The Library of Congress  >  THOMAS Home  >  Committee Reports  >  Search Results

49-006

109TH CONGRESS

REPT. 109-594

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

2d Session

Part 1

--GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY ACT OF 2006

JULY 24, 2006- Ordered to be printed

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia, from the Committee on Government Reform, submitted the following

R E P O R T

together with

MINORITY VIEWS

[To accompany H.R. 5766]

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

CONTENTS Page
Committee Statement and Views 6
Purpose and Summary 6
Background and Need for Legislation 6
Section-by-Section 8
Explanation of Amendments 9
Committee Consideration 9
Rollcall Votes 10
Application of Law to the Legislative Branch 11
Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the Committee 11
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives 11
Constitutional Authority Statement 11
Federal Advisory Committee Act 11
Unfunded Mandate Statement 11
Committee Estimate 12
Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate 12
Correspondence 14
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill as Reported 16
Minority Views 22

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF FEDERAL REVIEW COMMISSIONS.

`CHAPTER 10--FEDERAL REVIEW COMMISSIONS

`Sec.
`1001. Establishment of Federal Review Commissions.
`1002. Expedited Congressional consideration of Federal Review Commission recommendations.
`1003. Schedule for review of all Federal agencies and programs.
`1004. Administrative matters.

`Sec. 1001. Establishment of Federal Review Commissions

`Sec. 1002. Expedited Congressional consideration of Federal Review Commission recommendations

`Sec. 1003. Schedule for review of all Federal agencies and programs

`Sec. 1004. Administrative matters

`10. Federal Review Commissions 1001'.

COMMITTEE STATEMENT AND VIEWS

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

On July 12, 2006, Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-KS) introduced H.R. 5766 to provide for the establishment of Federal Review Commissions to review and make recommendations on improving the operations, effectiveness, and efficiency of Federal programs and agencies, and to require a schedule for such reviews of all Federal agencies and programs.

The legislation would authorize the establishment of a bipartisan `Federal Review Commission' to study whether a specific aspect of federal government operations would function more efficiently and effectively if some or all of the relevant federal programs and agencies were reorganized, consolidated, abolished, expanded, or transferred. Legislative proposals drafted by the bipartisan commissions would then be considered in Congress pursuant to expedited procedures.

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

The Committee on Government Reform has conducted eight hearings since Rep. Tom Davis took over as Chairman in 2003 to discuss the need for a legislative tool that would authorize limited reorganizations of the executive branch intended to improve the operations and effectiveness of the federal government. Four hearings have been held to discuss the need for legislation to address overlap and duplication governmentwide, and four `case study' hearings have been held to assess the extent of overlap and duplication in specific areas of federal operations. A list of the hearings follows:

July 19, 2006: Full Committee hearing entitled `Cutting Out the Waste: An Overview of H.R. 5766, the Government Efficiency Act, and H.R. 3282, The Abolishment of Obsolete Agencies and Federal Sunset Act of 2005'. Witnesses included bill sponsors Reps. Todd Tiahrt and Kevin Brady, James Horney from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and Charles Loveless from the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees.

September 27, 2005: Federal Workforce and Agency Organization Subcommittee hearing entitled `It's Time to REACT--Reauthorizing Executive Authority to Consolidate Task: Establishing Results and Sunset Commissions.' Witnesses included Clay Johnson from the Office of Management and Budget, Paul Light from New York University, Tom Schatz from the Citizens Against Government Waste, Maurice McTigue from the Mercatus Center, and Robert Shull from OMB Watch.

May 17, 2005: Federal Workforce and Agency Organization Subcommittee hearing entitled `Question: What's More Scrambled than an Egg? Answer: The Federal Food Inspection System.' Witnesses included Robert Robinson from the Government Accountability Office, Robert Brackett from the Food and Drug Administration, Merle Pierson from the Department of Agriculture, Susan Hazen from the Environmental Protection Agency, and Richard Cano from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

August 3, 2004: Full Committee hearing entitled `Moving from a `Need to Know' to a `Need to Share': A Review of the 9/11 Commission's Recommendations.' Witnesses included Bob Kerrey and John Lehman from the 9/11 Commission, David Walker from the Government Accountability Office, and Paul Light from the Brookings Institute, and other witnesses.

March 30, 2004: Federal Workforce and Agency Organization Subcommittee hearing entitled `A System Rued: Inspecting Food.' Witnesses included Lawrence Dyckman from the Government Accountability Office, Robert Brackett from the Food and Drug Administration, Merle Pierson from the Department of Agriculture, Dan Glickman formerly from the Department of Agriculture, and Caroline Smith DeWaal from the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

May 20, 2003: Full Committee hearing entitled `Redundancy and Duplication in Child Welfare Programs: A Case Study on the Need for Executive Reorganization Authority.' Witnesses included Rep. Tom DeLay, Wade Horn from the Department of Health and Human Services, Robert Flores from the Department of Justice, and Colien Hefferan from the Department of Agriculture.

