Executive Branch Reorganization Initiatives
During the 112th Congress: A Brief Overview
Henry B. Hogue
Analyst in American National Government
May 26, 2011
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41841
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
Executive Branch Reorganization Initiatives During the 112th Congress: A Brief Overview
Summary
President Barack Obama announced, in his State of the Union address, that his
Administration would be proposing a reorganization of executive branch agencies. On March
11, 2011, the President issued a memorandum to the heads of departments and executive branch
agencies providing further detail and direction on the development of a reorganization plan. The
Deputy Director for Management (DDM) at the Office of Management and Budget was given the
responsibility for “leading the effort to create a plan” for executive branch reorganization, with a
“first focus … on the executive departments and agencies and the functions that support one of
our most important priorities—increasing trade, exports, and our overall competitiveness (‘trade
and competitiveness’).” The DDM is to submit related recommendations, based on specified
principles, to the President within 90 days of the memorandum’s issuance (i.e., by June 9, 2011).
A number of bills with reorganization-related provisions have been introduced in the House and
Senate during the 112th Congress. Some of these provisions would defund or abolish specified
government programs and agencies (e.g., H.R. 1, H.R. 861, H.R. 672, and S. 162). Some
introduced bills would merge existing agencies and their functions or consolidate programs (e.g.,
H.R. 1782, S. 892, and S. 945). Other bills would establish bipartisan commissions that would
evaluate current organizational arrangements and develop legislation that would be considered by
Congress under expedited procedures (e.g., H.R. 155 and S. 14). Still other bills would make
changes to organizational arrangements that were newly established by the 111th Congress, such
as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Independent Payment Advisory Board (e.g.,
H.R. 557, H.R. 1355, H.R. 1121, S. 737, H.R. 452, and S. 668).
The context within which the Obama Administration and Congress are proposing and considering
changes to the federal bureaucracy is shaped by a number of factors. These factors include
heightened concerns about the federal debt, the deficit, job creation, and economic recovery;
controversy related to financial regulatory and health care financing-related agencies established
by legislation enacted during the 111th Congress; a belief, among some, that the federal
government should be smaller and more efficient; and a perception that some agencies have failed
to fulfill their responsibilities.
Constitutionally, the establishment and organization of governmental entities, such as
departments and agencies, is the province of Congress. The President has often played a
leadership role in reorganization of the executive branch by transmitting proposals and
advocating legislative action in public statements and private negotiations. In the past, Congress
has provided the President with greater leverage to statutorily change executive branch
organizational arrangements by enacting time-limited expedited reorganization processes.
Presidents and their political appointees also have a variety of administrative tools at their
disposal for making smaller-scale structural and process organizational changes.
This report describes the ways that executive branch reorganization can occur as a result of
Administration and congressional actions, and describes recent initiatives in the context of that
typology. The report concludes with some observations regarding federal reorganization efforts.
This report will be updated as warranted by events.
Congressional Research Service
Executive Branch Reorganization Initiatives During the 112th Congress: A Brief Overview
Contents
Executive Branch Initiatives........................................................................................................ 2
The Authority of the President............................................................................................... 4
Redelegation of Authorities Vested in the President ......................................................... 5
Presidential Reorganization Authority ............................................................................. 5
The Authority of Agency Heads ............................................................................................ 6
Delineated Secretarial Authority...................................................................................... 7
Congressional Responses to Particular Agency Head Actions .......................................... 8
General Limits on Reorganizations in Specific Agencies ................................................. 8
Reorganization Through Interagency Coordination................................................................ 9
Congressional Initiatives ........................................................................................................... 11
Statutory Reorganization ..................................................................................................... 11
Congressional Initiatives in the 112th Congress .................................................................... 12
Other Proposals and Recommendations..................................................................................... 14
2010 Fiscal Commission Recommendations ........................................................................ 14
Heritage Foundation Recommendations .............................................................................. 15
Center for American Progress Recommendations ................................................................ 16
Government Accountability Office Report on Duplicative Programs.................................... 16
Concluding Observations .......................................................................................................... 17
Reorganization: An Administrative and Political Process ..................................................... 18
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 19
Congressional Research Service
Executive Branch Reorganization Initiatives During the 112th Congress: A Brief Overview
n January 25, 2011, President Barack Obama announced, in his State of the Union
address, that his Administration would be proposing a reorganization of executive
O branch agencies. He stated,
We live and do business in the Information Age, but the last major reorganization of the
government happened in the age of black-and-white TV. There are 12 different agencies that
deal with exports. There are at least five different agencies that deal with housing policy.
Then there’s my favorite example: The Interior Department is in charge of salmon while
they’re in fresh water, but the Commerce Department handles them when they’re in
saltwater…. I hear it gets even more complicated once they’re smoked….
Now, we’ve made great strides over the last two years in using technology and getting rid of
waste. Veterans can now download their electronic medical records with a click of the
mouse. We’re selling acres of federal office space that hasn’t been used in years, and we’ll
cut through red tape to get rid of more. But we need to think bigger. In the coming months,
my administration will develop a proposal to merge, consolidate, and reorganize the federal
government in a way that best serves the goal of a more competitive America. I will submit
that proposal to Congress for a vote, and we will push to get it passed.1
A White House press release concerning the address suggested that the Administration might seek
statutory authority to design and carry out such reorganizations under an expedited process:
The President announced that, in the coming months, he will ask for the authority to merge,
consolidate, and reorganize the Federal Government in a way that makes America more
competitive—the first such reorganization in half a century.2
This text appears to be referring to statutory presidential reorganization authority similar to that
granted by Congress at various times during the 20th century.3 This authority, currently dormant,
allowed the President to present reorganization plans to Congress under an expedited process.4
The Obama Administration initiative to reorganize federal agencies is the most recent in a long
series of reorganization efforts, and represents one method by which government reorganization
can be accomplished. As used in this report, reorganization means the “purposeful (intended)
changes in purpose, functions, procedures, assignments, and relationships in organizations.”5 It
involves more than just structural rearrangement of organizational units and personnel, and can
occur within agencies as well as among two or more agencies. Government reorganizations can
also entail changes in interagency processes or the distribution of resources and functions among
agencies.
Primary constitutional responsibility for the organization of the executive branch of the federal
government, as well as the creation of the principal components of that branch, rests with
1 U.S. President (Obama), “Address Before a Joint Session of the Congress on the State of the Union,” Daily
Compilation of Presidential Documents, (January 25, 2011), pp. 8-9.
2 U.S. White House, Office of the Press Secretary, “FACT SHEET: The State of the Union: President Obama’s Plan to
Win the Future,” January 25, 2011, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/01/25/fact-sheet-state-union-
president-obamas-plan-win-future.
