    [House Hearing, 109 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

        CUTTING OUT THE WASTE: AN OVERVIEW OF H.R. 5766, THE GOVERNMENT
    EFFICIENCY ACT; AND H.R. 3282, THE ABOLISHMENT OF OBSOLETE AGENCIES AND
                           FEDERAL SUNSET ACT OF 2005

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                               GOVERNMENT REFORM
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                       ON

                                   H.R. 5766

       TO PROVIDE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF FEDERAL REVIEW COMMISSIONS TO
         REVIEW AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ON IMPROVING THE OPERATIONS,
    EFFECTIVENESS, AND EFFICIENCY OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS AND AGENCIES, AND TO
    REQUIRE A SCHEDLE FOR SUCH REVIEWS OF ALL FEDERAL AGENCIES AND PROGRAMS

                                     AND ON

                                   H.R. 3282

    TO PROVIDE FOR THE PERIODIC REVIEW OF THE EFFICIECY AND PUBLIC NEED FOR
        FEDERAL AGENCIES, TO ESTABLISH A COMMISSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF
       REVIEWING THE EFFICIENCY AND PUBLIC NEED OF SUCH AGENCIES, AND TO
     PROVIDE FOR THE ABOLISHMENT OF AGENCIES FOR WHICH A PUBLIC NEED DOES
                                   NOT EXIST

                                   __________

                                 JULY 19, 2006

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 109-165

                                   __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

      Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
                                   index.html
                          http://www.house.gov/reform

                                     ______

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    29-331                      WASHINGTON : 2006
    _____________________________________________________________________________
    For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
    Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
    Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001

                         COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

                         TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman
    CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut       HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
    DAN BURTON, Indiana                  TOM LANTOS, California
    ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida         MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
    JOHN M. McHUGH, New York             EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
    JOHN L. MICA, Florida                PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
    GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota             CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
    MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana              ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
    STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio           DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
    TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania    DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
    CHRIS CANNON, Utah                   WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
    JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee       DIANE E. WATSON, California
    CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan          STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
    MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio              CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
    DARRELL E. ISSA, California          LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
    JON C. PORTER, Nevada                C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
    KENNY MARCHANT, Texas                BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
    LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia        ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
    PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina       Columbia
    CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania                    ------
    VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina        BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
    JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio                       (Independent)
    BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

                          David Marin, Staff Director
                    Lawrence Halloran, Deputy Staff Director
                           Teresa Austin, Chief Clerk
              Phil Barnett, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hearing held on July 19, 2006....................................     1
    Text of H.R. 5766................................................     2
    Text of H.R. 3282................................................    21
    Statement of:
        Brady, Hon. Kevin, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Texas.............................................    70
        Horney, James R., senior fellow, Center on Budget and Policy
          Priorities; and Charles M. Loveless, director of
          legislation, American Federation of State, County and
          Municipal Employees [AFSCME]...............................    99
            Horney, James R..........................................    99
            Loveless, Charles M......................................   105
        Tiahrt, Hon. Todd, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Kansas............................................    56
    Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
        Brady, Hon. Kevin, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Texas, prepared statement of......................    72
        Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., a Representative in Congress from
          the State of Maryland, prepared statement of...............   113
        Davis, Chairman Tom, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Virginia, prepared statement of...................    42
        Horney, James R., senior fellow, Center on Budget and Policy
          Priorities:
            Prepared statement of....................................   102
            Written paper on sunset commission proposals.............    91
        Lantos, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State
          of California, prepared statement of.......................    54
        Loveless, Charles M., director of legislation, American
          Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
          [AFSCME], prepared statement of............................   107
        Porter, Hon. Jon C., a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Nevada, prepared statement of.....................    45
        Tiahrt, Hon. Todd, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Kansas, prepared statement of.....................    59
        Watson, Hon. Diane E., a Representative in Congress from the
          State of California, prepared statement of.................    85
        Waxman, Hon. Henry A., a Representative in Congress from the
          State of California, prepared statement of.................    48

        CUTTING OUT THE WASTE: AN OVERVIEW OF H.R. 5766, THE GOVERNMENT
    EFFICIENCY ACT; AND H.R. 3282, THE ABOLISHMENT OF OBSOLETE AGENCIES AND
                           FEDERAL SUNSET ACT OF 2005

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, JULY 19, 2006

                              House of Representatives,
                                Committee on Government Reform,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in
    room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Tom Davis
    (chairman of the committee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Tom Davis, Gutknecht, Porter,
    Dent, Foxx, Schmidt, Waxman, Lantos, Maloney, Cummings,
    Kucinich, Watson, Lynch, Ruppersberger, and Higgins.
        Staff present: Ellen Brown, legislative director and senior
    policy counsel; Mason Alinger, deputy legislative director; Rob
    White, communications director; Teresa Austin, chief clerk;
    Michael Galindo, deputy clerk; Kristin Amerling, minority
    general counsel; Michelle Ash, minority chief legislative
    counsel; Krista Boyd, minority counsel; Mark Stephenson,
    minority professional staff member; Earley Green, minority
    chief clerk; and Jean Gosa, minority assistant clerk.
        Chairman Tom Davis. The committee will come to order. Good
    morning. I want to thank everybody for coming. The purpose of
    today's hearing is to discuss two specific legislative
    proposals that have been introduced to this Congress to improve
    the operation and effectiveness of programs and agencies in the
    Federal Government. The first bill H.R. 5766, the Government
    Efficiency Act, which was introduced by Representative Tiahrt
    earlier this month, the legislation would authorize the
    establishment of a bipartisan Federal Review Commission to
    study whether a specific aspect of Federal Government
    operations would function more efficiently and effectively if
    some or all of the relevant Federal programs and agencies were
    reorganized, consolidated, abolished, expanded or transferred.
    Legislative proposals drafted by the bipartisan commissions
    would then be considered in Congress pursuant to expedited
    procedures.
        [The text of H.R. 5766 follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.001

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.002

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.003

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.004

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.005

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.006

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.007

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.008

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.009

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.010

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.011

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.012

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.013

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.014

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.015

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.016

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.017

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.018

        Chairman Tom Davis. The second bill, H.R. 3282, the
    Abolishment of Obsolete Agencies and Federal Sunset Act of
    2005, introduced by Representative Kevin Brady, this
    legislation would establish a bipartisan Federal agency sunset
    commission to review and evaluate the efficiency and public
    need for every Federal agency on a periodic basis and report
    its recommendations to Congress. The legislation would require
    the Federal agency to be abolished within 1 year of the
    commission's review unless Congress either reauthorized the
    agency or extended the deadline for abolishment.
        [The text of H.R. 3282 follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.019

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.020

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.021

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.022

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.023

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.024

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.025

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.026

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.027

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.028

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.029

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.030

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.031

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.032

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.033

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.034

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.035

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.036

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.037

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.038

        Chairman Tom Davis. This will be the eighth hearing
    conducted in the committee in recent years to discuss the need
    for a legislative tool that would authorize limited
    reorganizations of the executive branch intended to improve the
    operations and effectiveness of the Federal Government. Three
    hearings having been held to discuss the need to develop
    legislation to address overlap and duplication governmentwide;
    four case study hearings have been held to assess the extent of
    overlap and duplication in specific areas of Federal
    operations.
        After spending the last 3.5 years exploring various
    approaches to eliminating the overlapping duplication, we are
    here today to discuss the merits of two particular proposals
    aimed at addressing the specific issues and to pose questions
    to the bill sponsors about the specifics of their proposals.
    The purpose is to give members in this committee an opportunity
    to ask their questions and raise their concerns before we
    reconvene tomorrow morning to conduct a business meeting to
    consider these two proposals.
        I would now like to introduce our witnesses. Our first
    panel, Representative Todd Tiahrt and Representative Kevin
    Brady, have long championed the need to reduce waste, fraud and
    mismanagement in the Federal Government, and I applaud the
    witnesses.
        The second panel of witnesses includes James Horney, senior
    fellow from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities; and
    Charles Loveless, legislative director for the American
    Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees.
        I want to just welcome all of the witnesses to today's
    hearing, and I look forward to hearing their testimony. Any
    other Members who wish to speak.
        Mr. Ruppersberger.
        [The prepared statement of Chairman Tom Davis follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.039

