If there is a single theme that characterizes the public sector in the 1990s, it is the demand for performance. A mantra has emerged in this decade, heard at all levels of government, that calls for documentation of performance and explicit outcomes of government action. While this demand has emerged from governors' offices, state legislatures, and city and country governments, perhaps no activity better embodies this request than the federal Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993, the legislation that has structured expectations for performance-based management in the federal government (see Radin 1998). The law that was enacted in August 1993 had its origins in legislation introduced by Republican Senator William Roth in 1990. Until Clinton's election in 1992, the legislation remained in the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs. However, with the blessing of the Democratic White House, the legislation sailed through both houses of Congress with overwhelming bipartisan support. Despite the breadth of support, there was very little real debate over its provisions, and the legislation that was enacted was framed in very general and often abstract terms. The final bill contained little more than the good government rhetoric familiar to students of public administration. The appropriations and authorizing committees, believed to be major users of the information generated by the law, gave little—if any—attention to the requirements.