3 The most recent version of the authority, now dormant, is codified at 5 U.S.C. § 9901 et seq.
4 The history of the authority and its uses is discussed in greater detail below.
5 Government Reorganizations: Cases and Commentary, ed. Frederick C. Mosher (New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1967), p.
xv. The author reported a definition arrived at by the Inter-University Case Program, Inc., a project which he led.
Congressional Research Service
1
Executive Branch Reorganization Initiatives During the 112th Congress: A Brief Overview
Congress.6 Moreover, Congress has long sought to promote efficiency, transparency,
accountability, public participation, and economy in the operations of the executive departments,
agencies, and other governmental entities through specifications of both government-wide and
agency-specific processes. Federal organizational structures and processes are under continual
congressional and administrative study and alteration in response to changing contexts and
priorities. The President has often played a leadership role in reorganization of the executive
branch by transmitting proposals and advocating legislative action in public statements and
private negotiations. Presidents and their political appointees also have a variety of administrative
tools at their disposal for making smaller scale structural and procedural organizational changes.
The context within which the Obama Administration and Congress are proposing and considering
changes to the federal bureaucracy is shaped by a number of factors. These factors include
heightened concerns about the federal debt, the budget deficit, job creation, and economic
recovery; controversy related to financial regulatory and health care financing-related agencies
established by legislation enacted during the 111th Congress; a belief, among some, that the
federal government should be smaller and more efficient; and the perceived failure of some
agencies to fulfill their responsibilities.
This report describes the ways that executive branch reorganization can occur as a result of
presidential, administrative, and congressional actions, and describes recent initiatives in the
context of that typology. The report concludes with some observations regarding federal
reorganization efforts.
Executive Branch Initiatives
As noted above, President Obama announced during his 2011 State of the Union address that
his Administration would be proposing government reorganization. On January 30, 2011, the
White House announced that Jeffrey Zients, the Deputy Director for Management (DDM) in the
Office of Management and Budget,7 would be leading the Administration’s reorganization efforts.
According to the announcement, which was in a blog by Dan Pfeiffer, White House
Communications Director,
The President believes that we need to reform our government to make it better organized
and better equipped to support American competitiveness. We want to ensure that we're
aligning all of the resources we have into negotiating the best agreements, enforcing our
trade rights, supporting our exporters and promoting their products.8
6 Congress, in exercising its powers to legislate under Article I, section 8, and other provisions of the Constitution, is
empowered to provide for the execution of those laws by officers appointed pursuant to the Appointments Clause (Art.
II, § 2, cl. 2) and, under the Necessary and Proper Clause (Art. 1, § 8, cl. 18), it has the authority to create and locate
offices, establish their powers, duties, and functions, determine the qualifications of officeholders, prescribe their
appointments, and generally promulgate the standards for the conduct of the offices.
7 Under the Obama Administration, the Deputy Director for Management in the Office of Management and Budget is
also known as the Chief Performance Officer. For clarity, the official’s statutory title is used in this report.
8 U.S. White House, “Jeff Zients Will Lead Reorganization of Federal Government,” The White House Blog, posting by
Dan Pfeiffer, White House Communications Director, January 30, 2011, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/01/
30/jeff-zients-will-lead-reorganization-federal-government.
Congressional Research Service
2
Executive Branch Reorganization Initiatives During the 112th Congress: A Brief Overview
The Obama Administration’s first reorganization focus, according to the blog, “will be looking at
trade and exports to see how we can better reform these functions to give American companies a
leg up in the global economy.”9
The reorganization initiative was given further emphasis as a part of the President’s FY2012
budget message, which was submitted to Congress in February 2011. It stated,
We live and do business in the information age, but the organization of our Government has
not kept pace. Organizations have grown out of inertia, straying from their core mission.
Duplicative efforts have sprung up that inhibit the efficacy of our efforts; for instance, there
are 12 different agencies that deal with exports. Winning in the world economy will take a
private sector that has at its disposal all it needs to compete with firms and workers from
around the world. The President is committed to reorganizing the Federal Government so
that it is better able to facilitate the needs of American companies, entrepreneurs, and
innovators. In the coming months, the Administration will develop a proposal to merge,
consolidate, and reorganize the Federal Government in a way that best serves the goal of a
more competitive America.10
On March 11, 2011, the President issued a memorandum to the heads of departments and
executive branch agencies providing further detail and direction on the development of a
reorganization plan. As previously announced, the DDM was given the responsibility for “leading
the effort to create a plan” for executive branch reorganization, with a “first focus … on the
executive departments and agencies and the functions that support one of our most important
priorities—increasing trade, exports, and our overall competitiveness (‘trade and
competitiveness’).”11 In furtherance of this purpose, the DDM was directed to
Establish a Government Reform for Competitiveness and Innovation Initiative, led by an
Executive Director, to conduct a comprehensive review of the Federal agencies and
programs involved in trade and competitiveness, including analyzing their scope and
effectiveness, areas of overlap and duplication, unmet needs and possible cost savings.12
In carrying out this review, the memorandum directed the DDM and the initiative’s executive
director to consult with executive branch agency heads and other “stakeholders,” including
Members of Congress. Agencies were directed to provide the DDM and the executive director
with requested information and assistance to aid them with carrying out this review.
The DDM was directed to submit related recommendations to the President within 90 days of the
memorandum’s issuance (i.e., by June 9, 2011). These recommendations were directed to be
based on the following principles:
9 Ibid.
10 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2012 (Washington:
GPO, 2011), at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/message.pdf, pp. 27-28.
11 U.S. President (Obama), “Memorandum on Government Reform for Competitiveness and Innovation,” Daily
Compilation of Presidential Documents, (March 11, 2011). Also on March 11, DDM Jeffrey Zients posted a White
House Blog entry concerning this memorandum as well as the work of the President’s Management Advisory Board.
This blog entry may be found at http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/03/11/two-more-steps-toward-better-
government.
12 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
3
Executive Branch Reorganization Initiatives During the 112th Congress: A Brief Overview
(a) the functions of the executive branch of the Federal Government involved in trade and
competitiveness should be organized so that the Federal Government can most efficiently
and effectively facilitate the competitiveness of American businesses, large and small, and
American workers in the changing global economy;
(b) the responsibilities, authorities, programs, and requirements of agencies should be
transparent, understandable, and easily accessible to the American public; and
(c) agencies and programs should be organized to reduce inefficiencies and overlapping
responsibilities or functions, maximize return on taxpayer dollars, and best serve the
American public.13
As part of his outreach effort, DDM Zients reportedly e-mailed federal workers seeking ideas for
government reorganization and reform, particularly with regard to areas related to exports, trade,
and business competitiveness.14 Such input could be submitted by federal employees, and viewed
by the public, at http://governmentreform.ideascale.com/.