        Mr. Ruppersberger. First, I want to acknowledge Mr. Tiahrt
    and Mr. Brady. You are focussing on issues of fiscal
    responsibility and accountability. I might not agree exactly
    with your bill, but I applaud you for moving ahead.
        Mr. Chairman, let me first thank you for having the
    hearing. I support efforts to seek to evaluate programs on
    their merits and increase government efficiencies. However, I
    have concerns about the two bills before us today. The lack of
    a truly nonpartisan commission leads me to believe that
    recommendations made by the commission could be politically
    biased and therefore result in program determinations that are
    not based on necessity or merit.
        Some supporters argue that these sunset commissions would
    operate like the BRAC commission which has been successful in
    consolidating our military bases. However, BRAC commissioners,
    while appointed by the President, must be confirmed by the
    President--or by the Senate. This is a congressional check that
    is lacking in these two bills before us.
        In addition, I have concerns about who is the most
    appropriate person or group of people who set policy and
    evaluate some very highly technical and sensitive Federal
    programs. While commissioners might have some expertise, they
    would certainly not be experts in all Federal programs. This is
    why we have a committee system here in Congress.
        Committees allow Members to develop expertise in issues and
    programs that fall within their committee's jurisdiction. The
    question becomes, do we want people who may not have any
    expertise in any particular issue evaluate the usefulness of a
    certain Federal program? And whose role should it be to do
    oversight of Homeland Security and intelligence programs in the
    agencies? And I know Mr. Tiahrt is on the Intelligence
    Committee. I believe the answer to both is, Congress. I am
    looking forward to hearing your discussions, but unfortunately,
    I have to go to an Intelligence hearing. Thank you.
        Chairman Tom Davis. Any other Members wish to make opening
    statements?
        Mr. Porter.
        Mr. Porter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, appreciate you having
    the hearing today.
        And to our colleagues that are here sponsoring the bills,
    as you know, as subcommittee chairman, I have had a number of
    hearings myself on some duplicate programs, and I don't
    remember the exact details, but it seems to me there are six or
    seven different agencies looking at frozen pizzas across the
    country. One looks at pepperoni. One looks at cheese. One looks
    at hamburger. And as we had these hearings, these different
    agencies would defend their right to inspect those pizzas, and
    it really amazes me that we have so many duplicate programs.
    And I believe a lot of our Federal agencies are convinced, in
    fact, that we need duplications. And maybe there are times when
    that should happen, but after numerous hearings, listening to
    the arguments for and against, time and time again, there would
    be examples of programs that are duplicate and should not be
    removed entirely from our system, but those that are duplicated
    should be consolidated and certainly will do a better job
    serving the public.
        One of the areas, if I recall, is 70 or 80 programs in our
    school system that are administered by three or four different
    agencies that are duplications across the country. So I could
    go on and on and on and on, and I just appreciate having this
    opportunity, and I would hope that this Congress would not let
    the perfect get in the way of legislation. There are those that
    agree and disagree with some of the process and procedures, but
    we owe it to the taxpayers of this country to make sure that we
    run our government as efficiently as possible. So I thank you
    for this hearing, and look forward to the testimony. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Hon. Jon C. Porter follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.040

        Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you.
        Our distinguished ranking member has arrived.
        Mr. Waxman.
        Mr. Waxman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        This hearing is on two legislative proposals that have back
    door assaults on the laws that protect the health, safety and
    security of American families. The first bill introduced by
    Representative Brady, H.R. 3282, would automatically abolish
    every Federal agency within 12 years. It would--it just would--
    it is so amazing, it is worth repeating: It would automatically
    abolish every single Federal agency. The title of the bill is,
    Abolishment of Obsolete Agencies Act, but it doesn't identify
    obsolete agencies for abolition. It sets an extermination
    schedule for every Federal agency. Is the Centers for Medicare
    and Medicaid Services, which runs the Medicare and Medicaid
    programs that provide healthcare to millions of seniors,
    children and the disabled, obsolete? Is the Environmental
    Protection agency, which protects Americans from air and water
    pollution, obsolete? Is the Social Security Administration
    obsolete? Or the Occupational Health and Safety Administration,
    the Department of Veterans Affairs or the Department of
    Education? The answer is obvious. These Federal agencies aren't
    obsolete. They play a vital role in protecting the welfare of
    all Americans, yet all of them would be eliminated under the
    Brady bill.
        I know there are Republicans who want to eliminate the EPA.
    The House Speaker, Newt Gingrich, said he wanted Medicare to
    shrivel on the vine. President Bush proposed cutting Social
    Security and eliminating important veterans' benefits, but none
    of these proposals could ever pass Congress. The public support
    for the programs is simply too strong, and you simply need to
    look at the Department of Education. I think the Contract for
    America--or as we call it, the Contract on America--called for
    the abolition of the Department of Education, and yet now that
    the Republicans have the majority and control over all the
    branches of government, I haven't seen any proposals to abolish
    that department. So the Brady bill is a clever effort to
    achieve the same results through the back door.
        Today we are going to hear a lot of rhetoric about
    streamlining government and reducing waste, and we are going to
    be told that passing this bill is part of a Republican effort
    to make government more efficient. No one in Congress has done
    more than I have to rout out waste, fraud and abuse. Just last
    month I released a report identifying 118 Federal contracts
    with over $750 billion that are rife with waste, fraud, abuse
    and mismanagement, but not a single Republican has approached
    me about the study or suggested working together to eliminate
    this pervasive squandering of taxpayer dollars.
        The real agenda here isn't wasteful spending. It is an
    effort to hold a legislative gun to the head of a number of
    important government priorities. If that bill passes,
    Republicans will say to Democrats, either you agree to weaken
    the environmental protections or privatize medical--Medicare
    and Social Security or slash veterans' benefits or we will sit
    back and allow the agencies that run these programs to expire.
    It is harder when you have a bicameral legislature to get a
    bill passed, which is what would have to happen to keep these
    agencies alive. A minority of a minority can often threaten a
    filibuster, block action, and that would mean that there would
    be an automatic expiration of these agencies.
        The Tiahrt bill, H.R. 5766, is less extreme, but its
    objectives are the same. Under this bill, there is no sunset.
    Instead, unelected commissions are created that can recommend
    abolishing or changing the function of Federal agencies. Then
    the recommendations must be voted on by Congress under fast-
    track procedures. The tiered bill is a massive transfer of
    power from the legislative body to the executive branch, and
    like the Brady bill, it puts key health and safety programs in
    constant jeopardy.
        Mr. Chairman, I believe these bills are badly flawed, but I
    am glad we are having this opportunity to explore their
    consequences. While the bills are flawed, the two gentlemen who
    offered them are very fine gentlemen, and I have a high regard
    for them, so I wouldn't want them to take my comments in any
    way personally, but I do disagree with them on this
    legislation. And I am especially grateful that you accommodated
    our suggestion about the witnesses for the second panel, and I
    do want to correct--because I think credibility's important--I
    am not sure that abolishing the Department of Education was a
    contract, but it might have been one of the priorities for
    Speaker Gingrich and other----
        Chairman Tom Davis. It was a subcontract for some people.
        Mr. Waxman. Subcontract. It was a contract out, a contract
    on the Department of Education. But, Mr. Chairman, that
    outlines why we feel as strongly as we do on this issue.
        [The prepared statement of Hon. Henry A. Waxman follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.041

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.042

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.043

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.044

        Chairman Tom Davis. Mr. Waxman, you have been consistent in
    that, and we appreciate all your support on both pieces of
    legislation. I think we could have a spirited debate.
        I would say to Todd and Kevin, you have a lot of convincing
    to do in your opening testimony to bring Mr. Waxman over. We
    are trying to build this by consensus. I am not sure we will be
    able to do it on this issue, but I look forward to working with
    you on the other matters that you brought up.
        Do you want to say anything, Tom? We will introduce Mr.
    Lantos very quickly for an opening statement.
        Mr. Lantos. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Today this committee is going to hear from some of our
    colleagues about legislation that would create commissions to
    abolish or reorganize Federal agencies and programs. And there
    is no Member of Congress for whom I have higher regard and more
    personal affection than my friend Kevin Brady. Opening
    statements will be made about trimming fat from the Federal
    budget, but the sad truth is that these bills are nothing more
    than the outsourcing of the work of the Congress, and it will
    deprive this body of its constitutional role as lawmaker and
    the check on the executive branch.
        Instead of zealous oversight by Congress, the two pieces of
    legislation before us aim to create an unelected board to
    decide which agencies or programs within agencies are to be
    terminated. The system our Founding Fathers created over two
    centuries ago would give way to something that Kafka would
    like, a faceless body of unelected and unaccountable hatchet
    men working under the cloak of darkness.
        I recognize, Mr. Chairman, that we in Congress have many
    obligations and never seem to have enough time to do all the
    people's work. After all, today is the 200th day of the
    calendar year, and despite that, under the present management,
    we have been in session only 62 days. Mr. Chairman, I am a
    professional economist, and I am sure that you will agree that
    a schedule that has us out of Washington so much of the time is
    not very efficient or economical in terms of the use of our
    resources. But I do not believe that a potentially
    unconstitutional delegation of our jobs is necessary to fix
    this inefficiency. I believe it is absurd to assume that a
    short-lived commission charged with reviewing multiple programs
    will have either the reach or the expertise of a standing
    congressional committee and its staff.
        After reviewing this legislation, I was disturbed to think
    about the programs that have had such a profound impact on my
    constituents and yours could be cut in secret by an unelected
    and unresponsive board. For example, Head Start education
    program could be terminated, and not by the Education and
    Workforce Committee but by an unelected commission without
    public input and bypassing regular order.
        Supporters of these commissions often liken them to the
    Base Realignment and Closure Commission or the Greenspan Social
    Security Commission of the 1980's. Unfortunately, there is no
    resemblance between these important and necessary commissions
    and this unnecessary and probably unconstitutional usurpation
    of congressional oversight which we are hearing about today.
    This proposal may create a sunset commission, but it should
    really be called a midnight commission because it would work in
    the dark of night to eliminate programs which some Members of
    Congress despise but lack the political will to change. This
    legislation is nothing more than the outsourcing of
    congressional oversight, and I hope my colleagues will see
    through this charade and turn the lights out on these
    proposals.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Hon. Tom Lantos follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.045

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.046

        Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you for your statement. I will
    just note, Congressman, that the Congress did outsource the 9/
    11 Commission, which came back with a number of recommendations
    that were then enacted, and on Katrina, the other side wanted
    to outsource that. We felt that was congressional. I guess it
    depends on the issue and where you stand on this. We will have
    a very spirited debate on this.
        Mr. Gutknecht.
        Mr. Gutknecht. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Where you stand
    depends largely on where you sit. And let me just say--and I
    suspect I may be stealing some of their thunder--I believe it
    was Mark Twain who once observed that the closest thing to
    eternal life is a government program, and we have tried a
    number of occasions to try to figure out how we can eliminate
    some of these unnecessary and duplicative programs, programs
    that have do have a constituency but, in the broader picture,
    really serve very little in terms of public purpose. And so I
    want to congratulate both my colleagues for being here today.
        I think these are issues that deserve serious
    consideration, and I certainly do not agree with my colleague
    from California that this is going to be done in the dead of
    night. This is going to be done with plenty of input from lots
    of people. But by going outside the political arena only
    slightly, it gives us an opportunity to succeed where
    heretofore, since 1995, 1996, we really haven't had a whole lot
    in terms of victories in the way of eliminating some of these
    programs that have probably outlived their usefulness. So I
    congratulate my colleagues for bringing this forward, and I
    thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing.
        Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Tiahrt, we will start with you. At least you can
    convince me and Mr. Gutknecht. We are here.

