[Senate Report 106-469]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 918
106th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 106-469
_______________________________________________________________________
MODIFYING THE DATE ON WHICH THE MAYOR OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
SUBMITS A PERFORMANCE ACCOUNTABILITY PLAN TO CONGRESS, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES
__________
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE
to accompany
S.3062
TO MODIFY THE DATE ON WHICH THE MAYOR OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
SUBMITS A PERFORMANCE ACCOUNTABILITY PLAN TO CONGRESS, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES
October 3 (legislative day, September 22), 2000.--Ordered to be printed
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
79-010 WASHINGTON : 2000
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
FRED THOMPSON, Tennessee, Chairman
WILLIAM V. ROTH, Jr., Delaware JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
TED STEVENS, Alaska CARL LEVIN, Michigan
SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
GEORGE VOINOVICH, Ohio RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi MAX CLELAND, Georgia
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
Hannah S. Sistare, Staff Director and Counsel
Johanna L. Hardy, Counsel
Kristine I. Simmons, Staff Director, Subcommittee on Oversight of
Government Management, Restructuring and the District of Columbia
Mason C. Alinger, Professional Staff Member, Subcommittee on Oversight
of Government Management, Restructuring, and the District of Columbia
Joyce A. Rechtschaffen, Minority Staff Director and Counsel
Peter A. Ludgin, Minority Professional Staff Member
Marianne Upton, Minority Chief Counsel/Staff Director, Subcommittee on
Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring and the District of
Columbia
Darla D. Cassell, Chief Clerk
Calendar No. 918
106th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 106-469
======================================================================
MODIFYING THE DATE ON WHICH THE MAYOR OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
SUBMITS A PERFORMANCE ACCOUNTABILITY PLAN TO CONGRESS, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES
_______
October 3 (legislative day, September 22), 2000.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Thompson, from the Committee on Governmental Affairs, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 3062]
The Committee on Governmental Affairs, to which was
referred the bill (S. 3062) to modify the date on which the
Mayor of the District of Columbia submits a performance
accountability plan to Congress, and for other purposes,
reports favorably thereon without amendment and recommends that
the bill do pass.
CONTENTS
I. Summary and Purpose..............................................1
II. Background.......................................................2
III. Legislative History..............................................3
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis......................................4
V. Estimated Cost of Legislation....................................4
VI. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact..................................5
VII. Changes in Existing Law..........................................5
I. Summary and Purpose
S. 3062, the District of Columbia Performance
Accountability Plan Amendments Act of 2000, changes the
deadline for the District of Columbia to submit its annual
performance accountability plan to Congress from March 1 of
each year to be concurrent with the submission of the District
of Columbia budget to Congress each year. It also replaces the
reporting requirement that calls for the submission of both an
acceptable and a superior level of performance with one unified
measurable, objective and ambitious performance goal. The
purposes are to bring the District government closer to
performance budgeting by tying together the District's budget
with its performance measures, and to allow the District
government tofocus on achieving a single level of performance
rather than working to reach multiple performance targets.
II. Background
House Report 104-96 that accompanies Public Law 104-8, the
``District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management
Assistance Act of 1995,'' provides a complete background of
Congress' decision to intervene in the daily proceedings of the
District government and implement significant management reform
initiatives. House Report 103-754 that accompanies Public Law
103-373, the ``Federal Payment Reauthorization Act of 1994,''
fully explains the original intent of Congress in establishing
the performance accountability plans addressed by this
legislation.
Among other things, the Federal Payment Reauthorization Act
of 1994 requires the District to devise, implement, and submit
to Congress comprehensive financial and performance standards
that address performance management goals. The primary
motivation behind the Congressionally mandated performance
goals for the District was a General Accounting Office (GAO)
report that identified a number of efforts by the District
government to balance its books with short-term actions that
postponed financial solutions and caused greater cash problems.
The report also cited a widening gap between spending and
revenue, and it identified several impending capital needs and
programs for which the District had not adequately planned. At
a hearing on the financial condition of the District of
Columbia in 1994, the GAO testified that performance-based
planning would help the District to address many of the
problems outlined in the GAO report.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Financial Status: District of Columbia Finances,'' General
Accounting Office, July 14, 2000, GAO/T-AIMD-94-158.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result of the Federal Payment Reauthorization Act of
1994, the District of Columbia must develop and submit to the
appropriate House and Senate authorizing and appropriating
committees and GAO, annual performance accountability plans and
reports by March 1 of each year. The reports, which assess the
District's progress in meeting the performance goals
established in the corresponding fiscal year's performance
accountability plan, are to be reviewed and evaluated by the
GAO in consultation with the Office of Management and Budget.