Reorganization of trade-related organizations in the executive branch was also a major focus of a
December 2010 report from the Center for American Progress.15 One option advanced by the
report was the creation of a Department of Business, Trade, and Technology that would combine
elements of the Department of Commerce with trade-related functions of other agencies. In
contrast, an October 2010 report from the Heritage Foundation recommended eliminating, among
other federal government organizations, several trade-related agencies: the U.S. International
Trade Commission, the Trade and Development Agency, and the Overseas Private Investment
Corporation.16 These reports are discussed in greater detail below, under “Other Proposals and
Recommendations.”
The Authority of the President
As noted above, the President has often played a leadership role in reorganization of the executive
branch by transmitting proposals and advocating legislative action in public statements and
private negotiations. The President may also direct members of his Administration to conduct
reorganizations using the authorities discussed above. In addition, the President can redelegate
authority that has been vested in him by Congress, as discussed below. Periodically during the
20th century, Congress established an expedited process for considering executive branch
reorganization initiatives from the President. This authority, which has been dormant since 1984,
is also discussed in more detail below. Finally, Congress has sometimes delegated to the President
circumscribed authority to conduct time- and agency-specific reorganization activities.
13 Ibid.
14 Rebecca Kaplan, “Obama Solicits Ideas from Federal Workers for Government Reform,” GovExec, March 30, 2011,
at http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?filepath=/dailyfed/0311/033011-obama-workers-video.htm&oref=search.
On March 22, Zients posted another White House Blog entry discussing generally the reorganization review, and he
made reference there to this outreach to government employees, as well as others. This blog entry may be found at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/03/22/reviewing-reorg.
15 Center for American Progress, A Focus on Competitiveness: Restructuring Policymaking for Results (Washington:
Center for American Progress, 2010).
16 Brian M. Riedl, How to Cut $343 Billion from the Federal Budget, The Heritage Foundation, Backgrounder,
Washington, DC, October 28, 2010, pp. 3-5, http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/10/How-to-Cut-343-
Billion-from-the-Federal-Budget.
Congressional Research Service
4
Executive Branch Reorganization Initiatives During the 112th Congress: A Brief Overview
Redelegation of Authorities Vested in the President
Where functions are statutorily vested in the President, he may delegate and redelegate those
functions under authority provided in Section 301 of Title 3 of the U.S. Code. This authority
states,
The President of the United States is authorized to designate and empower the head of any
department or agency in the executive branch, or any official thereof who is required to be
appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to perform without approval,
ratification, or other action by the President (1) any function which is vested in the President
by law, or (2) any function which such officer is required or authorized by law to perform
only with or subject to the approval, ratification, or other action of the President: Provided,
That nothing contained herein shall relieve the President of his responsibility in office for the
acts of any such head or other official designated by him to perform such functions. Such
designation and authorization shall be in writing, shall be published in the Federal Register,
shall be subject to such terms, conditions, and limitations as the President may deem
advisable, and shall be revocable at any time by the President in whole or in part.
By redelegating such functions, the President can effect a reorganization of authorities among
executive branch agencies. He cannot unilaterally move the funds and other resources that might
be necessary to carry out such functions among budget accounts, however, unless Congress gives
transfer authority to the President or an agency official who acts on the President’s behalf.
Presidential Reorganization Authority
Between 1932 and 1984, Congress periodically delegated authority to the President that allowed
him to develop plans for reorganization of portions of the federal government and to present those
plans to Congress under special expedited procedures.17 Under these procedures, the President’s
plan would go into effect unless one or both Houses of Congress passed a resolution rejecting the
plan, a process referred to as a “legislative veto.” This process favored the President’s plan
because, absent congressional action, the default was for the plan to go into effect. Unlike the
dynamics under the regular legislative process, the burden of action under these versions of
presidential reorganization authority rested with opponents rather than supporters of the plan.
Presidents used this presidential reorganization authority regularly, submitting more than 100
plans between 1932 and 1984. The plans proposed a variety of changes, from relatively minor
reorganizations within individual agencies to the creation of large new organizations, including
the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW)18 in 1953, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) in 1970,19 and an independent Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) in 1979.20 The terms of the delegation varied greatly over the century; in general,
17 The President’s reorganization authority is codified at 5 U.S.C. 901-912. The statute is no longer in effect, however,
having expired on December 31, 1984 (Sec. 905(b)).
18 Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1953. In 1979, the education functions of HEW provided the foundation for the newly
created Department of Education, and HEW was renamed the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). P.L.
96-88, 93 Stat. 668.
19 Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970.
20 Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978. In March 2003, under the provisions of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L.
107-296, 116 Stat. 2135), FEMA became part of the new Department of Homeland Security.
Congressional Research Service
5
Executive Branch Reorganization Initiatives During the 112th Congress: A Brief Overview
Congress tended to provide more restrictive versions of presidential reorganization authority over
time.21
In 1983, the Supreme Court ruled in INS v. Chadha that the legislative veto process was
unconstitutional.22 Subsequently, Congress approved the Reorganization Act Amendments of
1984, which extended the reorganization plan authority from November 1984 to December 31,
1984. Under this authority, once the President submitted a reorganization plan, Congress was to
consider, under an expedited procedure, a joint resolution approving the plan. The expedited
procedure included limitations on the duration of committee consideration, the duration of floor
debate, and amendments (although the President could amend or modify his plan during the first
60 days after submission). As a joint resolution, this vehicle had to be approved by the President
to have the force of law. Unlike the legislative veto, the burden of action was placed on the
proponents of the plan, rather than its opponents. As is the case under the regular legislative
process, the default would be the status quo. The process of reorganizing the government was
thus made somewhat more difficult than it would have been under earlier versions of presidential
reorganization authority. This last statutory provision of presidential reorganization authority
lapsed at the end of 1984.
In the decades since this authority last expired, some presidential administrations have advocated
its restoration, and some have not. Neither the Reagan Administration, which did not use the
authority in 1984, nor the George H. W. Bush Administration sought its extension. Initial reports
issued by the Clinton Administration’s National Performance Review included the
recommendation that the reorganization authority be reauthorized,23 but President Clinton did not
directly request this action from Congress. The George W. Bush Administration called for a
renewal of presidential reorganization, and legislation introduced during the 108th Congress
included provisions that would have renewed the authority in modified form.24 This legislation
was not enacted.