April 3, 2003: Full Committee hearing entitled `Toward a Logical Governing Structure: Restoring Executive Reorganization Authority.' Witnesses included Rep. Tom DeLay, David Walker from the Government Accountability Office, Nancy Dorn from the Office of Management and Budget, Dwight Ink from the Institute of Public Administration, Paul Light from the Brookings Institute, Colleen Kelley from the National Treasury Employees Union, and Mark Roth from the American Federation of Government Employees.

March 6, 2003: Full Committee hearing entitled `From Reorganization to Recruitment: Bring the Federal Government into the 21st Century.' Witnesses included Paul Volcker, Frank Carlucci, and Donna Shalala from the National Commission on the Public Service.

H.R. 5766, the Government Efficiency Act, is the result of the investigation conducted by the Committee over the past three and a half years into the existence of overlap and duplication in the federal government. It is intended to be a tool to assist the Congress and the President in identifying solutions to streamlining government operations in order to make them as efficient and effective as possible.

Two important aspects of H.R. 5766 are important to bear in mind. First, each Federal Review Commission would be composed of a bipartisan group of commissioners, a majority of which would represent the interests of Congress. Specifically, a Commission would be composed of seven voting members, three chosen by the President and four based on recommendations made by the House and Senate majority and minority leaders. Additionally, up to four Members of Congress--two from each chamber--could serve as ex officio Members of a Commission. Second, H.R. 5766 would provide multiple opportunities for Congress to weigh in, reject, or revise a proposal submitted by a Federal Review Commission. In short, the Government Efficiency Act would force Members of Congress to debate proposals to realign government operations but Congress would retain control of the outcome of such proposal. These changes represent a significant shift away from prior proposals

to establish review commissions to assist Congress determining how to most effectively improve the operations and efficiency of the federal government.

SECTION-BY-SECTION

Section 1. Short title

This section provides the short title of H.R. 5766 as the `Government Efficiency Act of 2006.'

Section 2. Establishment of Federal Review Commissions

This section would amend Part I of title 5, United States Code, by adding the following new chapter 10, entitled `Federal Review Commissions':

Section 1001. Establishment of Federal Review Commissions

This section would authorize the establishment of Federal Review Commissions as follows:

Establishment of a Federal Review Commission. This legislation would authorize the President to issue an executive order or the Congress to pass a joint resolution to establish a Federal Review Commission to study whether a specific aspect of federal government operations would function more efficiently and effectively if some or all of the relevant federal programs and agencies were reorganized, consolidated, abolished, expanded, or transferred. A bipartisan Federal Review Commission would be composed of 7 Members, appointed by the President, 3 of which would be selected by the President, and 4 of which would be appointed after consultation with the majority and minority leadership of the House and Senate (one commissioner appointed after consultation with each congressional leader).

Proposal by Federal Review Commission. Within 1 year after establishment by executive order or joint resolution, the Federal Review Commission would submit to the President its assessment of the specific federal programs and agencies reviewed by the Commission as well as any legislation necessary to realign, continue, consolidate, terminate, or enhance the federal agencies and programs reviewed by the Commission. Within 30 days of receipt from the Commission, the President would transmit the assessment and proposal to Congress.

Section 1002. Expedited congressional consideration of Federal Review Commission recommendations

Introduction, Referral of Legislative Proposal. Upon transmission of legislation proposed by a Commission to Congress, the Majority Leader or his designee in the House and the Majority Leader or his designee in the Senate would introduce a resolution approving the legislation proposed by the Commission.

Congressional Committee Consideration. The committee of jurisdiction would have 30 legislative days within which to act on the resolution, with the following possible outcomes:

(1) Committee reports favorably without amendment. See expedited consideration below.

(2) Committee reports favorably with amendment. The resolution would be scheduled for floor consideration under regular order rather than expedited consideration.

(3) Committee reports unfavorably, with or without amendment, or reports without recommendation. The resolution would be scheduled for floor consideration under regular order rather than expedited consideration.

(4) Committee fails to report. See expedited consideration below.

Expedited Congressional Consideration. If the committee fails to report the resolution within 30 legislative days, a privileged motion would be in order to consider the resolution. The Speaker would be required to schedule consideration of the motion within two legislative days of the filing of the motion to proceed, except that the motion would no longer be in order if the House otherwise moves to dispose of the motion (e.g. the Rules Committee reports a rule to provide for consideration of the resolution that tables the motion). A conference could occur if the House and Senate pass different versions of the resolution.

