page 1

REPUBLICAN STUDY COMMITTEE

THE GOVERNMENT, EFFICIENCY, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND REFORM 

TASK FORCE PRESENTS: 

POWER, PRACTICES, PERSONNEL: 

100+ COMMONSENSE SOLUTIONS 

TO A BETTER GOVERNMENT
Introduction [06] 

REFORM GOVERNMENT POWER STRUCTURES [08]

Restrain Executive Rulemaking Authority 08

Increase Regulatory Transparency 15

Regulatory Reform through Litigation and the Judiciary 19

REFORM GOVERNMENT PRACTICES [21]

Governmentwide Practices 21

Efficient Practices for National Security 30

Enact Fundamental Reform to Federal Judicial Practices 33

Provide Accountability for Programs 48

REFORM GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL POLICIES [50]

Reform Hiring and Removal 51

Pay and Benefits 57

CONCLUSION [64]

POLICY RECOMMENDATION LIST [65]
The government, efficiency, accountability, and reform 

task force presents 

power, practices, personnel:

100+ commonsense solutions to a better government 
the task force

a letter from
Fellow Americans,

In 2010, Congress passed a law directing the executive branch to answer a seemingly simple question: How many 

federal programs currently exist? They were given a deadline of two years to respond. A decade later, lawmakers and 

taxpayers are still waiting for the answer. 

It is a self-evident truth that a government too large to calculate its own size is simply too large. 

But it is not just the massive size of the federal government that should alarm every American, it is the nearly unchecked 

scope of its power. When a grossly inefficient bureaucracy wields too much authority over every aspect of our lives it 

becomes a threat to our prosperity and the very foundation of our republic. 

In the accompanying report, we identify and explain three primary problem areas plaguing the federal bureaucracy: 

POWER, PRACTICES, and PERSONNEL. Congress is largely responsible for all three. 

Congress has ceded far too much of its authority to agencies and regulatory bodies, and it has chosen—more often 

than not—to either ignore the programmatic deficiencies that exist there, or simply throw more money at the broken 

systems. That approach has been destructive in many ways, and has even jeopardized the rule of law as it has left 

federal courts unable to efficiently administer justice. Through its inaction, Congress has also gradually allowed a 

handful of bad actors to compromise the reputation, efficiency, and morale of a federal workforce comprised largely 

of dedicated and patriotic civil servants. 

The good news is that problems created by Congress can be solved by Congress. It is our duty to do so. To that end, we, 

the members of the RSC GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY, ACCOUNTABILITY, & REFORM (GEAR) TASK FORCE, present 

the following three-step, common sense plan to achieve greater efficiency, accountability and reform in the federal 

government. Our plan includes more than 100 solutions and recommendations to:

1. Reclaim POWER from unelected bureaucrats; 

2. Reform government PRACTICES to curb inefficiency and waste; and

3. Reemphasize and reward innovation among our nation’s government PERSONNEL.

This solutions-oriented plan is not a partisan document but a blueprint for good government, and a call for action. Our 

government should work for the people again, and not the other way around. We owe it to the millions of hardworking 

Americans who fund this republic to repair it, and we are determined to fulfill that responsibility. This is how we can do it. 
page 6

Let us state the facts: The federal government is too large, it does too many things, 

and what it does, it usually does not do very well. 

The original design of our extraordinary Constitution—of a limited government with 

three distinct branches—has long since been abandoned. Today, we effectively 

have a fourth branch of government, often referred to as “the bureaucracy,” which 

has been allowed to spread over the decades into a smothering administrative 

thicket that our founders would not recognize. 

Congress created this problem. Often to avoid accountability and controversial political 

decisions, it gradually created an elaborate network of agencies and sub-agencies 

and regulatory bodies as it willfully gave away much of its constitutional authority. 

The growth of federal bureaucracies has naturally spawned an infamous culture 

of waste and inefficiency. The problem is compounded by the lack of meaningful 

metrics to measure performance and has resulted in a government so large, its 

myriad number of programs cannot even be counted. 

Everyone seems to understand and accept that dubious government programs 

range from the unconstitutional, to the imprudent, to the purely comical. But this is 

not a laughing matter, and there is an urgent need for Congress to do much more 

to stamp out the rampant fraud, waste, and abuse of the precious tax dollars of 

hardworking Americans.

While the legislative branch has drifted further and further from its original purpose, 

the judicial and executive branches have as well. For example, certain activist 

judges in our federal courts have increasingly assumed the authority to “legislate 

from the bench” in direct violation of the Constitution’s separation of powers. 

The executive branch has also usurped more and more legislative authority over 

the years through runaway regulatory agencies and their entrenched Washington 

bureaucrats who often act as judge, jury, and executioner wielding mandates they 

themselves create. 

Civil service is an important calling, but the dedicated, patriotic Americans who 

serve so faithfully in those positions are often overshadowed by unprofessional, 

partisan employees who lack accountability. Bad actors have ruined the credibility 

of so many agencies and undermined the foundations of our republic. Meanwhile, 

federal unions have taxpayer-funded privileges that would make their civilian 

counterparts blush. 

All of this has dangerously eroded the public’s faith in our institutions. A recent 

poll conducted by the Pew Research Center found that “only 17% of Americans 

today say they can trust the government in Washington to do what is right ‘just 

Introduction

“only 17% of 

Americans today 

say they can trust 

the government in 

Washington to do 

what is right ‘just 

about always’ (3%) 

or ‘most of the 

time’ (14%).”

pew research center

the
page 7

about always’ (3%) or ‘most of the time’ (14%).”1 While restoring 

constitutional balance and removing waste in our government should 

not be partisan issues, the Left has been unwilling to help address 

this crisis. Liberals are working instead: to further expand the power 

of the administrative state by shifting even more authority away from 

Congress and the people to unelected bureaucrats; to create even 

more government agencies and programs regardless of duplication 

or effectiveness; and to resist efforts to restore common sense and 

accountability to existing bureaucracies. 

We can and must do better. 