As previously noted, a White House press release concerning President Obama’s 2011 State of
the Union address suggested that his Administration might seek a renewal of the authority.25
The Authority of Agency Heads
In general, agency heads have discretion, consistent with existing statutory mandates, to organize
and manage the day-to-day operations of the agencies for which they are responsible.26 In
21 For a more detailed discussion and analysis of presidential reorganization authority see CRS Report RL30876, The
President's Reorganization Authority: Review and Analysis, by Ronald C. Moe.
22 462 U.S. 919 (1983).
23 Office of the Vice President, Creating a Government That Works Better & Costs Less: Transforming Organizational
Structures, Accompanying Report of the National Performance Review (Washington: September 1993).
24 As part of legislative activity that led to the enactment of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of
2004 during the 108th Congress, the House passed such provisions. See 108th Congress, H.R. 10, § 5021, as reported in
the House.
25 U.S. White House, Office of the Press Secretary, “FACT SHEET: The State of the Union: President Obama’s Plan to
Win the Future,” January 25, 2011, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/01/25/fact-sheet-state-union-
president-obamas-plan-win-future. The release stated, “The President announced that, in the coming months, he will
ask for the authority to merge, consolidate, and reorganize the Federal Government in a way that makes America more
competitive – the first such reorganization in half a century.”
26 See Basil J. Mezines, Jacob A. Stein, and Jules Gruff, Administrative Law, vol. 1 (New York: Matthew Bender,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
6
Executive Branch Reorganization Initiatives During the 112th Congress: A Brief Overview
addition, since the 1950s, the powers, duties, and functions of the component offices of most
agencies have been vested in the agency head, who is, in turn, empowered to delegate these
powers, duties, and authorities. Furthermore, Section 301 of Title 5 of the U.S. Code provides that
the “head of an Executive department or military department may prescribe regulations for the
government of his department, the conduct of its employees, the distribution and performance of
its business.” The agency head’s authority does not, however, supercede congressional authority
to provide for specific organizational arrangements or to vest powers, duties, or authorities in
particular offices established in this way.
One example of the use of this authority is the reorganization, in the Department of the Interior
(DOI), of leasing and regulatory functions related to offshore oil and gas recovery.27 The Minerals
Management Service (MMS) was established within DOI, in 1982, by secretarial authority to
carry out these functions. In a reorganization that began in 2010, following the Deepwater
Horizon Oil Spill, the functions that had been delegated to MMS were divided among three newly
established subunits. Both the 1982 and 2010 reorganizations were carried out under authority
that had been vested in the Secretary of the Interior in 1950. Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1950
provided that, except with regard to the functions vested by the Administrative Procedure Act in
hearing examiners and the functions of the Virgin Islands Corporation or of its board of directors
or officers, functions that had previously been vested in the heads of the Interior Department’s
component entities were transferred to the Secretary of the Interior, thus centralizing authority
over the department.28 The secretary was also authorized, by the reorganization plan, to redelegate
these functions to any department agency, employee, or officer, unless otherwise prevented by
law from doing so.
Delineated Secretarial Authority
Congress has sometimes delineated secretarial reorganization authority for individual
departments. In such cases, the scope and limitations of the secretary’s authority are more
specific. For example, the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which established the Department of
Homeland Security, provided the secretary with relatively broad reorganization authority,
providing that
[t]he Secretary may allocate or reallocate functions among the officers of the Department,
and may establish, consolidate, alter, or discontinue organizational units with the
Department, but only ... after the expiration of 60 days after providing notice of such action
to the appropriate congressional committees, which shall include an explanation of the
rationale for the action.... [This authority] does not extend to the abolition of any agency,
entity, organizational unit, program, or function established or required to be maintained by
statute.29
(...continued)
2006), pp. 4-18 to 4-27.
27 For a full discussion of this reorganization, see CRS Report R41485, Reorganization of the Minerals Management
Service in the Aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, by Henry B. Hogue.
28 43 U.S.C. § 1451, note. It is worth noting that Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1950 was, itself, enacted under the
President’s reorganization authority, as it had been delegated by Congress at that time. Such delegations to the
President are discussed later in this report.
29 6 U.S.C. § 452. The Secretary of Homeland Security used this authority on at least nine occasions between the
establishment of the department in 2003 and mid-2007. Beginning in May 2007, Congress limited the use of
appropriated funds for carrying out section 872 reorganizations. Section 3501 of the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
7
Executive Branch Reorganization Initiatives During the 112th Congress: A Brief Overview
The first part of this provision arguably widens the scope of potential reorganizational actions
beyond the range that would otherwise be available to the secretary. In addition, it requires that
Congress be informed, but includes no mechanism for congressional “veto” of a proposed action.
The final part of the cited provision explicitly prevents the secretary from overriding statutes for
the purpose of abolishing entities, programs, or functions. Notably, it does not address his or her
capacity to override statutes for the purpose of other reorganizational actions. For example, this
authority has been used to alter some of the organizational arrangements provided for in the
department’s organic act, the Homeland Security Act of 2002.30
Congressional Responses to Particular Agency Head Actions
When an agency head has reorganized a portion of his or her agency under such delegated
authority, Congress has, on occasion, endorsed the action without giving it statutory
underpinnings. For example, Congress has sometimes validated an agency reorganization through
the appropriations process, by adjusting the agency’s appropriation to match the new
configuration or by addressing the action in the conference report.31 Similarly, Congress has
recognized some newly created entities by delegating to them specific authorities, or otherwise
making reference to them in statute. On the other hand, Congress can also register its disapproval
of a reorganization by appropriating little or no funding for a new entity, by condemning the
action in conference report language, or by redelegating authority to competing organizations.
General Limits on Reorganizations in Specific Agencies
In some cases, Congress has selectively limited secretarial reorganization authority by statute. For
example, the Secretary of Energy is “authorized to establish, alter, consolidate or discontinue such
organizational units or components within the Department as he may deem to be necessary or
appropriate.”32 This authority does not, however, extend to the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA), which is located within the Department of Energy.33 Instead, Congress
elected to delegate the authority to reorganize NNSA to the administrator of that organization.34
Likewise, although the Secretary of Homeland Security has the statutory authority, under Section
872 of the Homeland Security Act, to reorganize most parts of DHS,35 the Post-Katrina
(...continued)
Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007, enacted on May 25, 2007, instituted such
limitations for the balance of FY2007. Succeeding DHS appropriations acts have included similar provisions.
30 P.L. 107-296; 116 Stat. 2135. For an example of the use of this authority, see CRS Report RL33042, Department of
Homeland Security Reorganization: The 2SR Initiative, by Harold C. Relyea and Henry B. Hogue. (The first author of
this archived report is now retired. Please contact the second author with any questions about the report.) See also CRS
Report RS21450, Homeland Security: Scope of the Secretary's Reorganization Authority, by Stephen R. Vina. (The
author of this archived report is no longer at CRS. Questions may be directed to Henry B. Hogue.)