      STATEMENT OF HON. TODD TIAHRT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                        FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS

        Mr. Tiahrt. I am looking forward to the opportunity to
    convince not only Mr. Waxman and Mr. Lantos but other members
    of--those who are in adversary to this concept. I would like
    unanimous consent to submit testimony for the record.
        Chairman Tom Davis. Without objection, so ordered.
        Mr. Tiahrt. Mr. Chairman, over the past 12 years, my time
    in Congress, I have looked at several different methods of
    trying to gain supplemental help for Congress to do its job of
    oversight. When I review my schedule on an annual basis, I
    realize that I have a very full schedule, and I know that it is
    true for each and every Member of Congress. We have trips to
    our home districts. We have instances that arise unannounced.
    We have legislation that carries us well into the night. We
    have opportunities to run for re-election or get rehired every
    2 years, and it keeps our schedule very full. And what is
    sacrificed with this busy-ness that goes on in our daily
    schedules is the ability to do proper oversight. There are many
    examples within the Federal Government of why there is a need
    for supplemental help in the oversight process. We heard
    earlier the gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Porter, talk about how
    many different people inspect pizzas across the United States.
    We had for over a century somebody who was assigned to the
    Federal Government to do nothing but taste tea, and certainly
    as the chairman has pointed out, we have had, since Katrina,
    attempts for oversight of FEMA that have yet to be I think as
    productive as we would like. Certainly, if you look at FEMA and
    all of the problems that were addressed that came out of that
    event, we realize that FEMA had no idea where all their
    supplies were or what procedures were in place or what was
    needed at the time, and there are materials that they purchased
    to date that are still unused because of one reason or another.
    When I think of how the private sector has advanced, FedEx and
    UPS. If you send a parcel with them, you can go online and
    check to see the position of that parcel any moment in time and
    know whether it has been delivered or whether it is en route
    and where it is en route. FEMA couldn't even find out how many
    bottles of water they had. If you look at Ocean Spray, they can
    track a bottle of cranberry juice across the Nation. They know
    how many are in stores, what stores they are. They know when it
    is time to refill an order. FEMA hasn't kept track of all the
    trailer houses they have purchased yet. There is a need for
    oversight. Congress simply doesn't have the time to do it. So
    the need is very real.
        This is a structure. This bill is a structure to set up the
    ability for us to have supplemental oversight. It consists of
    three members appointed by the President, four members that are
    taken after consultation with the majority--the Speaker of the
    House, the minority leader in the House, and the majority
    leader of the Senate and minority leader in the Senate. So
    there is congressional input on the selection of the committee.
    In addition to that, there is an opportunity for four ex
    officio members to attend the hearings, be part of the process,
    that are Members of Congress. For example, if it had to do with
    government oversight, the two ex officio members from the House
    could be Chairman Davis and Ranking Member Waxman who could be
    part of the process. Again, congressional input in the process.
        Chairman Tom Davis. Does it pay anything?
        Mr. Tiahrt. No. These are not--but you could put in for
    overtime as we do when we vote late.
        This committee would exist for up to a year, depending on
    the time necessary. They would be awarded staff, but these are
    voluntary positions. These are nonpaid positions. The staff, of
    course, would be paid, but extensions would be picked up for
    those members who are serving on this commission. It would be
    given the time and the authority to investigate properly any of
    the agencies or programs that they are looking at. These
    programs, by the way, are selected by either an Executive order
    from the President or they can be selected by a resolution from
    either the House or the Senate. Once that is put into place,
    the commission is formed. They are selected. They spend a
    period of time investigating the program, and then they would
    return to Congress with a recommendation.
        This recommendation would then go back through the
    congressional process of going through a committee for a
    specific amount of time. It could be amended, or it could not
    be amended. It will come to the House either with a
    recommendation or without a recommendation from the committee.
    But, again, Congress is involved in this process.
        Some of the criticism I heard this morning is outsourcing
    Congress. This is not outsourcing Congress. This is entwining
    Congress in the supplemental effort to have oversight of
    Congress. Another comment I heard was massive transfer of
    power. This is not a massive transfer of power. Nothing gets
    off the floor of the House unless it receives a majority vote.
    Nothing gets out of committee either with or without a
    recommendation or with or without amendments unless it has a
    majority vote in the committee. So it very much inserts
    Congress in this process from the time it is formed until the
    time it is passed onto both houses and to the President's desk.
        So I think what we have--and again, this is a structure. It
    is something that can be applied for different ideas or
    different problems that Congress faces over the next period of
    time. It is a framework. It is an ability for us to assist our
    job in oversight. It gives us necessary tools, and I would hope
    that the committee can successfully pass it onto the floor.
        [The prepared statement of Hon. Todd Tiahrt follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.047

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.048

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.049

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.050

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.051

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.052

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.053

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.054

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.055

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.056

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.057

        Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much, Mr. Tiahrt.
        Mr. Brady.

      STATEMENT OF HON. KEVIN BRADY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                        FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

        Mr. Brady. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Cummings, Mr.
    Gutknecht, for the opportunity to testify today.
        I think this is the third opportunity I have had to testify
    before this committee over the past 10 years.
        I spent a considerable amount of time visiting with Members
    about the sunset commission, educating about how it works in
    the 24 States that use it, and we are always looking for
    opportunities to improve it, and I, too, would like to have
    consent to submit my written testimony.
        Chairman Tom Davis. Without objection.
        Mr. Brady. So I can be a little more brief. If there is an
    area where both parties can agree on, it ought to be that we
    can make this government run more efficiently. The programs
    ought not duplicate themselves. Our taxpayers ought to get the
    best bang for the buck, and it is not a Republican issue or a
    Democrat issue but a bipartisan issue to try to get the most
    out of our precious tax dollars.
        The sunset commission is a bipartisan approach that seeks
    to do that year after year to trim this government, to
    streamline it, to make it work better for the taxpayers. This
    is not a crash diet. It is, take off pounds sensibly month
    after month, year after year, until we make this government
    run; make it just as healthy and just as fit and just as
    efficient as we in a bipartisan way can do it. Sunset
    commission is proven. It is thoughtful, and here is how it
    works. Sunset commission is comprised of 12 members appointed
    by the majority, the Speaker and the majority leader of the
    Senate and equally divided with the consent of the minority.
    These 12 members must be equally bipartisan, not with the
    recommendation of the minority; the consent, the agreement of
    the minority. And that is because when Congressman Jim Turner
    and I, and Congressman Lloyd Doggett and I, and a number of us
    worked on sunset issues in the State legislature and in looking
    at the 24 States that already do it, creating a truly
    bipartisan commission made up not just of outside members, but
    in this case, 8 of the 12 will be legislators themselves,
    Congressmen themselves, we know that is the best way long term.
    We want the sunset commission to work, regardless of who is in
    charge around here, regardless of who is in the White House.
        The commission sets a schedule with the consent of
    Congress, puts a sunset date on every Federal agency that we
    deem. Our belief is that there ought not be any sacred cows. No
    agency runs as efficiently as it ought to. We want a model to
    justify its operations, its programs and how it serves the
    people. There ought not be sacred cows. And that is in truth
    how it has worked on the State level as well as very
    effectively. For the period that the agency is up for sunset
    review, the commission examines it. It looks at key issues: How
    efficient is it? What is the public need today, not the need 80
    or 100 years ago? What type of public service are we providing?
    What type of customer service are we providing? What type of
    public input do they regularly bring to their operations? Let's
    examine and measure how effective they are in responding to the
    Freedom of Information Act; how effective they are in providing
    equal opportunities to its workers; what type of programs they
    have that they duplicate for themselves; all of these, again,
    looking to a means to streamline, to identify duplication to
    make things run better.
        I keep saying this is a proven method because it has worked
    in 24 States for more than three decades. States like
    California, like Texas, and it is sort of hard to describe as
    extreme or radical a program that has worked for more than
    three decades in governments, Republican and Democrat State
    governments across this country, and it has proven its value.
        Texas, what I saw firsthand, Texas runs a good sunset
    commission. Over the years, it has abolished 52 State agencies,
    saved a little less than $1 billion and is strongly bipartisan.
    In fact, before this committee, Mr. Chairman, we have had both
    Democrat and Republican leaders of that sunset commission come
    here to testify as to its value. And at the Federal level,
    where on average every Federal program duplicates five others,
    we are simply at the time with this deficit and with this war,
    with the need to reduce the tax burden on American families, we
    just may need to make sure that we are running as efficiently
    as possible.
        And so I will conclude with this: Some people say we ought
    not make agencies justify their existence, but the truth of the
    matter is that every Member of Congress on this dais is sunset
    every 2 years. The President is sunset every 4; the Senate
    every 6. As we speak, there are hundreds of State agencies
    across the country justifying their existence, and each day in
    America, thousands of small businesses go out of existence
    because they did not serve those that they sought to serve and
    have a need for it. I believe this will be the first time that,
    in a bipartisan way, we can say to ourselves, let's put up or
    shut up; produce or leave; let's put money toward the programs
    that truly serve the taxpayers and then not a dime to the
    programs that don't. The sunset commission is proven.
        I would urge support, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Hon. Kevin Brady follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.058