THE REPUBLICAN STUDY COMMITTEE PLAN

The Republican Study Committee (RSC) proposes this plan as a 

corrective roadmap for the federal government. This report of the 

RSC’s Government Efficiency, Accountability, and Reform (GEAR) 

Task Force outlines our conservative vision and proposes critical 

reforms in three areas:

1

Pew Research Center, Trust and Distrust in America, (Jul. 22nd, 2019), https://www.people-press.

org/2019/07/22/trust-and-distrust-in-america/

In step one, we restore the 

balance of powers between 

the three co-equal branches 

of government. We rollback 

decades of Congressional 

abdication of its authority to 

the executive branch, 

returning power to the people 

over unelected bureaucrats. 

Furthermore, we rebalance 

the interaction between 

Congress, the executive 

branch and the judiciary. 

Restoring the balance of 

powers is not enough to 

ensure an efficient, 

accountable, and reformed 

government. In step two, the 

report tackles government 

practices with an emphasis 

identifying and removing 

waste. This includes big, 

broad institutional reform and 

consolidation all the way to 

simple, common sense things 

like stopping payments to 

people who have deceased. 

Lastly, step three focuses on 

reforming government 

personnel policy. No change 

in structure or practice will 

materialize without dedicated 

civil servants driving those 

needed changes. Our 

reforms aim to improve the 

morale and effectiveness of 

our federal workforce by 

improving accountability and 

shifting compensation 

practices to more closely 

align with those in the private 

sector. 

Reform Government Power Structures: 1 2 3 Power 

Reform Government Practices:

Practices

Reform Government Personnel policies:

Personnel

power

Practices

Personnel
page 8

Part of the genius of our constitutional structure is its separation of powers. This 

system, based on a critical balance between three separate, co-equal branches 

of government, ensures a properly functioning government when it operates as 

designed. That design was based upon the founders’ understanding of human 

nature and the fallen state of man. Since power so often corrupts, they believed 

that unchecked authority in the hands of just a few people could jeopardize our 

system and eventually encroach upon the God-given rights of every American. 

They were right. 

Agencies across the executive branch, and their employees, are not directly 

accountable to the American people. These nameless faces wield broad regulatory 

power almost identical to that of Congress and our federal courts. 

Congress has created this situation by enacting legislation that allows agencies 

to promulgate sprawling regulations. These regulations often spur statements of 

interpretation and guidance, otherwise known as “regulatory dark matter,” which 

are in essence additional laws.2

 Even when Congress does not direct agencies 

to promulgate regulations, it often remains idle as executive agencies manipulate 

the meaning of law through self-serving interpretations. Consequently, agencies 

can promulgate, enforce, and prosecute seemingly endless rules and regulations 

that bind every man, woman, and child in the United States. Unfortunately, current 

standards for judicial review have only empowered and emboldened Washington 

bureaucrats to test the bounds of their quasi-lawmaking authority. 

This expansive administrative state has earned its reputation for inefficiency and 

ineptitude. As President Ronald Reagan once quipped, “The nine most terrifying 

words in the English language are: “I’m from the government, and I’m here to 

help.” Of course, the costs borne by the American people go well beyond the 

price tag of regulatory compliance, as they also include the costs associated with 

lost opportunities and stymied innovation.

To achieve a more accountable and efficient government, we must restore the 

balance of powers to what the framers originally envisioned. This must begin 

with reasserting Congress as a check on the unbridled regulatory power that the 

executive branch has amassed. To this end, RSC’s GEAR Task Force proposes the 

commonsense conservative solutions outlined below. 

Restrain Executive Rulemaking Authority

Article I of the Constitution plainly states, “All legislative Powers herein granted 

shall be vested in a Congress...” Despite this unequivocal language, executive 

branch agencies have largely supplanted Congress’ legislative power through 

prodigious rulemaking. According to the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), the 

2

 John Cochrane, Law and the Regulatory State, American Exceptionalism in a New Era § 61 (Nov. 2017), 

https://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john.cochrane/research/papers/AE_Ch6_John%20Cochrane.pdf

Step one

REFORM 

GOVERNMENT 

POWER STRUCTURES

President Ronald Reagan 

“The nine most 

terrifying words 

in the English 

language are: 

“I’m from the 

government, and 

I’m here to help.”
page 9

Source: Office of 

Information and 

Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA) 

U.S. Code of Federal Regulations is currently composed of more than 180,000 

pages, including more than one million regulatory restrictions. 

Between 2000-2016, the average annual cost of new 

regulations was $8 billion. Thankfully, in 2017, the 

Trump administration began a historic effort to reduce 

regulations and has already decreased the cost of 

regulation by over $50 billion. While Democrats in 

Congress have unfortunately shown little interest in 

assisting Republicans in this regard, there is much more 

yet to do. 

Enact the REINS Act 

The REINS Act, introduced in the 116th Congress 

by Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (WI-05), would require 

Congress to pass a joint resolution, along with a 

presidential signature of approval, for any major rule 

within 70 days of promulgation before that rule may 

take effect.3

This legislation would dramatically change the process 

by which agencies create rules by ensuring that a 

major rule that could not attain the public support of 

Congress, would not be implemented. Critically, this joint resolution would be 

considered under expedited procedures in the Senate so that it could pass the 

chamber with a simple majority. Under current law, rules take effect unless a 

joint resolution disapproving them is enacted. The REINS Act would help prevent 

potentially damaging regulations for all Americans and Congress from abdicating 

its lawmaking responsibility. 

It is difficult to overstate the impact the REINS Act would have. President Obama’s 

administration issued 685 major rules during his presidency, and the federal 

government spent $63 billion in 2016 alone implementing these regulations.4

During the Obama administration, the House of Representatives passed the REINS 

Act four separate times in an attempt to hold the executive branch accountable.5

Had this conservative solution become law, the United States could have saved 

billions of taxpayer dollars.

3

 Regulations from the Executive In Need of Scrutiny Act of 2019, H.R. 3972, 116th Cong.