31 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, Third Edition Volume I, GAO
report GAO-04-261SP (Washington: Jan. 2004), pp. 2-61 through 2-65. This report summarizes the principles to be
applied in this situation by quoting a Comptroller General’s opinion as follows: “‘To conclude that Congress through
the appropriations process has ratified agency action, three factors generally must be present. First, the agency takes the
action pursuant to at least arguable authority; second, the Congress has specific knowledge of the facts; and third, the
appropriation of funds clearly bestows the claimed authority’” (p. 2-65).
32 42 U.S.C. § 7253(a).
33 42 U.S.C. § 7253(b).
34 50 U.S.C. § 2402(e).
35 P.L. 107-296; 6 U.S.C. § 452.
Congressional Research Service
8
Executive Branch Reorganization Initiatives During the 112th Congress: A Brief Overview
Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 exempts the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) from that authority.36
An appropriations limitation with regard to the reorganization authority of the Secretary of
Homeland Security illustrates another tool Congress has used to generally proscribe such activity.
Since May 2007, Congress has limited the use of appropriated funds for carrying out the Section
872 reorganizations described above. Section 3501 of the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care,
Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007, enacted on May 25, 2007,
instituted such limitations for the balance of FY2007, stating,
None of the funds provided in this Act, or P.L. 109-295 [Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations Act, 2007], shall be available to carry out section 872 of P.L. 107-296
[Homeland Security Act of 2002].37
Succeeding DHS appropriations acts have included similar provisions.38
Reorganization Through Interagency Coordination
Sometimes organizational functioning and program operations are improved through the use of an
interagency coordinative mechanism.39 Such mechanisms include, for example, interagency
working groups, task forces, and joint decision-making processes. These arrangements sometimes
exist informally, but numerous arrangements have also been established formally by public law,
executive order, administrative directive, or memorandum of understanding. Formal directives
may be particularly helpful in clarifying relationships among different agencies that have
overlapping jurisdiction or shared responsibilities, because such arrangements fall outside the
control of any single agency head.
Interagency coordinative mechanisms are often used as a means of establishing cooperation
between agencies with shared missions, similar functions, or overlapping jurisdiction. Some
arrangements provide for collaboration among equals, while others designate a lead agency with
authority to direct activities.
Interagency coordinative mechanisms can address organizational problems without the potential
pitfalls of a structural reorganization. Where effective, for example, such a mechanism might
reduce policy fragmentation, improve policy formulation and implementation, provide a forum
for mitigating misunderstanding and conflict among agencies, reduce redundancy, increase
efficiency, and facilitate oversight and accountability. It might also help program implementers to
work around vague or imprecise legislative language, or statutory limitations on individual
36 P.L. 109-295, § 611(13), new Homeland Security Act Sec. 506(b).
37 P.L. 110-28; 121 Stat. 112 at 143.
38 See, for example, a provision of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008: “None of the funds provided in this Act
shall be available to carry out section 872 of Public Law 107–296” (P.L. 110-161, § 546; 121 Stat. 2080). Similar
provisions were included in the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009
(P.L. 110-329, § 529; 122 Stat. 3686); and the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L. 111-
83, § 525; 123 Stat. 2173).
39 For more on interagency collaborative arrangements and coordinative mechanisms, including examples of these, see
CRS Report R41803, Interagency Collaborative Arrangements and Activities: Types, Rationales, Considerations , by
Frederick M. Kaiser; and CRS Report RL31357, Federal Interagency Coordinative Mechanisms: Varied Types and
Numerous Devices, by Frederick M. Kaiser.
Congressional Research Service
9
Executive Branch Reorganization Initiatives During the 112th Congress: A Brief Overview
agencies that might hamstring effective or efficient administration of a shared program. In some
circumstances, such arrangements might be used temporarily to facilitate effective
implementation of a law with known imperfections until such time as Congress develops
legislative remedies.
Interagency coordinative mechanisms are not always useful, however. The effectiveness of a
particular arrangement might be limited by a lack of control over budgetary or other resources.
Such limitations might be especially troubling to agencies and congressional committees that lose
jurisdiction. Some mechanisms might also be perceived as additional layers of bureaucracy,
imposing greater costs and using scarce resources without demonstrating added value. In some
cases, coordinative entities may become self-perpetuating and endure beyond the period during
which they are needed or useful. Certain coordinative entities could also be perceived as too
powerful, if they have substantial authority over others, or such arrangements might undercut
existing programs or offices in one or more participating agencies.
One example of an interagency coordinative mechanism is the Trade Promotion Coordinating
Committee. This interagency committee was established by the Export Enhancement Act of 1992
“to provide a unifying framework to coordinate the export promotion and export financing
activities of the United States Government; and … to develop a governmentwide strategic plan
for carrying out Federal export promotion and export financing programs.”40 The committee,
which is chaired by the Secretary of Commerce, was originally comprised of representatives of
12 federal agencies, but the membership has since grown to 20 agencies. Among its principal
activities is the periodic publication of the National Export Strategy, which prioritizes U.S. trade
promotion activities and estimates, by agency and function, trade promotion spending. This report
generally guides U.S. commercial export promotion activities.41 Assessments of the committee’s
work by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) suggest that it has experienced both some
of the strengths and some of the weaknesses of interagency mechanisms.42
Some collaborative initiatives and arrangements might require new legislation, while others could
be undertaken without congressional action. Along with this, modern Presidents have sometimes
tried to coordinate policy development and implementation among departments and agencies
from the White House. They have, for example, sometimes appointed high-level presidential
advisors and charged them with such a role. In some instances such advisors have been referred
40 P.L. 102-429, § 201; 106 Stat. 2199.
41 For more on the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee and other export promotion-related organizations, see
CRS Report R41495, U.S. Government Agencies Involved in Export Promotion: Overview and Issues for Congress,
coordinated by Shayerah Ilias.
42 In March 17, 2009 testimony, a GAO staffer stated, “One of the longstanding congressional concerns we have
addressed is a lack of effective coordination of trade promotion activities. We have reviewed the TPCC several times
since its inception and we testified in 2006 that the TPCC had made progress over time in improving coordination.
However, we also testified that its National Export Strategy continued to provide limited information on agencies’
goals and progress relative to broad national priorities. Examples of positive steps we reported on across TPCC
member agencies included improvements in interagency training and joint outreach to better serve small business. We
further noted that the strategies did not review agencies’ allocation of resources in relation to government-wide export
promotion priorities. We note now that the 2008 National Export Strategy contains information regarding the status of
priority initiatives identified in the prior year’s annual report. It also contains information on individual TPCC member
agencies’ export promotion strategies and results. However, the strategy still lacks an overall review of agencies’
allocation of resources relative to government-wide export promotion priorities.” (U.S. Government Accountability
Office, International Trade: Effective Export Programs Can Help In Achieving U.S. Economic Goals, GAO-09-480T,
March 17, 2009, p. 3, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09480t.pdf. Footnote omitted.)