Section 1003. Schedule of review of all Federal agencies and programs

Sunset Process and Schedule Requirement. Within one year of the date of enactment of this Act, the President would be required to submit to Congress a schedule under which Federal Review Commissions would be established to review all federal agencies. The President's review schedule would be considered pursuant to the congressional committee consideration and expedited congressional procedures below.

Section 1004. Administrative matters

Relocation of Federal Employees. If the position of an employee of an agency is eliminated as a result of the abolishment of an agency in accordance with this Act, there shall be a reasonable effort to relocate such employee to a position within another agency.

Deficit Reduction. Any savings that result from the elimination, consolidation, or reorganization of programs under this Act shall revert to the Treasury for the sole purpose of reducing the federal deficit.

EXPLANATION OF AMENDMENTS

The Committee accepted a substitute amendment offered by the Chairman, the provisions of which are explained in the descriptive portions of this report.

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On Wednesday, July 19, 2006, the Committee held a hearing entitled `Cutting Out the Waste: An Overview of H.R. 5766, the Government Efficiency Act, and H.R. 3282, The Abolishment of Obsolete Agencies and Federal Sunset Act of 2005'. The purpose of the hearing was to provide Members of the Committee on Government Reform an opportunity to discuss the proposals with their sponsors. Witnesses included bill sponsors Reps. Todd Tiahrt and Kevin Brady, James Horney from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and Charles Loveless from the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees.

On Thursday, July 20, 2006, the Committee met in open session and ordered reported favorably the bill, H.R. 5766, as amended, by a roll call vote of 15-12.

Insert graphic folio 13 HR594.001

APPLICATION OF LAW TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

Section 102(b)(3) of Public Law 104-1 requires a description of the application of this bill to the legislative branch where the bill relates to the terms and conditions of employment or access to public services and accommodations. This bill provides for the establishment of Federal Review Commissions to review and make recommendations on improving the operations, effectiveness, and efficiency of Federal programs and agencies, and to require a schedule for such reviews of all Federal agencies and programs. As such this bill does not relate to employment or access to public services and accommodations.

Legislative branch employees and their families, to the extent that they are otherwise eligible for the benefits provided by this legislation, have equal access to its benefits.

STATEMENT OF OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause (2)(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee's oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the descriptive portions of this report.

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

In accordance with clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee's performance goals and objectives are reflected in the descriptive portions of this report.

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Under clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee must include a statement citing the specific powers granted to Congress to enact the law proposed by H.R. 5766. Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of the Constitution of the United States grants the Congress the power to enact this law.

FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. App., Section 5(b), the Committee finds that the legislation does not establish or authorize the establishment of an advisory committee whose functions could be performed by one or more agencies or by an advisory committee already in existence, or by enlarging the mandate of an existing advisory committee. The commissions authorized to be established pursuant to this legislation are explained in the descriptive portions of this report.

UNFUNDED MANDATE STATEMENT

Section 423 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act (as amended by Section 101(a)(2) of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act, P.L. 104-4) requires a statement whether the provisions of the reported bill include unfunded mandates. In compliance with this requirement the Committee has received a letter from the Congressional Budget Office included herein.

COMMITTEE ESTIMATE

Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the Committee of the costs that would be incurred in carrying out H.R. 5766. However, clause 3(d)(3)(B) of that rule provides that this requirement does not apply when the Committee has included in its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act.

BUDGET AUTHORITY AND CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect to requirements of clause (3)(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate for H.R. 5766 from the Director of Congressional Budget Office:

July 24, 2006.

Hon. TOM DAVIS,
Chairman, Committee on Government Reform,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 5766, the Government Efficiency Act of 2006.

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Matthew Pickford.

Sincerely,

Donald B. Marron

Acting Director.

Enclosure.

H.R. 5766--Government Efficiency Act of 2006

H.R. 5766 would authorize the President (through executive orders) and the Congress (through joint resolutions) to create Federal Review Commissions to review the performance and effectiveness of federal programs and agencies. The bill also would provide fast-track legislative authority for Congressional action on any recommendations resulting from those reviews. The legislative recommendations could include the reorganization, consolidation, abolishment, expansion, or transfer of the programs and agencies reviewed. Each commission, consisting of seven voting members and up to four ex-officio members, would be appointed by the President in consultation with the Congress. Members would serve without pay but would be reimbursed for travel expenses. The commissions could hire staff or use personnel from other agencies. The commissions would terminate 90 days after submitting their final report and legislative recommendations.

The costs of creating review commissions would vary depending on the number of agencies and programs reviewed, the level of detail involved, and the depth of the analysis. CBO expects that complying with the bill's provisions would increase costs that are subject to the availability of appropriations. CBO has no basis to estimate the number of commissions that might be established under H.R. 5766. In recent years, the cost for commissions has ranged from $1 million for the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security to about $12 million for the Base Realignment and Closure Commission. Thus, such costs could total at least a few million dollars a year, and possibly significantly more if the President and the Congress make extensive use of such review commissions. Any budgetary impacts from implementing the commissions' recommendations would depend on enactment of future legislation.