Number of Final Major Rules Published 

by Presidential Year

1996-2000 2001-2008 2009-2016 2017-2018
page 10

Expand the Usage of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

The Congressional Review Act (CRA) of 1996, signed into law by President 

Clinton, is a legislative tool that can be used by Congress to roll back a recently 

promulgated regulation under an expedited parliamentary process. 6

 The CRA 

allows Congress to negate regulations through bicameral enactment of a joint 

resolution of disapproval. Such joint resolutions are not subject 

to filibuster in the Senate and thus can pass each chamber with 

simple majority votes if passed within 60 legislative days of 

receiving notification of a rule. 

The CRA can be a powerful tool that Congress can use to prevent 

implementation of harmful regulations. During the 115th Congress, 

the CRA was used successfully 16 times by congressional 

Republicans and President Donald Trump to roll back lastminute Obama-era rules.7

The Trump administration has been 

unparalleled in its efforts to prevent, undo, and avoid the creation 

of additional regulations. We will not always have a president 

with such strong convictions in this regard will always be in office.

There is still untapped potential with the CRA that Congress has 

yet to pursue. Lawmakers should assert their Article I authority 

by utilizing the CRA to review and potentially nullify rules and 

regulations that did not follow proper CRA protocols when being 

implemented. Under the CRA, a rule cannot take effect until it 

has been reported to Congress by the promulgating agency. The 

Brooking Institution found “348 significant rules with apparent 

reporting deficiencies to the Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) or Congress, out of a total of 3,197 significant rules—

slightly more than 10 percent.”8

 Congress ought to review these 

rules and use the CRA to protect the liberty of all Americans 

against the dictates of the administrative state. 

One example of a rule that is still subject to CRA review is an 

Obama-era federal land restriction that is currently the subject of 

litigation. In Tugaw Ranches, LLC v. U.S. Department of Interior et 

al, the Department of Interior is being sued for a 2015 rule that 

implemented expansive federal land restrictions to help conserve 

the greater sage grouse. This rule was implemented without proper 

notification of Congress and thus is unlawful under the CRA.9

 A 

6 Congressional Review Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. § 801 (2019)

7

 Id. 

8

 Philip Zeppos, How powerful is the Congressional Review Act?, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION (Apr. 4th, 

2017), https://www.brookings.edu/research/how-powerful-is-the-congressional-review-act/ (last visited 

Jan. 7, 2020).

9

 Jonathan Wood, Idaho Joins PLF’s Defense of the Congressional Review Act, Pacific Legal Foundation (Jul. 

AGENCY RULE

CURRENT CRA PROCESS

PLAN UNDER THE RSC

REPORT TO CONGRESS

DISAPPROVAL

IMPROPERLY REPORTED

PRESIDENTIAL SIGNATURE

VOID REGULATION

60 DAYS FOR EXPEDITED 

CONSIDERATION

X

CLOCK HAS

 NOT STARTED

FORCED REPORTING TO 

CONGRESS

Expand Usage of the 

Congressional 

Review Act (CRA) 
page 11

slightly more than 

10% of significant 

rules have apparent 

reporting deficiencies

rule that significantly impacts the ability of state governments, 

municipalities, and landowners to use local resources deserves to be 

subject to all lawful transparency measures. 

Additionally, the GEAR Task Force supports explicitly codifying in 

statute that the CRA applies to “regulatory dark matter.” Doing so 

would clarify that de-facto regulation should not be exempt from any 

congressional oversight of official federal rule making. It would also 

provide an expedited path for lawmakers to block these agency policy 

initiatives even if, under existing law, they are not subject to traditional 

notice-and-comment rulemaking. The Trump administration’s Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) has taken this position,10 but the 

current definition of “rules” subject to the CRA disapproval procedure is 

too vague. Consequently, Congress has failed to utilize the CRA to block regulatory 

dark matter. 

Enact The Article I Restoration Act 

Since regulations can be implemented without deliberation and debate that is often 

provided by the legislature, there may not always be a thorough consideration 

of their long-term effects. Furthermore, with federal regulations being proposed 

across government each day and printed in the weighty Federal Register, it is hard 

for anyone to keep track of every new regulation, let alone those implemented long 

ago. A simple and potent solution is implementing sunset requirements on regulation. 

In 2019, Idaho became the least regulated state through sunsetting all state 

regulatory provisions that the legislature did not reauthorize.11 This action, along 

with urging agencies to reduce two regulations for every new proposal, led to the 

state cutting 75 percent of its regulations in one year. This is a great example for 

the federal government, which rarely turns its focus to eliminating old regulations.12

The Article I Restoration Act, introduced by Rep. Bill Posey (FL-08), would require 

federal regulations to expire after three years if not specifically reauthorized.13 To 

obtain reauthorization, the head of an agency would have to submit a request 

for reauthorization to Congress. This bill would drastically reduce the burden 

of regulations and their associated costs by forcing agencies to prioritize 

reauthorization for policies they deem most important. It would also force unelected 

16th, 2018) https://pacificlegal.org/idaho-joins-plfs-defense-of-the-congressional-review-act/

10 White House Office of Management & Budget, Memorandum: Guidance on Compliance with 

the Congressional Review Act (Apr. 11th, 2019), https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/M-19-14.pdf

11 Office of the Governor, Idaho, Idaho cuts and simplifies 75 percent of rules in one year, becomes 

least-regulated state in country (Dec. 4th, 2019), https://gov.idaho.gov/pressrelease/idaho-cuts-and-simplifies-75-percent-of-rules-in-one-year-becomes-least-regulated-state-in-country/ 

12 James Broughel & Krista Chavez, Idaho is the Least Regulated State and a Model for the Rest of the Country, MERCATUS CENTER (Jan. 2nd, 2020), https://www.mercatus.org/bridge/commentary/idaho-leastregulated-state-and-model-rest-country 

13 Article I Restoration Act of 2019, H.R. 3617, 116th Cong. 

significant rules 

10%
page 12

bureaucrats to justify unpopular regulations to public officials who must answer to 

the voters. 

Contain the Costs of Federal Regulations

Federal regulation curtails economic freedom, costs taxpayers their hard-earned 

money, and stymies the growth and innovation of American businesses. The extent 

to which these effects perpetually hamstring the growth of our nation’s economy is 

vast. According to CEI, federal regulations cost our nation’s economy approximately 

$2 trillion annually.14 That amount is worth about 10 percent of the United States’ 

gross domestic product (GDP). Still, fully accounting for the cost of regulation is 

impossible when one considers the totality of regulatory impact, including lost time, 

jobs, and opportunities. 