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.059

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.060

        Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you.
        Kevin, let me just start out by asking you, Mr. Waxman's
    assertion that, in 12 years, all these programs get abolished.
    Can you explain that?
        Mr. Brady. Yes, well, in truth, it doesn't work that way at
    all. What you want to do is set up a thoughtful schedule where
    you can look at each agency and not just by itself, which
    Congress tends to do, but grouping agencies by function so that
    you can group agencies across a broader field. That is what
    really that schedule drives at. The reason for a sunset date
    isn't so Congress will act. The truth of the matter is, we have
    had a lot of different studies both by Members and by agencies,
    but what do we do with those studies that help identify
    efficiencies? Rarely do we pick them off the shelf. The sunset
    date forces Congress in a sense to make sure we are looking at
    these key issues; that is all.
        Chairman Tom Davis. To both of you, I mean, these ideas--to
    give Mr. Waxman's arguments some credence--I mean, these are
    really born out of frustration of Congress's inability and the
    administration's to work regular order to try to cull out
    ineffective programs; isn't that correct? So we look at
    extraordinary circumstances that maybe will work because we
    haven't been able to do the job.
        Mr. Tiahrt. Well, the ship of state is a very large vessel.
    It is like an aircraft carrier. Members of Congress are like
    people in rowboats. And to get it to change direction means an
    awful lot of rowboats. This is a way for us to sort of increase
    the size of our vessel and get a little more help in trying to
    change the government to be a little more efficient.
        If you look at our track record over the last generation,
    Congress has done very poorly at oversight, and it is just a
    simple fact that we don't have the time to do the oversight we
    need to do. These are supplemental tools that will help us with
    that, and I think it has risen out of a sense of frustration
    because many efforts have gone forward. We have had the Grace
    Commission; we have had other commissions that haven't had the
    ability to get things done. Both these proposals have some
    ability to get things done by imposing some form of milestone
    to accomplish that task. So I think there--a good step in the
    right direction. I think they will be used by both sides
    regardless of who is in power to help this government save
    money and use it where it has a higher priority.
        Mr. Brady. To mix metaphors, Mr. Chairman, I am convinced
    that, if Congress were a manufacturing plant, we would
    manufacture spending; that is what we are designed to do. If we
    want to manufacture savings and efficiency, we have to retool
    the plant a bit, and I keep stressing this. We have to do it in
    a bipartisan way, long term, over the years. We just can't be
    building mini vans and then hope that we can build a more
    energy-efficient car. You actually have to take steps, and in
    the design of Congress, we tend to look, as you know on this
    committee, we tend to look at the trees because that is our
    jurisdiction. Sunset gives an opportunity to look at the forest
    as well.
        Chairman Tom Davis. Now, to be candid, only 39 percent of
    Federal spending is in the area that would be looked at. Is
    that correct? You have another 61 percent, at least under
    today's budget, interest on the debt and entitlement programs
    that we don't look at here. Is that----
        Mr. Brady. Yes. And one thing about the sunset commission
    is that, again, I would encourage to hold all agencies under
    sunset review because you also look at how those services
    deliver. Are we delivering them to the people when they need
    them on time, efficiently, and that is key.
        Chairman Tom Davis. Just to try to get a scope. We are not
    after entitlements here. That is another problem and issue that
    is going to have to be faced.
        Mr. Brady. Exactly. This is not the services. This is how
    well we provide these services.
        Chairman Tom Davis. Mr. Tiahrt.
        Mr. Tiahrt. The Government Efficiency Act that I am
    proposing here does have the ability to look at some areas of
    government that are mandatory that are not doing well. For
    example, in the State of Kansas today, one out of four Medicaid
    payments goes to the wrong address. It is in some fashion
    incorrect. Many aren't getting to the people that need to be
    paid. So that is something I believe we should be looking at.
    Why is the State of Kansas or other States so inefficient in
    distributing Medicaid funding? It should be, if we have
    somebody who qualifies, they should receive payment, and it is
    not happening today in my State, and so I think that would be
    one area where we could move forward in an area that quite
    often is protected by parochial interest, but this would allow
    us to be more efficient even in areas that are considered
    mandatory.
        Chairman Tom Davis. Mr. Cummings.
        Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, I will read my statement, and then ask
    questions if I have time. I want to thank you for holding this
    important hearing on these two legislative proposals. The
    Government Efficiency Act and the Abolishment of Obsolete
    Agencies and Federal Sunset Act, and I am going to ask Mr.
    Tiahrt and Mr. Brady to comment on one of my comments. They
    have been touted by the office as a way to oversee the work of
    the executive branch. I thought that was our job. Supporters of
    these so-called sunset bills present this as a good government
    issue. Pointing to jurisdictional overlaps in the Federal
    Government, they claim that commissions could be used to inform
    Members of Congress of the inefficiencies that exist.
        As a member of this committee, I have consistently
    supported efforts to make sure government runs as effectively
    and efficiently as possible, but I am not in the dark when it
    comes to the true intent behind the sunset legislation. Under
    both proposals, no Federal program or agency is exempt from
    investigation. That means programs that have consistently been
    the targets of overzealous reforms, programs such as TANF,
    Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, are incredibly
    vulnerable. I think that there is no coincidence in the fact
    that the same Members who support sunset legislation are the
    ones who have consistently worked to gut or completely
    obliterate these programs through reorganization, underfunding
    and privatization efforts. The reality is clear, sunset
    legislation is just another way for a group of determined
    lawmakers to black out our Nation's great social programs.
    Efforts to do so through traditional legislative means have
    sometimes failed. So we are now seeing an attempt to bypass the
    democratic process by ramming these bills through Congress.
        For the record, I am not opposed to setting up independent
    commissions that advise the work of the Congress, but the
    commissions that are being proposed here would not be
    independent and not really advisory. To the contrary, under
    H.R. 5766, commission members would be appointed by the
    President, and under H.R. 3282, they would be appointed by the
    majority party. If either bill passes in this session, the
    commission obviously would lean heavily Republican, likely
    creating a built-in partisanship and bias.
        Even more troubling though, however, is the power that
    these commissions would have to fundamentally change Federal
    agencies and programs. Under H.R. 5766, commission proposals
    would be fast-tracked to the floor, bypassing the traditional
    legislative process. We do enough of that now. And under H.R.
    3282, agencies would be abolished 1 year after being reviewed
    unless they were specifically reauthorized by Congress. These
    bills go far beyond an advisory capacity, cutting into the
    constitutionally mandated responsibilities of Congress. My
    674,000 constituents gave me a certain level of power, and I
    don't want to lose one single bit of it. The work of Congress
    falls into three basic categories: making laws, conducting
    oversight and levying taxes. As an oversight committee, the
    Government Reform Committee is charged with identifying and
    addressing the areas where government is not running as
    effectively and efficiently as it should. For the most part, I
    think we have done a good job so far of putting partisan
    politics aside and evaluating Federal agencies and programs in
    a fair way. We may not always agree in our assessments, but
    dissent is a natural part of the democratic process. There are
    no compelling reasons for why we would hand over our oversight
    responsibility to a handful of partisan lawmakers or a
    Presidentially appointed commission. I hope that my colleagues
    who I know are well intentioned and who are supporting these
    bills would rethink their positions and listen to what the
    American people and their representatives are saying. Let's cut
    the waste, but let's not pretend that we are doing so by
    allowing allegedly independent sunset commissions to eliminate
    the vital programs which serve the neediest Americans.
        And let me--and only just one question. Mr. Brady, you said
    something that I found very interesting when we talked about
    how effectively the State folks were working with sunsets; 36
    States implemented sunset measures, for instance, in the 1970's
    and 1980's, but by 2002, almost half of those abandoned the
    concept and no longer have active laws. How would your bills
    differ from the failed sunset initiatives we have seen across
    the country?
        Mr. Brady. Mr. Chairman, if I may?
        Chairman Tom Davis. Go ahead.
        Mr. Brady. A couple of things. For one thing, I think you
    have gotten some bad information. The sunset commission is not
    an independent commission. It is made up of 12 members, 8 of
    whom are lawmakers or Congressmen or women themselves. It is
    not merely appointed by the majority. It is appointed by the
    majority with the consent of the minority. It is an exactly
    equally bipartisan commission for a reason, because the States
    that have committed to be more efficient and to streamline have
    discovered the only way to do it is to walk hand in hand in a
    bipartisan way and to do it over the years.
        It is true; 36 States have used sunset; 24 still do today.
    In examining those, what I discovered was, some say governments
    simply weren't committed to trying to streamline their
    government effectively over the years. They did it one time and
    said, this is too hard or we don't like this. It is too hard to
    work. And so they abandoned them. This is a budget tool that
    doesn't happen by itself. We actually have to decide to do more
    than talk the talk about efficiency. Everyone around here, as
    you know--you have seen them--they like to talk about
    efficiency and waste and fraud and abuse, but the truth of the
    matter is, we do a miserable job in a bipartisan way trying to
    make this government run more efficiently. We have 350
    different economic development programs. I confess, I don't
    know what they all are or how effective they all are. We have
    almost 500 different urban aid programs. I bet we can probably
    help inner cities better if we tried to look at how efficiently
    they are doing. For early development, which is a key I know
    for you, helping children get up to the right level before they
    start their school years, we have in early development 50
    programs spread out over eight different agencies. I am not
    convinced we can't deliver those services better to those kids,
    and the only way we could in my view and the way this
    commission was designed was that if Republicans and Democrats
    have to work together over a long period of time regardless of
    who is in charge around here and regardless of who is in the
    White House, if we want this to be an effective budget tool, we
    are going to have to commit to it ourselves, and we always talk
    about, some day we are going to do it, but why not do it now?
        Chairman Tom Davis. OK. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Gutknecht.
        Mr. Gutknecht. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And again, I want to congratulate both of you because I
    have sort of been involved in this battle before. When I was in
    the State legislature, I took it upon myself to eliminate a
    number of State programs, and I found out how difficult that
    really, really is. And I just want to remind our colleagues of
    something: When this country was founded, the President of the
    United States, the government was so small, the Supreme Court
    only met about 2 weeks a year. The President of the United
    States was given the responsibility of also being the
    superintendent of the schools here in Washington, DC.
        The government and the country have grown enormously in the
    last 200 and some years. As a result, it isn't just that we
    don't have time; it is just that the government has become so
    big that there is no way we can give adequate oversight to
    every single agency. And we have seen, as in the IBM ad that
    they ran for a number of months, where they had King Arthur and
    he was sitting around with some of his advisors, and they had
    hired this consultant, and the consultant throws a big bag into
    the center of the table, and King Arthur says, are you saying
    we should throw money at the problem? And the consultant says,
    precisely. And if you look at what we do, and I think Mr. Brady
    said it----
        Chairman Tom Davis. I think that consultant is still alive
    in Washington.
        Mr. Gutknecht. In fact, he has multiplied. There is a
    number of them out here. And that is basically the advice we
    get, whether we are dealing with the scourge of drugs or
    whether we are dealing with poverty programs or whether we are
    dealing with VA benefits or FEMA, all that, and so I know that
    this concept will have its critics, but I hope people will at
    least take a little bit of time and step back and say, look,
    the government has grown enormously in the last 200 years, and
    the idea that Congress has the time or the focus to really look
    at all of these programs objectively I think is hopelessly
    optimistic. And we have been throwing money at problems for a
    very long time, and some of those problems have actually gotten
    worse. And so I just congratulate you, and I don't particularly
    have a question. I mean, I understand what you are trying to
    do. I support what you are trying to do. I understand there
    will be lots and lots of critics, but I hope you will persist
    because I think, in the end, once the American people
    understand this debate, and understand this argument, I have to
    believe that the overwhelming number of Americans, even
    recipients of these programs, can perhaps be our best source of
    information in terms of the enormous inefficiencies that you
    see in the delivery of the services that many Americans do
    desperately need. So my hats are off to you, and I will help in
    any way I can to advance the cause.
        Mr. Tiahrt. Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Tom Davis. Yes, Mr. Tiahrt.
        Mr. Tiahrt. I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota,
    Mr. Gutknecht, for his comments, but I would also want to
    address some of the things Mr. Cummings brought up if I could
    take some time. There is one area that I want to bring up, but
    I think it is being overlooked in the Government Efficiency
    Act, and that is the congressional involvement in the process.
    All the critics seem to think we are avoiding our
    responsibility or usurping our responsibility to oversight. But
    in this process, from the very beginning, the selection of the
    issue or oversight program comes from either Congress or the
    President. Congress has the opportunity through a resolution of
    either the House or the Senate to have something presented to
    this framework, this efficiency commission. There is also a
    congressional involvement in the appointment process, three
    appointed by the President, two with consultation of the House,
    ranking--or minority/majority, two from the Senate majority/
    minority. There is also the opportunity for ex officio
    congressional members to be a part of the commission. Four
    positions, two from the House, two from the Senate, and again,