Congressional Research Service
10
Executive Branch Reorganization Initiatives During the 112th Congress: A Brief Overview
to, by the Administration, in some cases, and by the media, as “czars.” The precise role and
authority of such individuals in the policy development and implementation processes is often
difficult for Congress and the public to discern. In some cases, this lack of clarity of role and
authority and the perceived lack of accountability to Congress have been the source of
controversy.43
Congressional Initiatives
Statutory Reorganization
Reorganizations that exceed the boundaries of one department or agency, or that are inconsistent
with existing law, are accomplished through the legislative process. As noted above, Congress
uses its lawmaking ability to shape the federal agency landscape. It creates and locates or
relocates offices; delegates to them specific or general missions, powers, duties, and functions;
defines the parameters of personnel systems; confirms the leadership; provides funding; and
ultimately evaluates whether or not an agency shall continue in existence. At times, Congress has
also specified, in statute, organizational process requirements, such as those that shape decision
making and coordination.
Reorganization legislation may be initiated by Members, congressional committees, or the
President, with the latter transmitted to Congress and introduced as a courtesy. Once introduced in
the House or Senate, such legislation is routinely referred to each chamber’s government
operations committee: the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and the
Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. In the House, reorganization
legislation may also be referred concurrently or sequentially to other committees with jurisdiction
over the affected agencies and programs.
In some cases, Congress has changed organizational arrangements within a department or agency
by shifting funding and functions between offices. In 1987, for example, such an effort was
undertaken in the House, with regard to the Agriculture Department appropriations act for
FY1988. In this case, the Member sought to defund an assistant secretary office completely; in a
compromise, funding for the assistant secretary position was maintained, but most of the funds
and functions were shifted to the Office of the Secretary. According to the 1987 CQ Almanac,
At the urging of Jamie L. Whitten, ... chairman of the House Appropriations Committee and
its subcommittee on Agriculture, the House provided no administrative funds for the
assistant secretary [for natural resources], who had authority over the Forest Service and the
Soil Conservation Service.
Whitten had long complained that the administration was trying to do away with traditional
agricultural conservation programs in favor of a new Conservation Reserve Program that
paid farmers to take erodible land out of production. He expressed his wrath by “zeroing out”
the pay and office expenses of Assistant Secretary George S. Dunlop, although Whitten
insisted he had “nothing personal” against him. Dunlop was staff director of the Senate
Agriculture Committee under its previous chairman, Jesse Helms....
43 For more on such positions, see CRS Report R40856, The Debate Over Selected Presidential Assistants and
Advisors: Appointment, Accountability, and Congressional Oversight, by Barbara L. Schwemle et al.
Congressional Research Service
11
Executive Branch Reorganization Initiatives During the 112th Congress: A Brief Overview
Whitten ultimately agreed to a compromise creating a new office of assistant secretary for
unspecified “special purposes,” funded at $416,000—the level earmarked by the Senate for
the natural resources position. But the new office was given no authority over the Soil
Conservation Service or the Forest Service. The directors of those agencies were required to
report directly to the agriculture secretary.44
The provision regarding the Office of the Secretary in resulting statute reflects this change. It
begins,
For necessary expenses of the Office of the Secretary of Agriculture, including the direct
supervision of the Soil Conservation Service and the Forest Service.45
Efforts carried out through the statutory process can be narrowly targeted or far-reaching. Many
reorganization proposals that have become law have been developed through hearings and
antecedent legislative initiatives over the course of several Congresses. In addition, galvanizing
events have sometimes created political climates favorable to structural reorganizations.
Arguably, this was the case during the 2003 establishment of the Department of Homeland
Security in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in 2001.46
Congressional Initiatives in the 112th Congress
A number of bills with reorganization-related provisions have been introduced in the House and
Senate during the 112th Congress.47 Some of these provisions would defund or abolish specified
government programs and agencies. For example,
• H.R. 1, which passed the House on February 19, 2011, includes provisions to
eliminate FY2011 funding for a number of offices and programs across the
federal government;
• H.R. 861, which passed the House on March 16, 2011, would rescind funding for
the Neighborhood Stabilization Program at the Department of Housing and
Urban Development;
• H.R. 672 would abolish the Election Assistance Commission, and its functions
would be divided between the National Institute of Standards and Technology
and the Federal Election Commission; and
• S. 162 would defund a number of programs and agencies, including, for example,
the Government Printing Office, the Commission on Fine Arts, the Consumer
Product Safety Commission, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the
National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities,
44 “Agriculture, Food Programs Given $56 Billion,” 1987 CQ Almanac (Washington: Congressional Quarterly, 1988),
p.461.
45 P.L. 100-202, provision at 101 Stat. 1329-322.
46 See CRS Report RL31493, Homeland Security: Department Organization And Management—Legislative Phase, by
Harold C. Relyea. (The author of this archived report has retired. For more information, please contact Henry B.
Hogue.)
47 The current status of these bills may be found through the “Bill Summary & Status Advanced Search,” of the
Legislative Information System (LIS), which is available to the congressional community at http://www.congress.gov/
billsumm/billsumm.php?id=2.
Congressional Research Service
12
Executive Branch Reorganization Initiatives During the 112th Congress: A Brief Overview
and the State Justice Institute. It would also rearrange certain programs and
agencies. For example, it would transfer the U.S. Coast Guard from the
Department of Homeland Security to the Department of Defense, and it would
transfer veteran housing programs of the Department of Housing and Urban
Development to the Department of Veterans Affairs and defund all other
programs of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Some introduced bills would merge existing agencies and their functions or consolidate
programs. For example,
• S. 892 would establish a Department of Energy and the Environment, which
would, among other effects, comprise many of the functions of the Department of
Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency; and
• H.R. 1782 and S. 945 would, among other things, direct the head of OMB to
coordinate actions by department and agency heads to “eliminate, consolidate, or
streamline Government programs and agencies with duplicative and overlapping
missions identified in” a March 2011 GAO report, which is discussed later in this
report.48 Under these bills, the Director of OMB would also identify legislative
changes that would be necessary to take further action of this nature, and would
report these to Congress.
