{ "id": "RL33569", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "RL33569", "active": false, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 317107, "date": "2006-07-25", "retrieved": "2016-04-07T18:54:54.692029", "title": "Sunset and Program Review Commission Bills in the 109th Congress: Comparing H.R. 3282 and H.R. 5766", "summary": "The sunset concept provides for programs and agencies to terminate automatically on a\npredetermined schedule, following a systematic evaluation of past performance, unless explicitly\nrenewed by law. In each Congress since the 105th, bills to create a federal sunset commission\nmodeled on the sunset commission in Texas have been introduced by Representative Kevin Brady,\nincluding H.R. 3282 in the 109th Congress. President Bush supports creation of a\nfederal sunset commission. \n In May 2006 the House leadership announced plans to bring sunset legislation quickly to the\nHouse floor, along with other budget process reforms favored by the Republican Study Committee,\nin return for the group's backing of the FY2007 budget resolution. In the effort to craft a consensus\nbill, attention came to focus on H.R. 3282 , and on H.R. 2470 , sponsored\nby Representative Todd Tiahrt, which would create a \"Commission on the Accountability and\nReview of Federal Agencies (CARFA),\" modeled on the Base Realignment and Closure Commission\n(BRAC) approach. \n On July 14, 2006, Representative Tiahrt introduced a revised version of H.R. 2470 \nas H.R. 5766 , the Government Efficiency Act, to provide for the establishment of\nFederal Review Commissions (FRCs) which would apparently address concerns similar to those\nenvisaged for the sunset commission in H.R. 3282 . Although H.R. 5766 is\noften referred to as a sunset bill, this is technically inaccurate, since it contains no action-forcing\nmechanism. Under H.R. 3282, an agency would be abolished within one year of the\nCommission's review, unless the agency received statutory extension. If Congress passed a\nreauthorization bill, the measure would then go to the President to be signed into law. If the\nPresident instead vetoed the bill, a two-thirds majority in both chambers would be necessary to\noverride the veto and extend the life of the program or agency.\n On July 20, 2006, the Committee on Government Reform voted to report H.R. 3282 favorably, and at the same time, voted to report favorably H.R. 5766 , as amended. \nThe votes to order the bills reported were largely along party lines. Supporters of the bills contend\nthat there are too many overlapping and ineffective federal programs that contribute to the growing\nfederal deficit and that the commission would assist Congress in performing its oversight function,\nthereby reducing fraud, waste, and abuse. Critics of the measures counter that the bills would cede\ntoo much power to the executive branch, would burden Congress with a tremendous workload with\nmandatory reauthorization of every agency and program, and would facilitate elimination of federal\nprograms that provide a safety net for the most vulnerable in society. \n This report examines the two bills and compares selected features, such as membership, powers\nof the commission, criteria for program review, public participation, and provisions for\nimplementing commission recommendations. This report will be updated as events warrant.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL33569", "sha1": "85b906150fa4eb14de5d34564fb6cffab53af282", "filename": "files/20060725_RL33569_85b906150fa4eb14de5d34564fb6cffab53af282.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL33569", "sha1": "21bb8199d2a58dbe9af4881ae7c3ad02cd4b87d1", "filename": "files/20060725_RL33569_21bb8199d2a58dbe9af4881ae7c3ad02cd4b87d1.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [] } ], "topics": [] }