Enacting the bill would not affect direct spending or revenues. H.R. 5766 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments.

On July 11, 2006, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for S. 3521, the Stop Over Spending Act of 2006, as ordered reported by the Senate Committee on the Budget on June 22, 2006. On September 27, 2005, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for S. 1399, the Government Reorganization and Program Performance Improvement Act of 2005, as introduced on July 14, 2005. Those bills also dealt with the review of federal agencies and programs but have different provisions. CBO's cost estimates reflect those differences.

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Matthew Pickford. This estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

Insert graphic folio 19 HR594.002

Insert graphic folio 20 HR594.003

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE

* * * * * * *

PART I--THE AGENCIES GENERALLY

Chapter Sec.
1.
Organization
101
* * * * * * *
10.
Federal Review Commissions
1001
* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 10--FEDERAL REVIEW COMMISSIONS

Sec.
1001. Establishment of Federal Review Commissions.
1002. Expedited Congressional consideration of Federal Review Commission recommendations.
1003. Schedule for review of all Federal agencies and programs.
1004. Administrative matters.

Sec. 1001. Establishment of Federal Review Commissions

Sec. 1002. Expedited Congressional consideration of Federal Review Commission recommendations

Sec. 1003. Schedule for review of all Federal agencies and programs

Sec. 1004. Administrative matters

* * * * * * *

MINORITY VIEWS

We strongly oppose H.R. 5766. This bill would create partisan commissions empowered to propose eliminating or privatizing critical government programs and require that those proposals be considered by Congress under expedited procedures. This bill is a backdoor attack on important federal programs that support our most vulnerable citizens, including seniors, children, and the disabled. Under this bill, any program the President did not like could be put on the chopping block under fast-track procedures.

For example, the President has tried repeatedly to cut heating assistance for low-income families. The Tiahrt bill is the perfect vehicle for forcing such a change through Congress. The President has tried repeatedly to slash health care for veterans. Again, the Tiahrt bill is the perfect vehicle for these changes. Not even Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid would be immune from attack under this bill.

Supporters of this bill talk about the importance of cutting government waste and eliminating unnecessary programs, but no one has done more to root out waste, fraud, and corruption in government than the Democratic members of the Government Reform Committee. At hearing after hearing, we have exposed billions in wasteful government spending. If the Republican leadership were serious about preventing waste, fraud, and abuse, they would join with us in demanding an end to Halliburton's billion-dollar contracts in Iraq, a prohibition on sweetheart no-bid contracts, and genuine oversight and accountability.

But this bill isn't really about oversight and accountability. What it does is create a legislative vehicle for undermining our nation's health and environmental laws and shrinks the social safety net.

Over the last five years, the White House has significantly encroached upon the power of Congress. H.R. 5766 would make this problem far worse. It would aggrandize the executive branch at the expense of the legislative branch.

It's this Committee's job to conduct oversight over the federal agencies. This bill gives this role to partisan commissions dominated by Presidential appointees. Then, to compound the problem, it empowers these executive branch commissions to send a limitless number of fast-track legislative proposals to Congress. In effect, this bill would let these Presidential commissions dictate our legislative priorities.

This bill is also eerily reminiscent of the Grace Commission established in the 1980s by President Reagan. One of the Grace Commission recommendations was an overhaul of the military and civil service retirement systems to make people work longer and, in effect, reduce benefits. Another proposal would have capped the growth of Medicare and Medicaid and converted them to private-sector programs. Similar proposals could be sent to Congress under fast-track procedures under H.R. 5766.

Individuals representing corporate interests were placed on Grace Commission task forces to examine the very agencies that regulated their corporations. For example, virtually all of the 68 members on the panel studying the Environmental Protection Agency came from corporations that had been targets of that agency's enforcement efforts. Under H.R. 5766, we could again see such a blatant substitution of corporate interests for the public interest.

Supporters of this bill cite `government overlap' to justify the legislation. Overlaps in federal programs are real and should be reviewed by Congress. But executive branch oversight is a congressional responsibility that Congress has fundamentally failed to meet in recent years. These bills reflect further abdication of Congress' oversight duties. The last thing this President needs is another opportunity to usurp congressional authority and appoint favored cronies and corporate lobbyists to powerful commissions charged with overseeing our most important health and safety programs.
Henry A. Waxman.
Tom Lantos.
Major R. Owens.
Carolyn B. Maloney.
Elijah E. Cummings.
Dennis J. Kucinich.
Wm. Lacy Clay.
Diane E. Watson.
Stephen F. Lynch.
Chris Van Hollen.
Brian Higgins.
Eleanor Holmes Norton.