Other bills would establish bipartisan commissions that would evaluate current organizational
arrangements and develop legislation that would be considered by Congress under expedited
procedures. For example,
• H.R. 155 would establish a 12-member bipartisan commission to assess current
executive branch organizational arrangements, identify instances of mission
overlap or obsolescence, review and report to the President and Congress on
specified prior governmental reform reports and recommendations, and submit a
proposed reorganization plan for executive branch organizations to the President
and to Congress. The Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
would, in turn, issue a public report on savings that might result from the plan’s
implementation. The bill would provide for a process by which the plan could be
revised, and an expedited congressional consideration process for any
reorganization plan that has been endorsed and introduced by the President; and
• S. 14 would establish a seven-member bipartisan commission to evaluate the
effectiveness and accountability of agency programs. This commission would
establish a systematic method for such evaluation; divide such programs into four
equal budgetary parts; conduct the evaluation of these four parts over four years;
submit to Congress, each year, recommendations of agencies and programs that
should be realigned or eliminated; and propose legislation that would implement
these recommendations. Such legislation would be subject to expedited
congressional consideration.
48 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs,
Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue, GAO-11-318SP, March 1, 2011, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/
d11318sp.pdf. See “Government Accountability Office Report on Duplicative Programs,” below, for more information
on this report.
Congressional Research Service
13
Executive Branch Reorganization Initiatives During the 112th Congress: A Brief Overview
Still other bills would make changes to organizational arrangements that were newly established
by the 111th Congress. For example,
• H.R. 557 and H.R. 1355 would transfer to the Department of the Treasury the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which is currently an
independent agency in the Federal Reserve System, and which was created by the
Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010;
• H.R. 1121 and S. 737 would change the CFPB from an agency headed by a
single director to an agency headed by a five-member commission;49 and
• H.R. 452 and S. 668 would abolish the Independent Payment Advisory Board,
which was established by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Other Proposals and Recommendations
In addition to these congressional reorganization proposals, several other organizations have
issued reports within the past year that may be reviewed or acted upon by the 112th Congress.
2010 Fiscal Commission Recommendations
In late 2010, two bipartisan groups released studies regarding the national fiscal situation, and
these studies included related federal organization and management proposals. The December
2010 report of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, The Moment of
Truth, recommended reducing discretionary spending.50 A separate draft document posted on the
Fiscal Commission’s website, entitled “$200 Billion in Illustrative Savings,” identified more than
50 actions that reportedly would, in the aggregate, save more than $200 billion in 2015. Among
these actions are several that would involve alterations to current federal organizational
arrangements, including the following: merging the Department of Commerce and Small
Business Administration into a single agency and trimming its budget by 10%; eliminating the
Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools at the Department of Education; and eliminating the
Economic Development Administration at the Department of Commerce. The November 2010
report of the Debt Reduction Task Force of the Bipartisan Policy Center, Restoring America’s
Future: Reviving the Economy, Cutting Spending and Debt, and Creating a Simple, Pro-Growth
Tax System, included a more general recommendation, to “reorganize and scale down the
federal regional government structure.”51
49 A May 5, 2011, letter from 44 Republican Senators to President Obama stated that they “believe that the Senate
should not consider any nominee to be CFPB director until the CFPB is properly reformed.” The reforms the letter calls
for include changing the leadership of the bureau from a single director to a board of directors. The text of the letter is
included as part of a news release by Senator Richard Shelby available at http://shelby.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/
2011/5/44-u-s-sens-to-obama-no-accountability-no-confirmation.
50 See p. 20.
51 See p. 95.
Congressional Research Service
14
Executive Branch Reorganization Initiatives During the 112th Congress: A Brief Overview
Heritage Foundation Recommendations
An October 28, 2010, report on reducing the federal budget that was published by the Heritage
Foundation included a list of recommended spending cuts for FY2012 that would reshape the
federal government. Organizations targeted for elimination included
• Foreign Agricultural Service in the Department of Agriculture (USDA);
• Rural Utilities Service in USDA;
• Economic Development Service in the Department of Commerce (DOC);
• Appalachian Regional Commission;
• Denali Commission;
• Minority Development Business Agency in DOC;
• Delta Regional Authority;
• International Trade Commission, transferring to the Department of the Treasury
oversight of intellectual property rights;
• Trade and Development Agency;
• Overseas Private Investment Corporation;
• U.S. Institute of Peace;
• Japan-United States Friendship Commission;
• Legal Services Corporation;
• Community Relations Service in the Department of Justice (DOJ);
• Office of National Drug Control Policy in the Executive Office of the President;
• State Justice Institute;
• Maritime Administration in the Department of Transportation (DOT);
• Small Business Administration;
• Institute of Museum Services and Library Services;
• National Endowment for the Humanities;
• National Endowment for the Arts;
• Commission of Fine Arts;
• National Capital Planning Commission; and
• Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.52
52 Brian M. Riedl, How to Cut $343 Billion from the Federal Budget, The Heritage Foundation, Backgrounder,
Washington, DC, October 28, 2010, pp. 3-5, http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/10/How-to-Cut-343-
Billion-from-the-Federal-Budget.
Congressional Research Service
15
Executive Branch Reorganization Initiatives During the 112th Congress: A Brief Overview
Center for American Progress Recommendations
Like the Obama Administration initiative, a December 2010 report from the Center for American
Progress centered on reorganization of trade-related organizations in the executive branch. One
option advanced by the report was the creation of “a Department of Business, Trade, and
Technology by combining relevant agencies and offices within the Department of Commerce
with trade and business-focused agencies and offices, including the Office of the United States
Trade Representative, the Small Business Administration, the Export-Import Bank of the United
States, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, and the U.S. Trade and Development
Agency.”53 As part of such a reorganization effort, evaluations conducted by an independent panel
of the National Academies would help to determine the future organization location of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Economics and Statistics
Administration, including the Bureau of Economic Analysis and the U.S. Census Bureau. A
second option would create “a more expansive ‘competitiveness agency’ by adding to the new
department … job training and higher education programs” from the Department of Labor and the
Department of Education. The third option discussed by the report would further build upon the
envisioned department by relocating to it programs that promote science for economic
development purposes, such as those in the Department of Energy, the Department of
Transportation, the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Under this option, science
coordination functions presently delegated to the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the
Executive Office of the President would be reassigned to the new department.
Government Accountability Office Report on Duplicative
Programs
A March 1, 2011, GAO report on federal programs that have duplicative goals or activities speaks
directly and indirectly to potential reorganization activities.54 The report, which is to be the first in
an annual series, was published in response to a new statutory mandate:
The Comptroller General of the Government Accountability Office shall conduct routine
investigations to identify programs, agencies, offices, and initiatives with duplicative goals
and activities within Departments and governmentwide and report annually to Congress on
the findings, including the cost of such duplication and with recommendations for
consolidation and elimination to reduce duplication identifying specific rescissions.55
The 345-page report also “highlight[s] other opportunities for potential cost savings or enhanced
revenues.”