    as I said earlier, if it was oversight, it could be Chairman
    Davis and Ranking Member Waxman. There is also--after the study
    is done by the commission, it then goes back to the Congress
    through the committee process. There is an amendment process;
    there is a recommendation process. Then it goes to floor vote
    of both the House and the Senate. There is deep involvement by
    elected Members of Congress in this process of oversight that
    is laid out by the Government Efficiency Act. And I just want
    to make that point for the critics.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
        We will move to Mr. Lynch.
        Mr. Lynch. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the
    members for coming before us with this initiative. I understand
    some of what you are trying to do, and I agree with some of it,
    but there are some serious questions here that I have. This
    looks a lot like the old Grace Commission, the Grace Commission
    was established by President Reagan basically to improve
    government efficiency, and it is funny how that worked out
    because the Grace Commission itself instead became a model of
    inefficiency, waste and corporate corruption. The commission
    had 2,000 staff members and cost the taxpayers about $75
    million, and you know, it was laughable actually. The
    commission recommended cutting military retirement benefits,
    similar to what the President has proposed, eliminating wage
    fairness protections and also a lot of regulatory protections
    for the environment. And as it turned out, the chairman of the
    commission, Peter Grace was later indicted, and his company WR
    Grace was found guilty of violating the very regulations that
    he was trying to dismantle. And so that is clear in my mind,
    and I am very concerned about this.
        It appears at least--the way these bills would work--and
    there are several versions, and I am going to talk about that
    in a minute--we would have to basically reconstitute government
    on a continual basis. We would have to revisit every single
    decision we have made and pull it up before Congress and both
    the House and the Senate and then give the President another
    chance to veto every prior decision of every prior Congress,
    and that just seems to me to create a tremendous burden on us,
    and I think it will really slow down the efficiency of
    government rather than enhance it. And I have enormous respect
    for both of the gentlemen that are here today testifying. I
    really do. I know you, and I know your work, and I appreciate
    what you are trying to do. But I am very concerned about--the
    President has suggested cutting veterans' benefits and
    eliminating COPS grants, and much of the work that we used to
    do in Congress we now dole out in community development block
    grants to the cities and States, and we ask them to do it. Now
    after we have given them the responsibility for doing the work
    we used to do, now we are suggesting cutting the money that we
    normally used to give them. And so it is just--I just think
    that it is a good idea to, you know, to get rid of waste, fraud
    and abuse. I don't think these bills necessarily have focused
    on that.
        I do notice that, on a couple of earlier instances, both of
    the gentlemen, Mr. Brady and Mr. Tiahrt, before us have
    suggested similar bills but with some exemptions for certain
    programs that were deemed to be too important to subject to
    this process. And I am just wondering, for instance,
    Representative Brady, in addition to the bill before us today,
    H.R. 3282, you also introduced H.R. 3277, except in that case,
    it exempts certain regulations from abolishment regarding
    environmental health, basic health and safety, civil rights
    protections and those regulations that enforce those
    activities. Am I to assume that because the current bill before
    us doesn't have any exemptions that you no longer support those
    type of exemptions?
        Mr. Brady. No, I do. I think those are very important.
    Those came about because of discussions we have had with
    members over the years, and should this committee choose to
    mark the sunset commission up, we will ask Mr. Porter to offer
    an amendment, who has worked with us as well, to insert those
    because the goal of the sunset commission is not to boss
    regulations on environment, education, civil rights, all that,
    that is not it. It is a way for you and me to, over time, over
    the years, very thoughtfully, Republican and Democrat, try to
    make this run more efficiently. And one of the reasons, again,
    Congressman Jim Turner and I, who served together in the Texas
    Legislature; Lloyd Doggett, who created our sunset commission;
    the wide range of philosophies that believe in accountability.
    Here is my other key point. We live in a time where we don't
    really trust each other up here, and so everything is seen as a
    partisan bill.
        Mr. Lynch. That doesn't apply to me. And I don't think it
    applies to you either. But----
        Mr. Brady. But it is a fair question. We have tried
    painfully to create a commission that will work regardless of
    who is in charge here, regardless who is running the House,
    Senate or the White House, so it will work over time because,
    in looking at the States that have used this, some not very
    well, some very well, it is that bipartisan approach that
    works.
        Mr. Lynch. Fair enough. If I could just, just reclaiming my
    time. Also Representative Tiahrt, you also, at one point, you
    introduced a bill, H.R. 2470, similar to the one we are
    considering today. However, H.R. 2470 expressly exempted
    entitlements, certain entitlements, and focused on nondefense
    discretionary spending. Now, I understand that Medicaid,
    Medicare and Social Security would have been exempted in the
    earlier version as well as, I guess, Defense. Now, given the
    fact, you know, the other subcommittee that I serve on here
    proudly is investigating Halliburton, we have about $9 billion
    missing over in Iraq, No. 1, do you still think that, you know,
    in light of all the waste, fraud and abuse that is going on in
    the Middle East and the huge numbers we are talking, should we
    still exempt the military? And do you think that Medicare,
    Medicaid and Social Security should be similarly protected?
        Mr. Tiahrt. Thank you for the question, Mr. Lynch. And
    CARFA was designed--the first one you referred to was the
    Commission on Accountability and Review of Federal agencies,
    CARFA. It did set aside Defense because it was a BRAC-like
    process, a Base Realignment Commission process, that was being
    done in the Department of Defense. I set it aside. I didn't
    think we had time to look at other mandatory spending. But in
    talking with others about what is going on, certainly we need
    to look at what is going on with Halliburton and other
    contractors in Iraq and see if there is justification for how
    the money was spent or if it was--what happened to the money. I
    think that is a valid thing to look at. What made me open my
    eyes to other entitlements was the State of Kansas where I am
    from. I represent the Fourth District of Kansas, and I found
    out that in Medicaid payments, one out of every four Medicaid
    payments done by the State of Kansas is incorrect. It either
    goes to the wrong address, it has the wrong amount, or it
    doesn't get there at all. And I talked to Ways and Means about
    this. Ways and Means doesn't have time to do it. Somebody has
    to be able to go look at these issues that pop up where there
    is a problem, where people are not properly being served, and
    this is an issue that could have been generated by me through a
    resolution on the House, and I think you would have supported
    me on trying to straighten out this process because people of
    need are not being served properly. So this is just a framework
    to address defense, mandatory spending and discretionary
    spending that says, if an issue pops up that we believe needs
    to be looked at with some leverage and with some additional
    tools, here is a framework to do it, and that is what the
    Government Efficiency Act is about. It involves Congress along
    the process. We can even initiate the issues like I would like
    to do with the State of Kansas, and I think you would join with
    me, and that is why I am trying to set up this framework for us
    to reach out and make this more efficient.
        Mr. Lynch. Well, I appreciate that, and I appreciate the
    spirit in which it is offered, but looking at this, you know,
    it seems to me that--and I will conclude my remarks--it just
    seems to set up a conveyor belt that every single regulation
    that we visit and settle on is going to be continually sent
    back to us, and we are going to have to revisit all of these on
    a continual basis. I think it is going to cause a tremendous
    amount of work here, and it is actually going to hurt the
    efficiency of government if we are reviewing programs that we
    are all in agreement that work. I would rather just focus on
    those problem areas, as you suggested. So it is not a question
    of what you would like to do. It is really a question of how
    best to do that. Thank you. I yield back.
        Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you. Ms. Schmidt.
        Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
    Congressman Brady and Congressman Tiahrt for this legislation.
    When I was in the State legislature, we had situations where we
    really had duplicative agencies, and it was very difficult to
    get one of them removed because the bureaucracies that were
    created with those agencies didn't quite frankly want to lose
    their job, and I wish we had a provision that would
    automatically review the necessity of all of those agencies on
    a timely basis so that we could have better utilized the money
    that we were spending from our citizens in Ohio. It appears to
    me that this is what you are really looking at doing in this
    legislation; am I correct in assuming that?
        Mr. Tiahrt. I think Kevin probably would want to address
    it. Periodically, the Government Efficiency Act was designed to
    set the framework that we could look at anything. There are
    three ways that an issue or a program or an agency could be
    looked at. One would be an Executive order from the President.
    The other one would be a resolution that was generated in the
    Senate. Another one, resolution generated in the House. Those
    things all would have to have congressional approval before
    anything was done, but it is a way for us or each Member to
    have the opportunity to bring forward some agency program or
    issue that needs to look--be looked at with more detail and
    more leverage.
        Mr. Brady. Congresswoman, tell me again the question on the
    regular----
        Ms. Schmidt. The question was, on a regular basis, would
    this set up a mechanism that these agencies, these programs
    would be reviewed in sunset--there would be a sunset provision
    to see the necessity for these programs and the agencies that
    provide the framework for the program?
        Mr. Brady. Your examining on a regular basis is really key
    to identifying efficiencies. If agencies know that they are
    going to be examined on a regular basis, if Congress knows that
    they will be examining on a regular basis, and you continue to
    do it so that you never allow them to drift out, that we are
    always looking at better ways to deliver our government
    services, in the States that have really had success, that has
    been a key part of it. Those who stop--some States have stopped
    after one round of sunset, and then the efficiencies just sort
    of grow back. They trim the tree; they get it down a little
    healthier, and it goes away. The States that have continued to
    do this have the best results. And I will tell you,
    Congresswoman, I believe in sunset so much that agencies ought
    to justify their existence just like you do every 2 years that
    I sunset the sunset commission so if this thing doesn't work,
    we will send it back in 2.
        Mrs. Schmidt. And the followup, sir. There is--what would
    the cost for this commission, and would we just be creating
    another unnecessary bureaucracy but albeit with a sunset just
    in case it didn't work to be eliminated?
        Mr. Brady. Thank you. The sunset commission, because it is
    made up of 12 members, equally divided Republican/Democrat, 8
    of them Members of Congress, so that we have impetus within our
    ranks to continue this savings and efficiency. I don't have an
    estimate for the cost. At the State level, they are not huge
    commissions at all. And I know that, in Texas, we have this
    fairly sophisticated--does a good job I think, but for every
    dollar that they have spent in the commission, they have saved
    about $36 for taxpayers. So their return on investment is
    pretty solid. But even dollars aside, I actually think the best
    benefit of it, it has forced Republicans and Democrats
    throughout decades to work together on how we can make things
    run better; that to me has been even the greater benefit.
        Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you.
        Ms. Watson.
        Mr. Watson. Yes, I would like to read my statement because
    it contains the concerns that I have and questions, too. And I
    am very concerned.
        And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing and
    for the two witnesses who have come forward with their own
    proposals. But I am very concerned about ensuring our
    constituents that our government indeed is free of waste, fraud
    and abuse. And I don't think it really gets to it because I see
    that we spend $8 billion per month in Iraq, and there is $9
    billion, as has been mentioned, is missing, and we haven't had
    the kind of in-depth oversight hearings that we should. The
    Federal Government has a very important role to play in meeting
    the public's needs, and I want to make sure that our resources
    are serving those goals.
        I am troubled by the sunset commission bills because I fear
    they will end up stripping away the programs we need to
    adequately serve the public. Since I myself was a State
    Senator, I have always been concerned about important public
    health issues, such as cardiovascular health, diabetes,
    obesity, and how these health issues lead to community health
    disparities.
        Our State and local governments, and our nonprofit allies,
    are all doing good work to meet these needs, but they need
    help. There is too much work for them to be going and doing it
    alone. That is why we need Federal programs to help them out
    and put national resources into these national health issues.
        Programs that could help meet these needs have been put on
    the chopping block. For example, the Rural and Community Access
    to Emergency Devices Program is a program to make grants
    available to areas that cannot otherwise afford the technology
    that can bring life or death for people experiencing sudden
    cardiac arrest. Rural areas and low-income communities need to
    close this gap in their public health resources.
        The demand is great, but the resources are now
    insufficient: Between 2002 and 2004, less than half of the
    grant dollars requested by the States for this program were
    awarded.
        The White House tried to eliminate this program entirely in
    the last budget, and Congress has been able to save this
    program from the chopping block. But if these sunset commission
    bills pass, Congress will have its hands tied.
        So, Mr. Chairman, these bills do not represent what I feel
    the authors' intention might be; and I feel they would have
    significant impact on the poor and disadvantaged communities,
    who already suffer intense disparities. Neither of these bills
    has any exception--and if I am wrong, please correct me--and no
    program or agency is off limits from scrutiny; and I feel, from
    a national perspective, this is unacceptable. So I urge my
    colleagues to take a deep look.
        I don't think these bills are ready to go forward, and I
    would like the two authors to come together with their bills
    and make it real clear what the exceptions and the exemptions
    are, what would be protected. I think we ought to look at the
    military programs as well, because I feel that is where a lot
    of the waste and probably fraud and abuse might rest, and I
    think just the social programs and environmental programs could
    come under the knife.
        [The prepared statement of Hon. Diane E. Watson follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.061

