Commission on the Accountability and Review of Federal Agencies (CARFA): A Brief Overview of Legislative Proposals

CRS Report for Congress
Commission on the Accountability
and Review of Federal Agencies (CARFA):
A Brief Overview of Legislative Proposals
Clinton T. Brass
Analyst in American National Government
Government and Finance Division
Summary
In the 109^th Congress, nearly identical bills have been introduced (S. 1155/H.R.
2470) that, if enacted, would establish a 12-member Commission on the Accountability
and Review of Federal Agencies (CARFA). Subsequently, a modified version of the
legislation was introduced (S. 3521, in Title IV, Subtitle B) that would establish a 15-
member Commission on Congressional Budgetary Accountability and Review of
Federal Agencies. In addition, a bill providing for one or more Federal Review
Commissions was introduced (H.R. 5766) that contains provisions that are both similar
to and different from the CARFA legislation in several respects. On July 20, 2006, the
House Committee on Government Reform marked up and ordered H.R. 5766 to be
reported with an amendment, along with H.R. 3282, a bill that would provide for the
automatic termination of agencies unless reauthorized by Congress. The House was to
take up these two bills on July 27, 2006, but the House leadership postponed floor
action. Under each version of the proposed CARFA-related legislation, in a two-party
political system, the majority of commission members would be appointed by members
of the same political party as the sitting President. Each version would require the
commission to review most or all executive agencies and programs to determine if any
are “duplicative,” “wasteful,” “inefficient,” “outdated,” “irrelevant,” or “failed.” The
commission would be required (or in some cases allowed) to recommend that any such
programs and agencies be “realigned” or eliminated. The commission’s
recommendations would be packaged into a bill that would receive expedited
congressional consideration (e.g., could not be amended or filibustered). Potential
issues of congressional interest include the commission’s membership; the scope of the
commission’s review and recommendations; definitions of key terms; standards and
criteria for decision making, including the proposal’s relationship to the Bush
Administration’s Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART); expedited congressional
consideration; and transparency and participation. This report will be updated.

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Legislative History and Developments
In the 109^th Congress, for the third consecutive Congress, companion bills have been
introduced (S. 1155, sponsored by Senator Sam Brownback, and H.R. 2470, sponsored
by Representative Todd Tiahrt, both introduced in May 2005) that, if enacted, would
establish a 12-member Commission on the Accountability and Review of Federal
Agencies (CARFA). Although the two bills are nearly identical to each other, they differ
from one another in some key respects, as discussed elsewhere.¹ After their introduction
and referral to committees, neither S.1155 nor H.R. 2470 has received further action.²
Similar provisions and references to the proposed CARFA legislation have also
appeared elsewhere. Nearly identical provisions to those in S. 1155/H.R. 2470 appeared
in a budget process reform bill (H.R. 2290) and a bill to offset costs from Hurricane
Katrina and Hurricane Rita (S. 1928). In addition, nonbinding provisions in the FY2006
budget resolution (H.Con.Res. 95) called for enacting a CARFA-like commission.
President George W. Bush said in his FY2006 budget that he would propose, as part
of his President’s Management Agenda (PMA),³ legislation authorizing him to propose
“results commissions,” which would consider and revise Administration proposals to
restructure and consolidate programs and agencies. Proposals approved by such a results
commission and the President would be considered by Congress under expedited
procedures. The Administration suggested that the results commissions legislation would
be similar to the CARFA proposal. In July 2005, bills were introduced (H.R. 3276/S.
1399) that largely incorporated the Administration’s draft language, which had been
released in June 2005. Many aspects of the results commissions proposals appear to
resemble presidential reorganization authority under 5 U.S.C. §§ 901-912, which expired
in 1984.⁴ In a subcommittee hearing on H.R. 3276, Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) Deputy Director for Management Clay Johnson III testified that the draft results
commission legislation was proposed, instead of reorganization authority, because the
Administration judged there was “zero chance of [reorganization authority] ever being