GAO is required to submit its findings to the Congress by April
15 of each year.
On April 14, 2000, the GAO released its evaluation of the
District's FY1999 performance accountability report. The GAO
found that ``the Mayor's performance report did not contain the
following required information for any of the 542 agency goals
identified in the plan: (1) actual performance compared with
two levels of planned performance, and (2) titles of the
management employee and immediate supervisor most responsible
for achieving each goal.'' The GAO report also concluded that
the city's performance accountability report ``does not
describe, as required, the status of, or the steps taken to
comply with, any of the court orders pertaining to the 12 civil
actions concerning activities of the District government during
fiscal year 1999.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``District of Columbia Government: Performance Report's
Adherence to Statutory Requirements,'' General Accounting Office, April
2000, GAO/GGD-00-107.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding this GAO evaluation, it should be noted that the
original law was drafted so that the Mayor would have both
planning and reporting responsibility. But as noted in the GAO
report, in 1997, Congress transferred the reporting
responsibility to the Financial Responsibility and Management
Assistance Authority (the Control Board). Then, in November
1999, Congress returned this planning and reporting
responsibility back to the Mayor. However, because of the
temporary transfer in 1997, the Mayor's performance report for
FY1999 was required to be based on goals that the Control
Board--not the Mayor--had established. So rather than report on
all of the Control Board's goals, the Mayor opted to focus his
FY1999 performance accountability report on the short-term
goals he had established after taking office in January 1999.
Following the release of this GAO report, and a subsequent
hearing by the Senate Subcommittee on Oversight of Government
Management, Restructuring, and the District of Columbia on May
9, 2000, the Mayor sent a letter to Senator George V. Voinovich
(R-OH), Chairman of the Subcommittee, requesting changes to the
performance accountability requirements. The request included
changing the submission deadline for the submission of the
performance accountability plan from March 1 to June 15, and
eliminating the requirement for multiple goals for each
performance measure.
The latter request by the Mayor refers to the requirement
in the Federal Payment Reauthorization Act of 1994 that
requires the District to submit both acceptable and superior
achievement goals for each performance measure. S. 3062
streamlines the performance goal requirements that were
initially established in the Federal Payment Reauthorization
Act of 1994 by replacing the multiple levels of performance
goals with one set of ambitious performance targets. This would
clarify the goals District managers are expected to meet and
align congressional mandates on the District with what is
required of federal agencies.
III. Legislative History
On May 9, 2000, the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government
Management, Restructuring, and the District of Columbia held a
hearing on the progress of performance management in the
District, at which Mayor Williams proposed harmonizing the
submission deadline for the District's budget and performance
accountability plan to Congress, testifying that ``. . . the
performance plan and the budget have to work together and
really have to contain a lot of the same information, because
modern budgeting is performance budgeting.''
S. 3062 was introduced on September 18, 2000, by Senator
Voinovich. It was cosponsored by Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL).
The bill was referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
Although the legislation would have appropriately been referred
to the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management,
Restructuring, and the District of Columbia, the Subcommittee
requested that the bill be held at full Committee in order to
expedite its consideration. The legislation was ordered
reported on September 27, 2000 by voice vote.
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 1, paragraph 1 of the legislation addresses the
District's performance accountability plan that is required by
Congress prior to each fiscal year. Paragraph 1, subparagraph A
of the legislation changes the March 1 deadline, instead
requiring the Mayor to submit a performance accountability plan
that is ``concurrent with the submission of the District of
Columbia budget to Congress,'' beginning in 2001. Paragraph 1,
subparagraph B of the legislation strikes the section of the
law that requires the city to establish both superior and
acceptable goals for the performance measures, replacing the
multiple performance measures with one set of ``measurable,
objective performance goals.''