Fortunately, after eight years of overregulation under President Obama, the Trump 

administration has successfully focused on cutting cost and promoting prosperity 

by reducing regulation. For instance, in 2017, President Trump signed E.O. 13771,15

which called for the elimination of two regulations for every one introduced. At 

the close of 2019, the President Trump announced his administration had “cut 

regulatory costs by $50 billion and has rolled back 7.5 regulations for every new 

rule created.” While the Trump administration’s success is worth celebrating, the 

long-term economic savings cannot be guaranteed without congressional action. 

Congress should act to prospectively restrain and measure the costs of federal 

regulation that may be implemented in the future. 

Enact the Article I Regulatory Budget Act 

The GEAR Task Force supports the Article I Regulatory Budget Act, sponsored by 

former RSC Chairman Rep. Mark Walker (NC-06).16 This bill would ensure that 

the economic costs of regulations are budgeted for by the federal government in 

the same way that it budgets for spending. Budgeting for regulatory costs and 

establishing limits on their growth increases the extent to which agency bureaucrats—

and lawmakers—can be held accountable for their regulatory actions.

Under this solution, the president would be required to deliver to Congress a 

budget for annual regulatory costs, in tandem with the president’s annual budget. 

Congress would then pass its own regulatory budget in conjunction with its annual 

government funding budget. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) would also 

be required to develop a baseline showing the current trajectory of regulatory 

costs which would serve as a measuring stick for determining when new legal 

requirements would increase net regulatory costs. Legislation that would increase 

regulatory costs above the limits established in the regulatory budget would be 

14 Wayne Crews, Ten Thousand Commandments 2018, COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE (Apr. 19th 

2018), https://cei.org/10kc2018 (last visited Jan. 7, 2020).

15 Exec. Order 13771, 82 FR 9339 (Feb. 3rd, 2017)

16 Article I Regulatory Budget Act of 2016, H.R. 5319, 115th Cong.

According to 

CEI, federal 

regulations cost 

our nation’s 

economy 

approximately $2 

trillion annually. 
page 13

prohibited. In such instances, Congress would have to defund agencies’ regulatory 

actions that breach the limits as part of any bill to fund the federal government. 

These restrictions would apply to regulatory dark matter in addition to traditional 

agency rules. Moreover, the bill would prevent the creation of regulatory dark 

matter until the relevant agency has undertaken notice-and-comment procedures.

According to the R Street Institute, Canada’s federal government has had success 

using regulatory budgeting techniques. Throughout 2010 and 2011, former Prime 

Minister Stephen Harper began to implement regulatory budgeting to better 

inform and strengthen the government’s deregulation agenda. The government 

had already utilized a standard add-one-eliminate-one strategy to prevent further 

regulatory growth. Building on this, the government began to require agencies 

to measure and track the cost of regulation to inform more targeted deregulatory 

action and create a loose decentralized regulatory budget structure. Agencies 

would be rewarded for deregulating with the purpose of alleviating the burdens on 

business, rather than arbitrary deregulation. After just two years, these regulatory 

budget-informed measures saved Canadian citizens and businesses $21 million in 

compliance costs and 263,000 hours of work time.17

The process required by the Article I Regulatory Budget Act would restrain the 

regulatory costs that executive agencies could impose each year and force them to 

better account for the economic impacts of their actions in a way that they are not 

currently required. Over time, as agencies seek to impose new regulations, they will 

be forced to repeal existing outdated and unnecessary rules, reducing the overall 

burden on the country.

Enact the Regulatory Accountability Act 

The GEAR Task Force also supports injecting the formal cost-cutting elements of 

the Regulatory Accountability Act sponsored by former member of Congress, Rep. 

Bob Goodlatte, into the existing rulemaking process.18 Currently, economic impacts 

on American citizens and businesses are governed by a patchwork of statutes and 

executive orders. The extent to which existing protections adequately restrain the 

economic costs of regulations is hindered by the lack of comprehensive statutory 

language designed specifically to address this concern. 

Fortunately, the Regulatory Accountability Act is designed to restrain regulators, 

during the Administrative Procedure Act’s (APA) rulemaking process, from 

indiscriminately burdening Americans and their businesses with economically 

oppressive measures. Most importantly, the bill creates enhanced procedural 

requirements for rules that are major or high-impact. Major rules are primarily 

17 Sean Speer, REGULATORY BUDGETING: LESSONS FROM CANADA, R STREET INSTITUTE (March 

2016), https://www.rstreet.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/RSTREET54.pdf

18 Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017, H.R. 5, 115th Cong.

After just two 

years, these 

regulatory 

budget-informed 

measures saved 

Canadian citizens 

and businesses 

$21 million in 

compliance costs 

and 263,000 hours 

of work time.

$21m
page 14

those with an estimated cost exceeding $100 million.19 Under the Regulatory 

Accountability Act, a new designation called a “high-impact” rule would be a rule 

estimated to exceed $1 billion or more.20 Agencies would have to provide public 

notice of a rule’s impact on jobs and wages, afford stakeholders an opportunity 

to participate in the rulemaking process, hold a formal hearing for adopting highimpact rules, and—advance rules only on the basis of the best evidence and at the 

least cost. The bill would even require agencies, for major rules, to publish a report 

on the benefits and costs to regulated entities and revise it every five years. 

Enact the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act

In 1995, Congress passed into law the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 

of 1995. This legislation was passed with the intent of curbing the federal 

government’s habit of imposing pricey intergovernmental mandates on state and 

local governments and sticking them with the cost of implementation.

Unfortunately, the UMRA framework has several loopholes that allow regulators 

to promulgate rules without being fully transparent as 

to the implications of the rule’s federal mandates. Under 

current law, agencies—other than independent regulatory 

agencies—are required to analyze the costs of potential 

regulations that contain federal mandates on state, 

local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This 

requirement, however, only applies to rules that cause 

such entities to expend, in the aggregate, $100 million 

(adjusted for inflation) in any one year. Once this threshold is reached, it triggers 

the requirement that agencies consider less expensive alternative regulations and 

solicit stakeholder input prior to promulgation. 