Government scholars have noted that duplication in goals and activities may serve administrative
or political purposes. The purpose of identifying such duplication in this instance, however, was
to facilitate its reduction or elimination. As the report’s summary states,
53 Center for American Progress, A Focus on Competitiveness: Restructuring Policymaking for Results (Washington:
Center for American Progress, 2010), p. 4.
54 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs,
Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue, GAO-11-318SP, March 1, 2011, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/
d11318sp.pdf.
55 P.L. 111-139, § 21, 124 Stat. 29; 31 U.S.C. § 712 Note.
Congressional Research Service
16
Executive Branch Reorganization Initiatives During the 112th Congress: A Brief Overview
Overlap and fragmentation among government programs or activities can be harbingers of
unnecessary duplication. Reducing or eliminating duplication, overlap or fragmentation
could potentially save billions of tax dollars annually and help agencies provide more
efficient and effective services.56
In general, the duplication, overlap, and fragmentation of program goals and activities might, in
some cases, be addressed by reorganizations of structures or processes. Where such situations
exist within a single agency, they might be addressed with administrative changes to
organizational processes or structures under the agency head’s authority. As discussed further
below, organizational changes to address duplication across two or more agencies might be
accomplished through legislation or the development of an interagency coordinative mechanism.
To some extent, overlap, duplication, and fragmentation might be unavoidable, or even
considered necessary for where multidimensional approaches are employed to solve complex
public policy problems.57
In the context of identifying duplication of goals and activities, the GAO report included new or
repeated recommendations that Congress consider certain reorganizations. For example, the
report reiterated GAO’s recommendation that Congress take steps toward reorganizing, in some
manner, the federal food safety system.58
Concluding Observations
A number of factors have contributed to the organizational change initiatives currently under
development and consideration by elected officials. These factors include heightened concerns
about the federal debt, the deficit, job creation, and economic recovery; controversy related to
financial regulatory and health care financing-related agencies established by legislation enacted
during the 111th Congress; a belief, among some, that the federal government should be smaller
and more efficient; and the perceived failure of some agencies to fulfill their responsibilities.
Some of these initiatives might become the subject of legislative or oversight activity during the
first session of the 112th Congress.
As is the case for much legislative activity, the prospects, during the 112th Congress, for
reorganization that requires statutory changes may be governed by the evolving national political
context, the views and actions of affected stakeholders, and external events. Reorganization
legislation that explicitly speaks to the policy concerns identified above might be more successful
than reorganization efforts that are developed to address other concerns. To the degree that
legislation would be required to implement a reorganization, this may be easier to accomplish
during the first session of the 112th Congress than later, when greater attention is given to
electoral politics in advance of the 2012 election.
56 GAO-11-318SP, p. 2.
57 See section on “Accountability” in CRS Report RL34329, Crosscut Budgets in Ecosystem Restoration Initiatives:
Examples and Issues for Congress, by Pervaze A. Sheikh and Clinton T. Brass.
58 GAO-11-318SP, pp. 9-11.
Congressional Research Service
17
Executive Branch Reorganization Initiatives During the 112th Congress: A Brief Overview
Reorganization: An Administrative and Political Process
Government reorganization is often cast in terms of potential administrative benefits. Whenever
Congress has delegated reorganization authority to the President (see “Presidential
Reorganization Authority,” above), it has clearly stated in the statutory provisions that the
objective of reorganization is administrative improvement, and it has often required that
reorganization plans submitted by the President articulate the plan’s means of achieving such
improvements. Administrative goals of reorganization include, for example, improved program
effectiveness, greater efficiency, reduced cost, and improved policy integration across related
programs.
Indeed, administrative improvement underlies the President’s stated principles guiding his
Administration’s development of a reorganization plan:
(a) the functions of the executive branch of the Federal Government involved in trade and
competitiveness should be organized so that the Federal Government can most efficiently
and effectively facilitate the competitiveness of American businesses, large and small, and
American workers in the changing global economy;
(b) the responsibilities, authorities, programs, and requirements of agencies should be
transparent, understandable, and easily accessible to the American public; and
(c) agencies and programs should be organized to reduce inefficiencies and overlapping
responsibilities or functions, maximize return on taxpayer dollars, and best serve the
American public.59
In addition to these administrative goals, reorganization efforts often have spoken or unspoken
political goals and outcomes.60 The political nature of reorganization arises from the fact that it
redistributes power and resources. Although it may have beneficial outcomes over time, it is
axiomatic that a government reorganization is disruptive, at least in the short term, to the
functioning of the organizations involved. Implementation of a reorganization plan can affect
existing power dynamics, rearrange relationships, create uncertainty, and generally interrupt the
flow of work. Government workers in the reorganized agencies will often be the most directly
affected, but congressional committees of jurisdiction and outside interest groups are affected as
well. These parties, including policy advocates, usually work toward obtaining the organizational
outcome most beneficial to their interests. Such efforts may continue through the implementation
phase of the reorganization, where the distribution of power and resources may be decided in
finer detail.
Research suggests that successful governmental reorganizations—statutory or otherwise—are
characterized by political consensus on the goals and approaches. Where goals are unarticulated
or consensus has not been achieved prior to a reorganization, affected interests may intentionally
or unintentionally undermine the success of the new arrangement. The result of such a situation
59 U.S. President (Obama), “Memorandum on Government Reform for Competitiveness and Innovation,” Daily
Compilation of Presidential Documents, (March 11, 2011).
60 Harold Seidman and Robert Gilmour, Politics, Position, and Power, 4th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press,
1986). Although partisan conflict may develop in relation to a particular reorganization, the term political as used here
refers to the process that determines, as Harold Laswell put it, who gets what, when, and how.
Congressional Research Service
18
Executive Branch Reorganization Initiatives During the 112th Congress: A Brief Overview
may be instability leading to further reorganization within a relatively short time.61 Political
consensus concerning new organizational arrangements may be achieved, in part, through
negotiation and accommodation among affected interests.
An explicit articulation of the goals of a reorganization could also aid in determining, after
implementation, whether or not these goals have been met. In addition to goals, reorganization
directives or statutes might include agreed-upon methods for measuring progress toward those
goals. Absent such explicit goals and agreed-upon measures, Congress may find it difficult to
evaluate the success or failure of a particular reorganization project.
Author Contact Information
Henry B. Hogue
Analyst in American National Government
hhogue@crs.loc.gov, 7-0642
61 Carl Grafton, “The Reorganization of Federal Agencies,” Administration and Society, vol. 10, February 1979, pp.
437-464.
Congressional Research Service
19