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.062

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.063

        Ms. Watson. So my question to the two of you, do your bills
    currently have exemptions and exceptions for health safety,
    civil rights and environmental protections.
        Mr. Brady. Let me tackle that. Because I agree with you.
    Those are important regulations. Those are important to be
    protected. In one of our previous bills we intend to add that
    language that has come from discussions with Members of both
    parties.
        Let me make one point very clear. The sunset bill in my
    view should not decide which agencies are exempted. Congress
    should decide that. The first order of business for the
    bipartisan sunset commission is to submit back to you and me,
    Ms. Watson, the schedule of the agencies when they come under
    review. If we feel some agency shouldn't or the timing is wrong
    or there is some motive we don't like, then we ought to move to
    exempt them and change that schedule.
        Now I will tell you my view. I don't think we should exempt
    any agency. I think they should be held equally accountable.
    Because whether they are the Pentagon or Health and Human
    Services or whomever, I think we ought to be examining, as
    Republicans and Democrats, how well they do their job. And I
    don't believe looking at the State level, as you have in
    California with your sunset commission, what you are really
    looking to do is identify efficiencies, do it in a bipartisan
    way and deliver those services better.
        And the Department of Education has been raised by Mr.
    Waxman, a great issue or agency to raise. At the State level,
    no major agencies have been abolished, but they've always
    examined how well they delivered their services. This is an
    opportunity whether it's the Pentagon, whatever agency it is,
    for us as lawmakers to look across a broader range of services,
    their public service, their programs, to find ways where we can
    do--where we can deliver those services better.
        So the answer is, yes we are going to add those provisions.
    I think we will give you comfort.
        Second, I think Congress will, in the separate legislation,
    approve the schedule so that you and I and Stephen and whoever
    else wants to have a say in what agencies are reviewing and
    what time table will have that final say.
        Ms. Watson. If we still have time, I'd like Mr. Tiahrt to
    respond.
        Mr. Tiahrt. Ms. Watson, thank you for the question.
        I think it is important to note that the Government
    Efficiency Act is not a policy driven act. It would not abolish
    any of our policies set forward like civil rights or health
    care.
        Health care, though it would allow us, if we choose or if
    the President thinks it needs to be looked at for efficiency
    reasons, we could look at how Medicare is being delivered in
    Kansas. Now it doesn't eliminate Medicare by any means, but it
    could give them a more efficient way to present or to pay for
    and to provide health care to people who are poor in Kansas.
        Something that I would like to do but I cannot get the help
    from the Ways and Means Committee, I don't have time myself to
    go back to the State and go through all of the system and try
    to get a more efficient delivery method, but if I could get a
    regulation through the House as an example and a commission was
    set up with congressional input, I would like to be one of the
    ex-officio members so I could see how health care is being
    delivered to those who are living--who qualified for Medicaid
    in the State of Kansas; and I would like to help improve that
    process.
        This would give me a means to do that in leverage, also. I
    could use the commission to help me find efficient ways of
    making sure that health care is properly delivered in Kansas.
    Right now, today, only three out of four attempts of getting a
    payment made properly in Kansas occurs. One out of four is
    incorrect or doesn't reach the proper person.
        So I think we need some help. I think, if we admit it, we
    do need some help with oversight. This is a way of allowing
    Congress' input in this process to leverage on or process in
    oversight.
        You also mentioned defense. Defense should be included. It
    is included in the Government Efficiency Act.
        Chairman Tom Davis. I think what we need to do is move to
    the next panel. If you have one more question, I'll let you go
    ahead.
        Ms. Watson. My question is, is there a possibility that we
    can merge these two bills and, Mr. Chairman, bring a singular
    bill back that addresses the concerns that we have stated today
    and then go through it? Is that possible?
        Chairman Tom Davis. I think we are on a time line where
    this comes next week.
        Mr. Tiahrt, go ahead.
        Mr. Tiahrt. We tried to merge the two bills for a long
    time. Stephen and I worked together for a long time to do it. I
    think it was a collective decision that we were supposed to
    merge them together. We wanted to merge them together. It was a
    collective decision not to. It was based on timing, and at some
    point I hope that we do have the ability to merge them because
    I think that the Government Efficiency Act provides the
    framework to carry out a sunset commission if it's chosen, and
    I think it should be. So we do try to merge them and thanks for
    the idea. It was a good idea.
        Chairman Tom Davis. It is a long process here as we go
    through here and get to rules and the floor and who knows. But
    I appreciate your comments. Thank you.
        We will take a 2-minute recess before we move to our next
    distinguished panel.
        [Recess.]
        Chairman Tom Davis. We have our next panel: James Horney,
    senior fellow, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities; and
    Charles Loveless, the legislative director, American Federation
    of State, County and Municipal Employees. Thank you both for
    being here. I look forward to your testimony.
        Raise your right hands.
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        Chairman Tom Davis. As with our previous speakers, the
    entire testimony is in the record. If you can keep it to 5
    minutes, the green light will go on, then the orange after 4,
    right after 5. We are having a vote sometime. Let's get through
    testimony, and we might get through questions.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Horney, we will start with you.
        Mr. Horney. In addition to my written statement, I would
    like to submit for the record a paper that I have written that
    goes into some more detail about.
        Chairman Tom Davis. That would be great. Without objection,
    be so ordered.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.064