¹ The differences between the bills are discussed extensively in CRS Report RL32726, Proposals
for a Commission on the Accountability and Review of Federal Agencies (CARFA): Analysis and^th^th
Issues for Congress, by Clinton T. Brass. In the 107 and 108 Congresses, the Senate and
House bills were identical companion bills (S. 2488/H.R. 5090 and S. 1668/H.R. 3213,
respectively) and introduced by the same sponsors.
² In the 108^th Congress, however, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, Subcommittee
on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia,
held a hearing in May 2004 on almost identical legislation (S. 1668). See U.S. Congress, Senate
Committee on Governmental Affairs, Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management,
the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia, Trimming the Fat: Examining Duplicative^th^nd
and Outdated Federal Programs and Functions, hearing, 108 Cong., 2 sess., May 6, 2004,
S.Hrg.108-672 (Washington: GPO, 2004).
³ For an overview of the PMA, see CRS Report RS21416, The President’s Management Agenda:
A Brief Introduction, by Virginia A. McMurtry.
⁴ For discussion of the expired presidential reorganization authority and its evolution, see CRS
Report RL30876, The President’s Reorganization Authority: Review and Analysis, by Ronald C.
Moe; and CRS Report RL30795, General Management Laws: A Compendium, entry for
“Reorganization Act of 1977, as Amended” in section IV.B. of the report, by Henry B. Hogue.

approved” by Congress.⁵ Provisions in S. 1399 also provided for a “sunset
commission,”⁶ in addition to results commissions. Other than a House Committee on
Government Reform subcommittee hearing on H.R. 3276 in September 2005,⁷ none of
the bills cited above received further action after referrals to committees.
A modified version of the CARFA legislation was included in an omnibus budget
process reform bill that was introduced on June 15, 2006 (S. 3521, in Title IV, Subtitle
B). The legislation would establish a 15-member Commission on Congressional
Budgetary Accountability and Review of Federal Agencies (CCBARFA). These
provisions in S. 3521 differ from the initially introduced versions of CARFA (S.
1155/H.R. 2470) in some key respects, including membership of the commission and
tasks for the President. Also, H.R. 2470 would exempt Department of Defense (DOD)
programs and components from a CARFA commission’s review, whereas S. 3521 (and
S. 1155) would not exempt DOD. On July 14, 2006, S. 3521 was reported by the Senate
Committee on the Budget with an amendment in the nature of a substitute.⁸
In June 2006, provisions related to CARFA (H.R. 2470) and a sunset commission
(provisions from two sunset commission-related bills, H.R. 3277 and H.R. 3282) were
reportedly being negotiated to develop a consensus bill under the coordination of House
Majority Leader John Boehner for inclusion in a measure that was expected to go to the
House floor in early July.⁹ Subsequently, a bill providing for one or more Federal Review
Commissions was introduced (H.R. 5766) on July 12, 2006. After a hearing by the House

⁵ U.S. Congress, House Committee on Government Reform, Subcommittee on the Federal
Workforce and Agency Organization, It’s Time to REACT — Reauthorizing Executive Authority
to Consolidate Task: Establishing Results and Sunset Commissions, hearing on H.R. 3276 and^th^st
H.R. 3277, 109 Cong., 1 sess., Sept. 27, 2005, H.Hrg. 109-111 (Washington: GPO, 2006), p.

46.

⁶ The concept of a “sunset” is that programs and agencies would terminate automatically on a
periodic basis unless reauthorized by law. Reauthorization would require passage by both
chambers and, if the President vetoed the reauthorization, an override of the veto, which would
require a two thirds majority in each chamber of those present and voting. In addition to S. 1399,^th
other bills from the 109 Cong. (H.R. 3277 and H.R. 3282) would establish a sunset commission.
For discussion of how the sunset concept relates to proposals to establish a sunset commission,
see CRS Report RS22181, A Sunset Commission for the Federal Government: Recent
Developments, by Virginia A. McMurtry; and CRS Report RL32726, Proposals for a
Commission on the Accountability and Review of Federal Agencies (CARFA): Analysis and
Issues for Congress, by Clinton T. Brass.
⁷ See U.S. Congress, House Committee on Government Reform, Subcommittee on the Federal
Workforce and Agency Organization, It’s Time to REACT — Reauthorizing Executive Authority
to Consolidate Task: Establishing Results and Sunset Commissions. For discussion, see also
CRS Report RL32726, Proposals for a Commission on the Accountability and Review of Federal
Agencies (CARFA): Analysis and Issues for Congress, by Clinton T. Brass.
⁸ U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Budget, The Stop Over Spending Act of 2006, report
to accompany S. 3521, 109^th Cong., 2^nd sess., S.Rept. 109-283 (Washington: GPO, 2006).
⁹ Ralph Lindeman, “Sunset Bills Pending in House, Senate Borrow Procedures Used in Base
Closings,” BNA Daily Report for Executives, June 16, 2006; and Ralph Lindeman, “Sunset^th
Legislation in House May Wait Until After July 4 Recess, House Aide Says,” BNA Daily Report
for Executives, June 20, 2006; both available (with subscription) at [http://www.bna.com].