To address this problem, the GEAR Task Force recommends that Congress should 

enact the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act, sponsored by 

House Education and Labor Committee Ranking Member, Rep. Virginia Foxx (NC05).21 This legislation has passed the House four separate times with bipartisan support. 

This legislation provides a framework for a more accountable process that would 

increase transparency of the true costs of federal mandates on state and local 

governments, as well as the private sector. The Unfunded Mandates Information 

and Transparency Act would amend UMRA to close these loopholes. First, the 

bill would subject independent agencies, such as the Securities and Exchange 

Commission (SEC), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Office 

of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and the Federal Communications 

19 Id.

20 Wayne Crews, What’s the Difference between “Major,” “Significant,” and All Those Other Federal Rule 

Categories?, COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE (Sept. 2017) https://cei.org/sites/default/files/

Wayne%20Crews%20-%20What%20is%20the%20Difference%20Between%20Major%20and%20Significant%20Rules%20%281%29.pdf.

21 Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of 2019, H.R. 300, 116th Cong. 

pay 

to the 

order of $

memo

dollars

umra passed with 

the intent of curbing 

unfunded mandates

 on state and local 

governments
page 15

Commission (FCC), to the requirements of the UMRA. Second, it would ensure that 

all rules with potentially major mandates are subject to the UMRA, not just those for 

which a general notice of proposed rulemaking is published. This is critical considering 

a 2012 GAO report determined agencies had not published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking for 35 percent of major rules.22 Last, the bill would fix the “major rule” 

threshold to make sure that it incorporates annual economic effects from a proposed 

rule’s mandate, not just “expenditures” that would result from the mandate.

Rep. Foxx summed up the benefits of the legislation stating, “At the very least 

policymakers and unelected regulators should know the price of what they dictate. 

The Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act will help restore honesty 

and transparency to federal mandates and ensure Washington bureaucrats are held 

accountable for seeking public input and considering the negative consequences, 

in dollars and in jobs, prospective mandates will impose on the economy.”23

Increase Regulatory Transparency 

President Ronald Reagan was known to frequently employ the mantra “trust but 

verify.” This principle is at the heart of government accountability. The federal 

government should be accountable to the people. Our government was not 

designed to be led by philosophers in ivory towers, but rather was created to have 

civil servants work for the good of all Americans. 

Transparency has proven to be necessary and effective when making government 

more accountable to the Constitution and the public. Rick Manning, President 

of Americans for Limited Government, eloquently stated “...transparency 

and evidence-based science are not just a limited government issue; they’re a better 

governance issue that should enjoy bipartisan commitment.”24 Without transparency 

and accountability there will be fewer safeguards in place to prevent waste or 

abuse. America’s government can and should set the standard of transparency for 

all the world. Benjamin Franklin said it best while debating the inefficiencies of the 

Articles of Confederation at the Annapolis Convention, “In free Governments the 

rulers are the servants, and the people their superiors and sovereigns.” 25

The RSC GEAR Task Force supports a rigorous set of proposals to overhaul 

transparency across the federal bureaucracy. It is imperative that these commonsense 

transparency measures be enacted so Congress can more forcefully conduct its 

oversight duties and taxpayers can be ensured that the federal government is 

acting as proper stewards of their money. 

22 GOV’T ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, GAO–13–21, Federal Rulemaking: Agencies Could Take Additional 

Steps to Respond to Public Comments, 7 (2012), https://www.gao.gov/assets/660/ 651052.pdf;

23 Office of Ranking Member Virginia Foxx, Summary: Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency 

Act, https://foxx.house.gov/legislation/umita.htm

24 Rick Manning, Better government begins with transparent information, THE HILL (Dec. 8th, 2019) https://

thehill.com/opinion/technology/473531-better-government-begins-with-transparent-information

25 Benjamin Franklin, Madison Debates, YALE LAW AVALON PROJECT (July 26, 1787) https://avalon.law.

yale.edu/18th_century/debates_726.asp

“At the very least 

policymakers 

and unelected 

regulators 

should know the 

price of what 

they dictate.”

rep. virgina foxx r-nc

“...transparency 

and evidencebased science are 

not just a limited 

government issue; 

they’re a better 

governance issue 

that should 

enjoy bipartisan 

commitment.” 

Rick Manning
page 16

Create Regulatory Report Cards for Agencies 

Congress should create benchmarks for improvement using a grading criterion 

for measuring existing agency regulations. For instance, CEI has recommended 

accounting for significant factors including tallies of rules by category, measurements 

of impact, and ranking overall agency action.26 Regulatory report cards would not 

only promote transparency, they would also empower better analysis on the impact 

of rules. A regulatory report card would create a platform for public transparency 

while also standardizing the quantitative and qualitative metrics used to measure 

the effectiveness of a rule. 

Require Agency Data Disclosure in Support of New Proposed Rules 

Agencies are not currently required to disclose a complete record of the data on 

which they base their rulemaking decisions.27 This creates a significant hurdle to 

verifying the prudence of the action taken. Accordingly, Congress should insert 

statutory language into the Administrative Procedure Act that would require 

agencies to provide the underlying data supporting their rulemaking decision. 

This would better ensure that the agency rulemaking decisions are not based on 

arbitrary factors. 

Require All Regulatory Submissions be Made Through OMB’s Office 

of Information on Regulatory Affairs

OMB’s Office of Information on Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) determines if agencies 

are in compliance with rulemaking requirements. It also reviews risk assessments, 

cost-benefit analyses, and other supporting information concerning regulations. 

Currently, agencies are only required to submit significant regulations to OIRA for 

their review in accordance with Executive Order 12866.28 Congress should broaden 

this process by requiring agencies to submit all potential regulations to OIRA. 

Under this commonsense proposal, a submission would be held to the same 

standard as is currently applied to review of major rules. This includes requiring 

agencies to submit a regulatory impact assessment that outlines the total potential 

impact and cost of a proposed regulation. 

