PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · May 25, 1993
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 - Amends Federal law to require the head of each agency to submit to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Congress a strategic plan for performance goals of program activities. Requires the inclusion of performance plans in the President's budget. Directs the Director to require each agency to submit annual performance plans covering each program activity set forth in the agency's budget. Requires the head of each agency to submit to the President and the Congress a report on program performance for the previous fiscal year. Authorizes the Director to exempt any agency with annual outlays of $20 million or less from strategic and performance plan reporting requirements. Allows performance plans to include proposals to waive administrative procedural requirements and controls in return for specific individual or organization accountability to achieve a performance goal. Outlines proposal requirements. Requires the Director to designate: (1) not fewer than ten agencies (representing a range of Government functions) as pilot projects in performance measurement; (2) not fewer than five agencies (selected from agencies in performance measurement pilot projects) as pilot projects in managerial accountability and flexibility; and (3) not fewer than five agencies (selected from agencies in performance measurement pilot projects) as pilot projects in performance budgeting. Requires the Director, as an alternative budget presentation in the budget for FY 1999, to include the performance budgets of the designated agencies for this fiscal year. Directs the Office of Personnel Management to develop a strategic planning and performance measurement training component for its management training program and otherwise provide managers with an orientation on the development and use of strategic planning and program performance measurement.
People & committees
Rep. Conyers, John, Jr. [D-MI-14] · D–MI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H2767-2771)
Ms. Maloney moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Government Operations. H. Rept. 103-106, Part I.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Government Operations. H. Rept. 103-106, Part I.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended).
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Legislation and National Security.
Referred to the House Committee on Rules.
Referred to the House Committee on Government Operations.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E278-279, E301-302)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Feb 4, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.826 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.826 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.826 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.826 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.