Committee on Government Reform on July 19, 2006, the committee marked up and
ordered to be reported H.R. 5766 with an amendment in the nature of a substitute on July
20, 2006 (specifying additional duties for a Federal Review Commission to consider
various aspects of agency regulations). In addition, H.R. 3282 was ordered to be
reported.¹⁰ According to a press account, the House of Representatives would take up
H.R. 5766 along with H.R. 3282 on July 27, 2006.¹¹ House leadership postponed floor
action on both bills, however, reportedly in the face of opposition from Democrats,
Republican moderates, and some Republican appropriators.¹²
Brief Analysis and Overview of Legislative Provisions
Although some commentators have referred to the CARFA-related legislation as
providing for a “sunset” commission, the CARFA-related provisions do not use the sunset
concept of automatic termination of agencies and programs on a periodic basis unless the
agencies or programs are reauthorized by law. Instead, the CARFA-related proposals
would establish a commission that, in turn, would develop legislation, to be considered
by Congress under expedited procedures, that provides for the “realignment” or
elimination of agencies and programs that the commission decides fit certain criteria. The
legislation’s proponents have seen this mechanism as being analogous to the base
realignment and closure (BRAC) process that has been used for military installations.
However, there are a number of significant differences between the BRAC process and
CARFA proposals, as discussed elsewhere.¹³
If S. 3521 or either of the initially introduced versions of the CARFA legislation
(i.e., S. 1155/H.R. 2470) were enacted, the majority of commission members would, in
a two-party political system, be appointed by members of the same political party as the
sitting President (9 out of 15 under S. 3521; 8 out of 12 under S. 1155; and all 12 under
H.R. 2470).¹⁴ Each of the three versions of CARFA would require the commission to (1)
review most or all executive agencies and programs,¹⁵ according to listed but sometimes

¹⁰ For discussion, see CRS Report RS22181, A Sunset Commission for the Federal Government:
Recent Developments, Virginia A. McMurtry.
¹¹ Ralph Lindeman, “Sunset Bills Move Through Committee With Floor Vote in House Set for
July 27,” BNA Daily Report for Executives, July 21, 2006; available (with subscription) at
[http://www.bna.com]. For a comparison of the two measures, see CRS Report RL33569, Sunset
and Program Review Commission Bills in the 109th Congress: Comparing H.R. 3282 and H.R.

5766, by Virginia A. McMurtry.

¹² Steven T. Dennis, “Sun May be Setting on Tiahrt and Brady Sunset Bills,” CQ Today, July 27,

2006, available at [http://www.cq.com].

¹³ See CRS Report RL32726, Proposals for a Commission on the Accountability and Review of
Federal Agencies (CARFA): Analysis and Issues for Congress, by Clinton T. Brass.
¹⁴ However, individuals with appointing authority under the legislation could choose members
of another, or no, political party for these commission member positions.
¹⁵ The different versions of CARFA would provide alternative scopes of review for a CARFA
commission. S. 1155 and S. 3521 would include within the commission’s scope of review all
“Executive agenc[ies],” as defined in 5 U.S.C. § 105, and, in addition, would explicitly include
the Executive Office of the President (EOP). It is noteworthy that the definition of “Executive
(continued...)

undefined criteria; and (2) submit to Congress a plan (or, for S. 3521, four plans over four
years) with recommendations to “realign” or eliminate agencies and programs, along with
proposed legislation to implement the plan(s). Each version of the proposed CARFA
legislation would require the commission to determine if any agencies or programs are
“duplicative,” “wasteful,” “inefficient,” “outdated,” “irrelevant,” or “failed.” The
commission would be required (or in some cases allowed) to recommend that any such
programs and agencies be realigned or eliminated. None of the bills defines “realign.”
In addition, each of these three versions of CARFA-related legislation would require
“systematic assessment of programs” by the President, using language that appears to be
modeled upon the George W. Bush Administration’s Program Assessment Rating Tool
(PART) without specifically requiring the PART’s use,¹⁶ and require the commission to
consider the President’s assessments when evaluating programs. Also, in all the bills, the
commission’s proposed legislation would receive expedited congressional consideration,
thereby prohibiting amendments in either chamber and filibusters in the Senate.
Proponents of different versions of CARFA have often compared the proposal to the
BRAC commissions that focused on military installations,¹⁷ except that the proposed
CARFA legislation would focus on most or all agencies and programs of the rest of the
executive branch of government. Proponents have also argued that the mechanism would
eliminate ineffective or outdated programs,¹⁸ address “out of control” spending, and move
“toward balancing the budget.”¹⁹ Critics of different versions of CARFA have argued the
proposal would give too much power to the President and, in a two-party political system,
to the political party of the sitting President to reorganize, eliminate, or cut government
agencies and programs outside the regular legislative process while prohibiting
amendments and Senate filibusters. Critics argue that this would allow large policy and

