Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act, 2008 --Resumed--

Floor Speech

DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008--Resumed -- (Senate - October 18, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, my amendment cuts 10 percent of the funding under this bill for programs labeled ``ineffective'' under the OMB--the Office of Management and Budget--PART Program and transfers the funding to an account previously established to pay down the national debt.

Now, I do not believe I am being presumptuous when I say that most of us in this body would like to reduce spending. Where to cut is the question we fight over. So that is where the fight exists. Now, given ballooning Federal spending and the Federal debt, this amendment lets us make an easy choice to cut spending. It has to start with programs that cannot even justify their mission or success internally.

In case you are unfamiliar with the PART Program in general, let me give you some background. When making funding decisions, Members of Congress should consider what they are buying for the taxpayer. Funded programs should be effective and efficient. So the Program Assessment Rating Tool--that is, PART--was put in place by the Congress more than a decade ago. Agencies have had time to work with this program under the Clinton administration as well as the Bush administration. The program directs the agencies to set up measurable goals and objectives, and then the Office of Management and Budget goes in later on and evaluates to see if the agency is actually meeting those goals and objectives.

These detailed program assessments and the evidence on which they are based are available to the public to view. All they have to do is go to www.expectmore.gov. That is the Web page you would go to. It is a very good reference for the public, for Members of Congress, or for any agency to know exactly where they stand as far as their performance standards are concerned.

These assessments represent the combined wisdom of career officials. This is not a political process. These are objective evaluations done by career officials at agencies and OMB, the Office of Management and Budget, and are based on evidence of that program's performance. Programs assessed with the PART receive an overall rating. The best rating they can get is ``effective,'' then it goes to ``moderately effective,'' ``adequate,'' then it goes to ``results not demonstrated,'' and finally to ``ineffective,'' the lowest rating. This amendment tries to address the lowest rating, which is ``ineffective.''

While a program's overall rating should not be the sole determinant of funding, Congress should prioritize funding programs that perform well. Ineffective programs in particular should be scrutinized to determine whether the resources they use could be better spent elsewhere and whether their goals could be achieved through other means.

When determining where to invest resources, Members of Congress can look to the PART Program for important information:

No. 1, does the program address an existing problem, interest, or need? Those that do not should not be funded.

The other question to be asked: Does the program have performance goals that relate to the outcomes the American people want? Those that do not may not be worthwhile investments of taxpayer dollars.

Do independent, rigorous evaluations demonstrate that the program is effective? If not, Congress may want to reconsider whether to fund the program. If evaluations have not been conducted, Congress may want to consider investing some money in an evaluation to determine if the program is having its intended impact.

Is the program working to improve its performance is another question we ask. A program that does not have an improvement plan in place or is not working aggressively to improve may not be the best investment of resources.

Another question: If an increase in funding is requested for a program, has the program explained how the additional funding will affect its performance? Programs that cannot articulate how they will use their resources simply are not the best candidates for investment.

So that is what the PART Program is all about. It is a good program, and it is being implemented more and more throughout the agencies. Some of the PART findings are programs that have been ineffective. I would like to look at a few of those.

Take the Health Professions Program, for example. One study found that only 1.5 percent of the physicians trained by institutions receiving the program's family medicine training grant provided health care in areas with a physician shortage, compared to 1.1 percent of physicians trained by other institutions. So there is only a four-tenths of a percent performance difference. So the question comes up: What is the program accomplishing?

PART found no evidence that the Radiation and Exposure Screening and Education Program reaches the maximum number of beneficiaries or the beneficiaries who are at the greatest risk. There is not even an estimate of the number of people potentially affected by uranium and nuclear testing activities and where they might live.

These are only a few of the programs that have been looked at by the PART Program. They provide the information Members of Congress need to evaluate whether programs are ineffective. Some of these are programs I have supported. I am sure there are programs that are not doing well, and I think we need to take a close look at them. That is all we are asking with this amendment.

The amendment before us addresses a portion of discretionary spending. I ask Members to support this amendment as we deal with discretionary spending areas where the PART Program is being applied. The overall purpose of the amendment is to pay down the Federal debt, currently over $9 trillion, and eliminate Government waste by reducing spending on programs rated ineffective by the Office of Management and Budget PART Program. This is through the career professionals in the agencies. This is not driven by any kind of political agenda.

That is what my amendment is all about, saving taxpayer dollars in a responsible way. It is about forcing managers of these programs to put in effective goals and objectives so that they accomplish what the legislation intended when the Congress passed it. I ask my colleagues to join me in trying to bring forward more accountability in the programs we have passed. This is a wonderful tool we have for whatever administration is in control. This is a direct message to the agencies to get their act in order because we are concerned about how taxpayer dollars are being spent.

It is not an onerous amendment. It is trying to bring accountability to Government programs we have passed.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source