Enact the ALERT Act 

This legislation, sponsored by Rep. John Ratcliffe (TX-04), would require agencies 

to provide detailed monthly disclosures on regulations to OMB for every rule the 

26 Iain Murray, Myron Ebell & Marlo Lewis, Free to Prosper: Regulatory Reform and Agency Oversight, 

COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE (Jan. 8th, 2019), https://cei.org/sites/default/files/Free_to_Prosper_2019_Regulatory_Reform_0.pdf

27 David Muhlhausen, et. al., Blueprint for Reorganization: Pathways to Reform and Cross-Cutting Issues, 

HERITAGE FOUNDATION (Jun. 30, 2017), https://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/report/blueprint-reorganization-pathways-reform-and-cross-cutting-issues

28 Exec. Order 12886, 58 FR 51735; October 4, 1993 https://www.archives.gov/files/federal-register/

executive-orders/pdf/12866.pdf#page=4

dfederal agencies 

should receive 

regular report cards 

and check ups
page 17

agency expects to propose or finalize in the coming year.29 It also forces them to 

make the reports publicly available. Finally, rules would not go into effect unless this 

information is electronically posted for at least six months, with a few exceptions.

Enact the Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act 

This legislation, sponsored by Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO-03), would require 

each agency to include a 100-word, plain-language summary of a proposed 

rule when providing notice of a rulemaking.30 This system would put the onus on 

regulators to explain their rules to the public and make it easier for the public to 

understand the proposed regulation.

Require Independent Agencies to Comply with Existing Rulemaking Requirements 

Independent agencies are generally exempt from having to comply with a 

number of statutes applicable to the rulemaking process, namely the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, and the Data Quality Act.31

These independent agencies promulgate some of the most far-reaching and 

economically impactful regulations in our nation. Such independent agencies 

include the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Federal Deposit 

Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency 

(OCC), and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Thus, it makes no 

sense that they do not have to comply with these critical regulatory restraints that 

significantly enhance transparency in rulemaking decisions. The GEAR Task Force 

supports eliminating these exemptions.

Enact the Guidance Out of Darkness (GOOD) Act 

The GOOD Act, sponsored by former RSC Chairman Rep. Mark Walker (NC-06), 

would help to remedy disclosure issues with respect to regulatory dark matter.32 This 

commonsense legislation would require all guidance documents to be published for 

transparency considerations. Postings would be required to be made in a database 

on the OMB website including the date an agency published the guidance, a link 

to the text of the guidance, and if the action is rescinded. This legislation would 

shine a light on all actions agencies take that carry a similar weight to regulation. It 

would also make transparent actions that agencies have previously taken to avoid 

accountability. 

Reform the National Emergencies Act (NEA) 

Throughout American history, presidents have invoked emergency powers to 

address pending crises. This tradition dates to 1794, when President George 

29 ALERT Act of 2017, H.R. 75, 115th Cong.

30 Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act of 2019, H.R. 1087, 116th Cong 31 Murray, et al., supra note 27.

32 Guidance Out Of Darkness Act of 2018, H.R. 4809, 115th Cong.
page 18

Washington issued a proclamation regarding the use of militia power to put down 

the Whiskey Rebellions.33 This authority was largely drawn from “implied powers” 

believed to be granted by virtue of Article II of the Constitution.34

The most famous application of emergency executive powers in U.S. history 

was the suspension of habeas corpus during the American Civil War by 

President Lincoln. By the end of the Korean War, the persistent and expanded 

use of emergency authorities became a national concern. For instance, a 1950 

emergency promulgation which President Truman did not revoke after the Korean 

War was controversially part of the legal basis for American military intervention 

in Vietnam.35 By 1972, Congress began to debate potential safeguards to prevent 

the abuse of executive emergency declarations. Eventually, it offered a bipartisan 

solution to provide a congressional check, the National Emergencies Act of 1976, 

which passed the House of Representatives with only five dissenting votes.36 37

The National Emergencies Act (NEA) provides a statutory structure for the use of 

emergency powers by a president, including safeguards of public accountability 

and congressional disapproval. To use emergency powers, a president must first cite 

the statute from which the authority derives. The NEA does not itself grant specific 

powers but rather allows a president to utilize standby authorities that exist within 

the federal code. There are over 130 statutory emergency authorities that can be 

activated by virtue of the president declaring a national emergency.38 Declared 

emergencies automatically expire within a year, unless renewed by the president. 

An emergency can also be terminated by a joint resolution becoming law or a 

president rescinding the emergency declaration.

Although the NEA has provided a framework to limit presidential emergency 

powers, history has shown the limit to be largely ineffective as an accountability 

tool. Since 1979, the NEA has been utilized 56 times, with 33 of these declarations 

remaining in effect, and none being successfully overridden by congressional 

disapproval. Considering the greatest check on emergency authority has been the 

discretion of presidents when exercising it, it would be difficult to argue the NEA 

is an effective tool in checking executive emergency actions. Some fear the NEA 

could be abused by a future rogue president to undertake reckless and wasteful 

actions, such as a socialistic green-climate initiative. 

The GEAR Task Force recommends that the NEA be modified to restore the ability of 

Congress to act as a co-equal branch to the executive, even and especially during 

33 L. Elaine Halchin, National Emergency Powers, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE (Dec. 5th, 

2019), https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44999.pdf#page=4

34 Id at 2.

35 Id at 7.

36 50 U.S.C. §§1601-1651

37 Halchin, supra note 34.

38 A Guide to Emergency Powers and Their Use, BRENNAN CENTER (Sept. 4th, 2019), https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/2019-10/2019_10_15_EmergencyPowersFULL.pdf
page 19

times of crisis. Among the conservative reforms that may be considered are adding 

dual safeguards on the executive branch. The first would place an initial expiration 

date (perhaps 30, 60 or 90 days) on a president’s emergency declaration. 

Before the stated expiration date, Congress would have to affirmatively authorize 

an extension of the emergency powers within a timeframe of its choosing. Rep. 

