The 105th Congress offers mixed results

In a test of the Government Performance and Results Act, the 105th Congress enacted several pieces of legislation setting performance goals for federal programs. But a Senator's list of pork-barrel spending shows lawmakers have yet to embrace the value of measuring the return on government investments.

Sprinkled among the laws Congress approved this year are a few measures that define results lawmakers expect from federal managers.

The measures include:

• The reauthorization act for the Office of National Drug Control Policy calls on the executive branch to cut drug use in half by the end of 2003, reduce drug-related crimes 50 percent by 2003, and reduce the availability of cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and methamphetamine in the United States by 80 percent by 2003.
• The Head Start Act's "results-based performance measures" require that children enrolled in Head Start programs be able to identify at least 10 letters of the alphabet.
• The 1998 Workforce Investment Act requires states to set 3-year performance goals for job training programs, including how many workers get jobs through the programs and how many of those workers keep their jobs for at least six months.
• The 1998 Child Support Performance and Incentive Act ties increases in states' child support enforcement funding to states' ability to meet performance measures for identifying nonpaying parents, collecting payments and cost-effectiveness.

"Congress is taking some steps in the right direction," says Carl DeMaio, an analyst at the Congressional Institute who follows Results Act implementation. "We need to be able to understand why they are funding the programs and activities they are funding."

Lawmakers also spent the 105th Congress urging federal agencies to improve the measures managers use to gauge their success. For example, Rep. John Porter, R-Ill., chairman of the House Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, littered the 1999 Labor-Health appropriations conference report with references to the Results Act. In most cases, Porter deemed agencies' performance measures insufficient and instructed the agencies to develop better measures.

Oct. 1 began the first fiscal year in which federal agencies' performance will be measured against goals laid out in annual performance plans. Agencies set fiscal 1999 GPRA goals during the last budget cycle. In March 2000, they will report to Congress on their progress toward meeting the 1999 goals.

"If, after several years of performance planning, we see agencies don't have a clear idea of their goals and measures, then it becomes incumbent upon Congress to set goals and measures for the agencies," DeMaio says.

Meanwhile, Sen. John McCain last week called attention to a major obstacle to performance-based legislation.

In a speech explaining why he voted against the 1999 omnibus spending bill, McCain blasted his fellow lawmakers for allocating money to projects on the basis of political interests rather than merit.

"We are wasting the people's money when we fund these dubious proposals," McCain said. "We undermine the faith of our constituents--the taxpayers--when we continue the practice of earmarking and inappropriately designating funding for projects based on political interests rather than national priority and necessity. This bill is a shameful example of why the American public has become cynical and skeptical of government."

Congress would be hard-pressed to set meaningful performance goals for the programs McCain highlights on his "Pork Barreling" Web site, including:

• $250,000 for an Illinois firm to research caffeinated chewing gum.
• $750,000 for grasshopper research in Alaska.
• $64,000 for urban pest research in Georgia.
• A $200,000 grant to the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Commission.

"Responsible spending is the cornerstone of good governance," McCain said. "I look forward to the day when we can go before the American people with a budget that is both fiscally responsible and ends the practice of earmarking funds in the appropriations process."