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.065

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.066

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.067

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.068

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.069

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.070

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.071

    STATEMENTS OF JAMES R. HORNEY, SENIOR FELLOW, CENTER ON BUDGET
      AND POLICY PRIORITIES; AND CHARLES M. LOVELESS, DIRECTOR OF
    LEGISLATION, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL
                           EMPLOYEES [AFSCME]

                      STATEMENT OF JAMES R. HORNEY

        Mr. Horney. Thank you very much for having me, allowing me
    to testify today.
        I want to start off by saying that I agree completely with
    Mr. Brady's main point, which is there are improvements in the
    government operation, greater efficiencies that be can be
    achieved that should be able to--and I think would--gain broad
    support from the public and broad bipartisan support in the
    Congress.
        In fact, I think he's correct, that the only way you are
    really going to deal with these reorganization issues and
    Government Efficiency Acts is through long-term, bipartisan
    cooperation in the Congress. Unfortunately, I don't think the
    commission procedures that are in this two bills that are
    before you today are likely to lead to that result. Let me
    explain why.
        The combination of the composition of the commission, the
    rules governing how the commission can report out
    recommendations and then the special procedures that allow
    either the elimination of the program or changes in the program
    or agency without legislation going through the regular
    legislative process is more likely to lead to partisan kinds of
    efforts that in the long run are not going to be successful.
        First of all, the commissions established would have strong
    partisan majority case of 57-66. It would be 5-2 partisan,
    depending on who is the President at the time.
        In the case of Mr. Brady's bill, he's absolutely correct,
    that the way the bill was introduced there would be eight
    Members of Congress and they would be four Democrat, four
    Republicans. But the way I read the bill as it was introduced,
    there is no requirement that the other four members who are not
    Members of Congress be from different parties; and it would
    allow the Speaker and the Majority Leader of the Senate, I
    believe, to appoint members that are all from the same party.
    It's possible that there would be an understanding now that is
    not how it worked, but since this is an ongoing process that
    would not necessarily keep.
        So I believe in fact you would be likely to end up, if not
    now, at some point with an eight to four partisan majority
    split in that commission that would be established under H.R.
    3282.
        Second, the commissions that would be established can
    report recommendations with a simple majority vote. There is no
    requirement for having super majority, which means there is no
    requirement to get any support from the minority party members
    of the commission, no incentive for the members of the
    commission to search for a broad consensus on the commission.
        I also need to point out here I think that in fact the
    legislation, both bills as drafted, really do not limit what
    the commission can recommend except in the case of H.R. 3282
    which says specifically they can't recommend levels of
    appropriations. But in fact I believe, both bills, the
    commissions would be within the light set forward in the
    legislation to report--recommend changes in entitlement
    programs and how they operate programs such as Medicare, farm
    programs and so on.
        That may be not the intention of Mr. Brady, although Mr.
    Tiahrt said he thinks they should look at entitlement programs,
    but I think in both cases they could do that.
        Then, under H.R. 5766, the legislation comes up and it
    could be considered under procedures that would be fast-
    tracked, allow very limited debate, no more than 10 hours on
    the House floor and no amendments on the House floor. As
    written, if the committee of jurisdiction over the particular
    proposal were to reject the proposal or report it with an
    amendment, then it is considered under regular rules of the
    House. But if it doesn't take either of those two steps, then
    the bill goes directly to the House floor for only 10-hour
    debates, no amendments. If the chairman of the committee of
    jurisdiction over the proposal declines to have a committee
    mark-up on the proposal, there wouldn't be any chance to have
    amendments in committee. This does not seem like a process, it
    seems, designed to encourage broad bipartisan support.
        H.R. 3282 does include those fast-track procedures, but it
    does call for automatic sunset programs. The problem there, of
    course, is that a minority in Congress could block the
    reauthorization. In fact, if they have the support of the
    President, it would take just over one-third of either of the
    House or the Senate to prevent that legislation from going
    through.
        Given the makeup of the committees, the way the commission
    would operate and the procedures that happen, I think it's more
    likely these procedures would encourage a partisan approach. I
    think that the leaders who would appoint the members of the
    commission and the members of the commission themselves would
    be under tremendous pressure from the most partisan members of
    their party to use this process to try to get things through
    that those members, both parties members, have been unable to
    achieve by convincing Congress that this is something that
    should be done through the regular process.
        It's in stark contrast to the Greenspan Commission, people
    who have talked about as an example of a commission that worked
    that had an eight to seven split and no fast-track procedures,
    and it did encourage--brought bipartisan support. They had
    brought support across the commission and in Congress.
        One last thing I would like to just note is it's not clear
    to me from H.R. 3282 what happens if an agency is abolished.
    Unlike the President's proposal, which says that agencies in
    the programs within the agency are abolished, it simply says
    programs, but it doesn't say what does that mean. What does it
    mean if the tests for Medicare-Medicaid services are abolished
    and no provisions are made in legislature for Medicare to be
    operated by another agency?
        A similar proposal was offered on the House floor in 2004.
    One of the cosponsors, then Congressman Jim Turner of Texas,
    offered assurances to Members that no programs would be
    abolished; and he said there was specific language. But I can't
    identify any language in either that amendment or H.R. 3282
    that makes that clear.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Horney follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.072

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.073

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.074

        Chairman Tom Davis. Mr. Loveless, thank you.