Chip Roy (TX-21) has introduced the ARTICLE ONE Act which would codify this 

requirement utilizing a 30-day period.39 The second safeguard would impose a 

cap of some specific amount on new emergency spending. Reaching the cap prior 

to the declaration’s expiration date would also terminate the emergency, absent an 

extension by Congress. 

Regulatory Reform through Litigation and the Judiciary

While Congress’ role in confronting unruly regulation is irreplaceable, the judiciary 

must play a role as well. For too long, judges have treated administrative bodies 

as infallible by giving too much deference to their interpretation and execution of 

laws passed by Congress. This practice, known as the “Chevron deference,” has 

been devastating in enabling agencies to essentially be their own judge and jury in 

reviewing their rulemaking. FreedomWorks described the problem of Chevron as 

an “...alarming erosion of the constitutional separation of powers, allowing federal 

agencies to determine vaguely written statutes -- perhaps, at times, purposefully 

written to be vague -- without judicial review.”40 Just as the executive branch has 

supplanted Congress through its rulemaking, it has also encroached on the federal 

courts’ responsibility of judicial review. Congress should help the courts restore their 

plenary authority of judicial review by enacting sound policy that reiterates the 

court’s role in determining the lawfulness of regulation. 

Enact the Separation of Powers Restoration Act

Separation of Powers Restoration Act (SOPRA), introduced by Rep. Ratcliffe, would 

reign in the executive branch by scaling back Chevron deference.41 Specifically, 

it would require a non-deferential review of all legal questions relevant to the 

regulatory controversy at hand, including constitutional and statutory interpretation. 

If implemented, SOPRA would place judicial review back in the hands of the 

judiciary and make clear the lines between judicial interpretation of law and 

executive enforcement of the law.

Require Judicial Review of Regulatory Impact Data 

According to the Mercatus Center, “judicial review of agencies’ regulatory impact 

analys[es] could motivate agencies to base regulatory decisions on the best 

available evidence about the problems they seek to solve, the proposed regulation 

39 ARTICLE ONE Act of 2019, H.R. 1755, 116th Cong.

40 Jason Pye & Josh Withrow, Restoring the Balance of Powers, FREEDOMWORKS,

http://fw-d7-freedomworks-org.s3.amazonaws.com/IB_1_2020_Restoring_the_Balance_of_Powers.pdf

41 Separation of Powers Restoration Act of 2019, H.R. 1927, 116th Cong.
page 20

and alternative solutions, and the likely consequences.”42 As noted above, ensuring 

that an adequate record of data exists for judges to review is critical. To this end, the 

GEAR Task Force supports statutory reforms to the rulemaking process that require 

regulators to disclose data on which they base their regulatory decisions.

In conjunction with that reform, the GEAR Task Force supports enactment of the 

REVIEW Act, sponsored by former Rep. Marino (PA-12), to further enhance 

regulatory oversight conducted through our federal court system.43 This measure 

would require a federal agency to postpone the effective start date of any highimpact rule until completion of any judicial proceedings challenging the rule. OIRA 

would be responsible for reviewing if a rule qualifies as high-impact. The bill defines 

a high-impact rule as one that has an annual negative economic impact of more 

than $1 billion. 

Prevent Sue-and-Settle

“Sue-and-settle” is a practice used to create de-facto regulation in order to 

circumvent existing rulemaking procedures. According to Rob Gordon and Hans 

Von Spakovsky of The Heritage Foundation, “The administration would invite 

special-interest groups to sue the EPA over a regulation that it wanted to change but 

couldn’t, at least not expeditiously...Instead of fighting the lawsuit, the EPA would 

then almost immediately surrender, agreeing to settle. Inevitably, the settlement 

entailed consenting to whatever outrageous demands were being made by the 

agency’s handpicked ‘adversary.’”44

The GEAR Task Force recommends the enactment of the Sunshine for Regulatory 

Decrees and Settlements Act, sponsored by Rep. Doug Collins (GA-09), would 

subvert sue-and-settle tactics.45 This bill would require agencies to disclose past 

sue-and-settle cases along with their effect on regulation. It would further create a 

60-day waiting period between the day a suit is filed and a final settlement. This 

legislation would erode the ability of agencies to collude with partisan third parties. 

42 Reeve Bull & Jerry Ellig, Judicial Review of Regulatory Impact Analysis, MERCATUS CENTER (Mar. 9th, 

2017) https://www.mercatus.org/publications/regulation/judicial-review-regulatory-impact-analysis

43 REVIEW Act of 2016, H.R. 3617, 116th Cong. 44 Rob Gordon & Hans Von Spakovsky, Scott Pruitt Ends an Obama Administration Abuse of Power, NATIONAL REVIEW (Oct. 21st, 2017), https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/10/scott-pruitt-ends-epa-suesettle-scheme-obama-administration-abuse-power/

45 Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act of 2017, H.R. 712, 115th Cong.
page 21

Americans from all walks of life and political persuasion want an efficient government 

that delivers results. Every elected official promises their voters that they will work 

to serve them by leading a government that delivers solutions for the American 

people. No policy makers intentionally supports policies that create waste, yet, 

voters know that the federal government has developed a great tolerance of 

inefficiency. Many lawmakers and career bureaucrats continue to propose more 

spending and more bureaucracy to overwhelm, rather than solve, underlying 

programmatic deficiencies. Conservatives recognize that, sadly, there are vast 

areas of governance that need to be reformed in order to achieve government 

functions that are practicable, efficient, and accountable. The RSC GEAR Task 

Force supports a series of proposals to reform government practices to achieve 

these objectives for the American people.

Policies that lead to good governance and increased efficiency should not 

be partisan. Government practices, structures, and programs should be more 

businesslike, not more bureaucratic. They ought to be streamlined to maximize the 

value of every tax dollar invested in the federal government. Since Americans work 

hard and generously sacrifice much of their paychecks to the federal government, 

they should be treated more like shareholders. Citizens should know that the 

government will be responsible stewards of their hard-earned resources. 

In order to maximize the efficiency of government practices, executive agencies 

should not be duplicative. Instead, offices and personnel should be structured in a 

way that synthesizes resources and maximizes the ability to tackle challenges head 

on. Executive agencies need to restructure to better fit changing times and modern 

challenges. Rather than the typical Washington approach of throwing more money 

at an office and hoping it will change, the government should be innovative. 