¹⁵ (...continued)
agency” under 5 U.S.C. § 105 also includes the Government Accountability Office (GAO), a
legislative branch agency. GAO would also, therefore, be within the commission’s scope of
review. By contrast, H.R. 2470 would include all executive agencies, as defined in 5 U.S.C. §
105, but would exclude the Department of Defense and “any agency that solely administers
entitlement programs.” H.R. 2470 would not include the EOP.
¹⁶ For discussion of the PART, see CRS Report RL32663, The Bush Administration’s Program
Assessment Rating Tool (PART), by Clinton T. Brass; and CRS Report RL33301, Congress and
Program Evaluation: An Overview of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) and Related Issues,
by Clinton T. Brass.
¹⁷ For background, see CRS Report 97-305, Military Base Closures: A Historical Review from
1988 to 1995, by David E. Lockwood and George Siehl; and CRS Report RS22291, Military
Base Closures: Highlights of the 2005 BRAC Commission Report and Proposed Legislation, by
Daniel Else and David Lockwood.
¹⁸ U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, Subcommittee on Oversight of
Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia, Trimming the
Fat: Examining Duplicative and Outdated Federal Programs and Functions, p. 29.
¹⁹ See remarks of Sen. Sam Brownback as transcribed in “Senate Republicans Hold News
Conference on the Budget Process,” June 14, 2006, available at [http://www.cq.com].

organizational changes to take place with simple majorities in both chambers and
signature of the President.²⁰
There are several similarities and differences between the CARFA-related proposals
and H.R. 5766 (as ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute
by the House Committee on Government Reform), some of which are discussed here.
Whereas the CARFA proposals would create a single commission, H.R. 5766 would
authorize the establishment of one or more Federal Review Commissions, without
limitation as to number, by executive order from the President or enactment of a joint
resolution by Congress. In this way, H.R. 5766 resembles the Administration’s proposal
for “results commissions” and provisions in H.R. 3276/S. 1399, discussed earlier. The
membership of a Federal Review Commission would be appointed by the President, with
four of seven members appointed “in consultation with” congressional leaders. If these
consultations resulted in the President appointing the commission member recommended
by a congressional leader, then, as with the CARFA proposals, in a two-party political
system, the majority of each Federal Review Commission’s membership would be
appointed, in effect, by members of the same political party as the sitting President.
Another difference between H.R. 5766 and the CARFA proposals is that H.R. 5766
does not provide for how a Federal Review Commission’s legislative proposal “to
reorganize, consolidate, abolish, expand, or transfer the Federal programs and agencies
reviewed by the Commission” would be considered in the Senate. This section was left
blank, apparently in anticipation of Senate consideration and amendment of H.R. 5766.
Other differences between the CARFA proposals and the proposed authority to
establish Federal Review Commissions include: in H.R. 5766, a duty for the President to
“submit to Congress a schedule under which Federal Review Commissions shall be
established to review all Federal agencies and programs,” which has no analog in the
CARFA proposals; in H.R. 5766, different and less detailed criteria for a commission’s
recommendations; in H.R. 5766, explicit reference to a duty to consider an agency’s
“existing rules promulgated by the agencies to carry out the programs”; and, in H.R. 5766,
absence of language that appears to call for use of the Administration’s PART.
Under H.R. 5766, the scope of review of a Federal Review Commission includes “all
Federal agencies.” According to the bill’s definition of “agency” in the proposed Section
1001(k), the scope of review would be the definition of agency that was operative under
presidential reorganization authority (5 U.S.C. § 902(1)), which expired in 1984. As
noted earlier, the CARFA proposals would provide for differing scopes within the
executive branch, using the definition provided at 5 U.S.C. § 105 as the base definition,
which also includes the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
For more extensive analysis of CARFA-related proposals, see CRS Report RL32726,
Proposals for a Commission on the Accountability and Review of Federal Agencies
(CARFA): Analysis and Issues for Congress, by Clinton T. Brass.

²⁰ See James Horney, Sunset Commission Proposals Would Not Provide “Good Government,”
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, June 16, 2006, available at
[ h t t p : / / www.cbpp.or g/ 6-16-06bud.ht m] .