                    STATEMENT OF CHARLES M. LOVELESS

        Mr. Loveless. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Gutknecht. It's
    a pleasure again to see you again.
        I am testifying this morning not only on behalf of my unit
    but on behalf of the 14 million men and women who come from the
    AFL/CIO, and I want to make it very clear that we are
    fundamentally opposed to both of these bills. We are strong
    advocates of improving government accountability to the public.
    If we have time later, we can talk about some of our ideas in
    that regard, but we do not think that either of these bills is
    going in that direction. In fact, in the name of improving
    government efficiency, we think these bills are going to
    trample basic democratic processes and principles.
        At its essence, sunset commissions--that sunset commission
    process is designed to further enhance the power of the
    executive branch, we think, over the legislative branch and to
    further exclude the public from decisionmaking. And this is
    because of the way that the commissions are composed under both
    of these bills, how they are to conduct their business and how
    the legislative process will unfold once a commission issues
    its recommendations.
        Under the bill that's been introduced by Mr. Tiahrt,
    commissions would be established through appointments which are
    made by the President. Certainly the views of the executive
    branch are going to dominate commission recommendations, and
    the fast-track procedures that have been set forth for
    congressional consideration under his bill give precious little
    time for Congress to evaluate the recommendations of the
    commission.
        We also think that executive authority significantly
    strengthens under the bill that is introduced by Mr. Brady.
    Because of the President's veto authority, agencies could be
    abolished even when you have a solid majority of both Houses of
    Congress who have acted to reauthorize an agency; and because a
    failure to reauthorize an important agency would really be a
    catastrophic outcome, we think that the leverage of the
    President is going to be really major and massive in that
    process.
        There has been a recent disturbing trend noted by a number
    of observers of Congress that Congress has failed recently to
    live up to its oversight responsibilities, and these bills we
    think are going to codify a secondary role for Congress if the
    over--it is reached. We think it resolved for itself.
        I have never quoted this man, but I am going to do it
    today. Former Speaker Gingrich I think said it well. He was at
    a--participated in a program I think during the last week, and
    he said clearly that Congress has failed effectively to respond
    to crises at home and abroad. He said--and I am quoting him--it
    is important to have an informed, independent legislative
    branch coming to grips with this reality and not sitting around
    waiting for Presidential leadership.
        We do not need a new rigid, automatic process as imposed by
    these bills for Congress to meet its basic constitutional
    responsibilities. We have the budget, the appropriations and
    the authorization processes whereby Congress can make any
    changes that it deems appropriate in programs and agencies.
        The key point that I want to make this morning is that, in
    our view, these bills inevitably are going to be used to hurt
    programs that benefit working families. To get an insight into
    this, just look at the President's most recent budget
    submission where he targeted a number of education, social
    service, law enforcement and other programs and agencies that
    we think that benefit working families; and, of course, tax
    cuts that in recent years have overwhelmingly benefited the
    high-speed people in our country have been totally taken off
    the table.
        But a substantial harm we think could also be caused by
    recommendations to change programs and agencies, including
    programs that eliminate worker productions, weaken enforcement,
    undermine the missions of programs and agencies through
    consolidation.
        One example is a commission calling for the abolishing of
    the OSHA, our safety and health administration, but it could
    weaken its enforcement capacity and, therefore, it would be
    incapable of enforcing the regulations that have been set out
    for its responsibility to enforce.
        I agree with Jim we have no doubt that the commissions
    established by either bill are going to be used to advance an
    agenda to severely cut back on Medicare, Medicaid and Social
    Security. We definitely think entitlements are covered in one
    way or another under these two bills.
        Let me just conclude, Mr. Chairman, by saying that we
    believe that both bills are essentially undemocratic. They do
    not serve the public interest, and we think they should be
    rejected by this committee.
        Thank you.
        Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Loveless follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.075

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.076

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.077

        Chairman Tom Davis. Let me start, Mr. Horney, with you.
        If we were to make the procedural changes that you
    suggested, which I think are very constructive, by the way, we
    still wouldn't be convinced that this is probably the way to
    go.
        Mr. Horney. My gut reaction, it is better for the Congress
    to do its own work.
        But I have to say there have been times when a properly
    constructed commission has helped. I think the 1983 Greenspan
    Social Security Commission is a good example, where you had a
    problem that everybody agreed had been solved. It was political
    and difficult. You had brought support. You had the President,
    you had the Speaker of the House, you had Republican and
    Democrat leaders who all got on board and said, let's do it,
    put a commission together to help us come up with something and
    generate public support and support in Congress.
        So my first instinct would be I don't think it is time to
    do that here. I think that Congress can address these issues.
    It has done some, not enough.
        It was interesting Mr. Tiahrt mentioned the tea tasting
    that has been eliminated. Congress has responded when it was
    identified----
        Chairman Tom Davis. We bagged it.
        Mr. Horney. Exactly. So when an egregious example was
    identified, Congress got rid of it. So my preference would be
    to do it through the regular process. If you need a commission
    I think with some changes, significant changes be both on the
    commission and not having the fast-track procedures, it could
    be useful.
        Chairman Tom Davis. I mean, I think, Mr. Loveless, you put
    it well. You are skeptical of the whole agenda at this point.
        Mr. Loveless. I think so. And I just--you know, we heard a
    lot about the experience of States--varying States are used to
    these commissions, but in fact it's been a very mixed record at
    the State level. A number of States have eliminated their
    commissions in this area. Even in the State of Texas, it's been
    a subject of some controversy.
        But the fundamental difference between the States and the
    Congress is you are in year round. You are paid on a yearly
    basis. We are in all the time now. It seems like the Congress
    never goes home. You can't even take a vacation any more--let's
    be blunt about the whole thing--except for an August recess.
        Most State legislatures are in for a very small amount of
    time, and they operate every other year, what have you. So we
    can even argue the need for these commissions at the State
    level. I think it is a very different situation when you talk
    about the Federal Government and the role of Congress.
        Chairman Tom Davis. Let me ask you, it seems to me, as you
    take a look at trying to get spending under control, I think
    that is something everything should agree on. We can argue
    whether you have enough revenue and does it reduce economy.
    Everybody understands we want to operate and try to get
    spending under control and all have different priorities.
        But it seems to me when government needs to lose weight,
    the tendency is to chop off fingers and toes. When in fact the
    fat, if you will, is layered just throughout the way government
    does business and the way we procure goods. It is the way we
    react to things.
        If we would settle more on some of the business process--
    the GAO has a lot of reports just showing programs that are not
    getting--you know, people that are getting mispaid, the systems
    that aren't working, that there is probably more money in that
    and are knocking out a few programs that you could reach a
    consensus on or consolidating programs.
        Mr. Loveless. I don't disagree with that. I mean--and there
    are a number of what I think are very positive, constructive
    suggestions that are out there. I know that Congressman Tanner
    has recently introduced a resolution that would require
    committees of jurisdiction to hold hearings, at the minimum,
    when the Inspector General or the GAO issues a report critical
    to the way programs are being administered by agencies. That
    seems to me to be a very sensible thing.
        We have another proposal--maybe I think this is too
    extreme--by Congressman Cardoza that would require
    reconfirmation of agency heads when agencies fail basic audits
    2 years in a row.
        There are a number of things that can be done, but what I
    object to is this automatic mechanical process that is fast-
    tracked that I do not believe is going to give you, the
    authorizing committees who should know the most about the
    programs under their jurisdiction, the kind of time that they
    need to make the kinds of assessments that need to be made.
        Mr. Horney. If I could, one thing you noted, GAO, I think
    that in fact illustrates one important difference between the
    Federal Government and State governments. I think in some
    instances States may think that the commissions are useful
    because they need to get together people who can look at this
    and come up with ideas. They don't have the Office of
    Management and Budget that is running the part assessment
    program. They don't have the Government Accountability Office
    which, as you said, has enormous numbers of suggestions. They
    don't have a Congressional Budget Office that every other year
    publishes a budget options book with a lot of options. So there
    is a lot of information that is currently available about
    things that can be done to improve the operation.
        Chairman Tom Davis. A lot of this is also congressionally
    driven. When you get right down do it, jurisdiction drives this
    place and you get programs under different agencies duplicating
    everything else and you are asking for help.
        Look, I think you have given this a lot of thought. You
    give us some room on this. I am not sure we are going to get it
    worked out tomorrow. I think over the long term, as we get real
    on this, your comments are appropriate and I think give us a
    lot of food for thought when we get down to if this thing is
    going to happen or we get into conference. I appreciate you
    being here. I want you at the table should this come about. I
    think you represent a point of view and a constituent that
    needs to be there as well. I thank you for being here.
        Mr. Gutknecht.
        Mr. Gutknecht. I want to thank the witnesses and for the
    record to note that two Republicans were here to listen to your
    testimony. I think that should be noted.
        And I want to thank you for your testimony. I think there
    are philosophical differences we might not be able to bridge,
    but I do agree that we have fallen down on congressional
    oversight. But I do hope you understand there are limits to how
    much we can do, and there are all kinds of problems out there,
    and we don't pay enough attention to GAO and some of the
    agencies.
        Mr. Chairman, I do want to make this statement publicly.
    Having just come back from Iraq, I think there is one area that
    is absolutely crying out for congressional oversight hearings
    and that is that these contractors that we have hired for
    reconstruction and other efforts in Iraq--we have spent
    hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars, taxpayer
    dollars; and the results I saw were not what I expected to see.
    And it seems to me we have an obligation to the American
    taxpayers and to the Iraqi people to have some oversight
    hearings in terms of the contractors.
        Incidentally, just for the record, I was told by some of
    the people on the ground over there that, actually, Halliburton
    has been one of the good actors. They've actually done most of
    what they said they were going to do. It may have been at
    inflated costs, but some of the other contractors have taken a
    lot of money and we see almost no results. If there is one area
    where Congress should take very swift action and that is to
    have some oversight hearings on the contractors that have
    received enormous amounts.
        Chairman Tom Davis. We have done four, and we are going to
    do more this year; and we can do 30, and it probably wouldn't
    be enough.
        Mr. Gutknecht. I am much more interested in that particular
    issue. But I am not sure we will bridge this philosophical
    divide.
        Some of us believe--here's what I believe. If you see what
    is happening in the private sector today, every single company
    that I deal with in my district every day is trying to become
    more and more efficient. Why? Because the marketplace demands
    it, the pressure of the marketplace. They have competition.
        In fact, a classic story there is a little company in
    Redwing, MN. It makes boots. And the president of Redwing tells
    me--he said, every day I spend part of my day trying to figure
    out how to put more value in every boot we make here in
    Redwing, would be minimum at less cost. He said, do you know
    why I do that? I said, no, I don't. He said, because if I
    don't, my competitor will.
        The difference between us and the private sector is we have
    no competition, and there isn't that tension and that pressure
    every day. I think these two bills are an attempt to bring some
    of those outside tensions or pressures to force the Congress to
    do what it should be doing every day.
        So I thank you for your testimony. We have a slightly
    different philosophical viewpoint of this, but we would welcome
    any of your help in trying to make us more accountable to the
    taxpayers who pay the bills.
        Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you.
        Mr. Horney, I'll read what you have put in the record in
    addition, which--you didn't have to give this. But I appreciate
    both of you being here and look forward to hearing from you
    again.
        [Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
        [The prepared statement of Hon. Elijah E. Cummings
    follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.078

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.079

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.080

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.081

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9331.082