also commented on the importance of the Results Act and on the quality of agencies' strategic and performance plans. Under the Results Act, agencies were required to develop five-year strategic plans and annual performance plans. The first annual performance plans went into effect in fiscal 1999. Agencies will report back to Congress in March 2000 on whether they met the goals laid out in those plans.

In a few cases, laws demanded performance accountability for federal employees. Congress called on both the Food and Drug Administration and the IRS to improve employee accountability. The Vision 2020 National Parks Restoration Act said the "trend in the condition of resources of the National Park System" must be a significant factor in the annual performance evaluations of National Park unit superintendents.

House Majority Leader Richard Armey, R-Texas, and Government Reform Committee Chairman Dan Burton, R-Ind., hailed the CRS report as proof that the Results Act is taking root in congressional decisionmaking.

"Clearly there is a long way to go before results-based performance accountability is fully ingrained into Washington culture," Armey said. "However, we've established a solid beachhead. This study confirms that the Results Act is here to stay. This Congress will continue to hold agencies accountable to the American people."