Section 1, paragraph 2 of the legislation makes similar
technical changes to the performance accountability report as
those made to the plan (the report evaluates the District's
success in achieving the goals set in its performance
accountability plan). Paragraph 2, subparagraph A of the
legislation states that the changes to the report will take
effect in 2001. Paragraph 2, subparagraph B of the legislation
strikes the requirement that the Mayor must report on
acceptable and superior levels of performance in the
performance accountability report.
V. Estimated Cost of Legislation
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, September 29, 2000.
Hon. Fred Thompson,
Chairman, Committee on Governmental Affairs,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 3062, a bill to
modify the date on which the Mayor of the District of Columbia
submits a performance accountability plan to the Congress, and
for other purposes.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are John R.
Righter (for federal costs), and Susan Sieg Tompkins (for the
state and local impact).
Sincerely,
Barry B. Anderson
(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
Enclosure.
S. 3062--A bill to modify the date on which the Mayor of the District
of Columbia submits a performance accountability plan to the
Congress, and for other purposes.
S. 3062 would require that the Mayor of the District of
Columbia submit the city's annual performance accountability
plan to the Congress at the same time that he or she submits
the city's budget. Currently, the Mayor must submit the report
by March 1. In addition, the bill would require that the city
prepare only one set of performance goals under the Government
Performance Results Act. Currently, it must prepare two sets.
CBO estimates that enacting S. 3062 would have no impact on the
federal budget. The bill would not affect direct spending or
receipts, so pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply.
S. 3062 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and
would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
The bill would amend the statutes of the District of Columbia
to relax certain requirements for the timing and content of
annual reports of managerial performance. While the District of
Columbia may incur costs to change its data management systems,
over the long term, the District would benefit from the
narrower reporting requirements.
The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are John R.
Righter (for federal costs), and Susan Sieg Tompkins (for the
state and local impact). This estimate was approved by Robert
A. Sunshine, Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
VI. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact
Pursuant to the requirement of paragraph 11(b) of Rule XXVI
of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee has
considered the regulatory and paperwork impact of S. 3062. The
legislation contributes to the efficient administration and
management of the District of Columbia by facilitating the
city's reporting requirements to Congress. It would impose no
additional regulatory burdens, and should reduce paperwork and
administrative burdens on the District of Columbia by
streamlining the District's performance plan requirements. Over
time, it should also reduce paperwork burdens on the District
by tying together the performance plan and the budget into one,
integrated document.
VII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by
the Committee bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing
law proposed to be omitted is shown in strikeout, new matter is
printed in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed
is shown in roman):
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SELF-GOVERNMENT AND GOVERNMENTAL REORGANIZATION
ACT OF 1973
* * * * * * *
TITLE IV--THE DISTRICT CHARTER
* * * * * * *
Part D--District Budget and Financial Management
* * * * * * *
Subpart 2--Audit
* * * * * * *
SECTION 456. PERFORMANCE AND FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY.
(a) Performance Accountability Plan.--
(1) Submission of annual plan.--Concurrent with the
submission of the District of Columbia budget to
Congress each year (beginning with 2001), the Mayor
shall develop and submit to the Committee on Government
Reform and Oversight of the House of Representatives,
the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate,
the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate, and the Comptroller
General a performance accountability plan for all
departments, agencies, and programs of the government
of the District of Columbia for the subsequent fiscal
year.
(2) Contents of plan.--The performance accountability
plan for a fiscal year shall contain the following:
(A) A statement of measurable, objective
performance goals established for all
significant activities of the government of the
District of Columbia during the fiscal year
(including activities funded in whole or in
part by the District but performed in whole or
in part by some other public or private
entity).
(B) * * *
(C) * * *
(3) * * *
(b) Performance Accountability Report.--
(1) Submission of report.--Not later than March 1 of
each year (beginning with 2001), the Mayor shall
develop and submit to the Committee on Government
Reform and Oversight of the House of Representatives,
the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate,
the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate, and the Comptroller
General a performance accountability report on
activities of the government of the District of
Columbia during the fiscal year ending on the previous
September 30.
(2) Contents of report.--The performance
accountability report for a fiscal year shall contain
the following:
(A) For each goal of the performance
accountability plan submitted under subsection
(a) [D.C. Code 47-231] for the year, a
statement of the actual level of performance
achieved compared to the stated goal.
(B) * * *
(C) * * *
(3) * * *
* * * * * * *