Furthermore, federal spending is out of control and the government has completely 

lost track of how many programs it is funding. When someone pays a bill, they 

can look at the receipt or statement to see what goods and services accrued the 

cost they owe. By contrast, the federal government has succumbed to a standard 

not accepted anywhere else in American life—billing the taxpayer with no way of 

itemizing the cost. This is an outcome of the larger problem of unaccountable spending. 

Congress needs to get back to seriously reviewing programs it is funding, not only 

from a policy perspective but also through the lens of efficiency and accountability.

The RSC GEAR Task Force has a plan to reform government practices, restructure 

executive offices and agencies, and provide accountability for programs. By 

addressing practices, structure, and programs, this section of the report provides a 

reformed vision of government that is truly efficient for and accountable to the people. 

Government-wide Practices

Government practices need reform at all levels. Before more technical and specific 

REFORM

 GOVERNMENT 

PRACTICES

Step two
page 22

practices are improved upon, government-wide practices should be addressed. 

Without getting the macro fundamentals of governing right, more technocratic 

functions of highly specialized agencies cannot be meaningfully reformed. The 

federal government needs to shape up some of its most broad and basic functions 

in a variety of ways to usher our federal government into the 21st Century. 

Improve Metrics

Reliable performance metrics inform sound policy, while imprecise metrics fuel 

poor decision-making.46 In business, successful managers do not make strategic 

decisions without evidence, and government should be held to the same standard. 

It is critical that our government adequately and accurately measure the impacts of 

federal programs and initiatives while debating new policies and revising old ones. 

After all, federal policymaking has a measurable impact on individuals, families, 

and society at large. Thus, Congress should modernize the federal government’s 

collection of metrics to ensure our federal policymakers are informed by the best 

available information including stronger outcome-based metrics. 

In 2016, Congress passed the Evidence-Based Policymaking Commission Act 

which created the Commission on Evidence Based Policy.47 One year later in 

September 2017, the Commission produced a report analyzing the importance 

of evidence-based policy making. It used the Drug Abuse Resistance Education 

program (DARE) as one example of the positive impact data can have in revising 

policies. DARE was created to help students avoid drugs, gangs, and other harmful 

activities. Over 30 surveys and analyses were done on the impact of the popular 

DARE program throughout the 1990’s and early 2000’s that demonstrated that the 

program was largely ineffective. In response to this, the DARE program partnered 

with Pennsylvania State University to rewrite their curriculum. Preliminary studies on 

the impact of the new DARE curriculum are very encouraging.48

Congress should work to optimize federal metrics with a simple two-step approach. 

First, Congress should request a GAO study on best practices by federal agencies on 

performance-based metric collection. Because agencies use different methods of 

collection and measure different activities, it is important for Congress to survey the 

best practices currently in use. Second, informed by GAO’s report, it should require 

agencies to harmonize their terminology in data collection.49 It is challenging for 

government to develop meaningful government-wide metrics because agencies 

use different terms to describe the same things. This discrepancy renders data 

vague, if not meaningless, for policymakers seeking to make data-driven decisions.

46 Marc Berson & Howard Risher, It’s Time to Improve Government’s Use of Metrics and Analytics, GOVEXEC.COM (Nov. 19th, 2017), https://www.govexec.com/management/2017/11/its-time-improve-governments-use-metrics-and-analytics/142416/

47 5 U.S.C. 3109 and 5316 (2019)

48 Commission on Evidence-based Policymaking, Report on the Promise of Evidence-Based Policymaking 

(Sept. 2017) https://www.cep.gov/report/cep-final-report.pdf

49 Id.
page 23

Utilize Excess Federal Office Space

Current policies pertaining to management of federal property are grossly inefficient 

and contradict commonsense business practice. Under the status quo, empty office 

buildings cannot be sold by agencies that want to be efficient. Instead, they must let 

their vacant offices remain a purposeless cost on their balance sheets. According to 

a 2017 CRS report, “In FY2016, federal agencies owned 3,120 buildings that were 

vacant (unutilized), and another 7,859 that were partially empty (underutilized).”50

If a space is no longer in use and an agency would like to get rid of it, the current 

process limits their ability to do so, by requiring the General Services Administration 

(GSA) to verify if another federal agency can use the office space before it can be 

put on the market for sale. 

This inefficient requirement should be eliminated. If this reform were implemented 

Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) estimates, it would lead to a 

savings of $15 billion over five years.51 Putting up red tape around the practice of 

selling unused office space does not provide the federal government any sort of 

advantage. Instead, agencies should be able to sell their unused offices to provide 

for greater fiscal responsibility and better stewardship of taxpayer dollars.

Another efficient technique used to manage excess federal office space is known 

as enhanced leasing authority. For example, the National Aeronautics and Space 

administration (NASA) uses enhanced leasing authority in order to curb waste by 

letting NASA rent out their underutilized properties to like-minded organizations for 

research purposes. This enhanced leasing authority is granted to NASA due to the 

unique quality of their assets, including highly specialized laboratories and other 

unique research capabilities. Furthermore, since space exploration and research are 

largely carried out through an enterprise approach, with NASA working side-byside with state and private partners, enhanced leasing is an opportunity for NASA 

to accrue cost savings while staying within their normal purview of operations. 

Enhanced leasing authority is meant to promote fiscal responsibility, as it allows 

for organizations to enter contracts with NASA with the potential to have some of 

the costs of their research reimbursed while paying NASA for the workspace. In FY 

2018, enhanced leasing authority saved NASA $6.7 million.52

Enhanced leasing authority was extended for two years in the December 2019 

omnibus.53 Congress should codify this exercise in good governance and promote 

further efficiency at NASA by extending enhanced leasing authority for seven years 

in a standalone bill. Government efficiency should be voted on by its merits, rather 

50 Garrett Hatch, The Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act of 2016: Background and Key Provisions, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE (Oct. 31st, 2017), https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44999.pdf#page=4

51 Citizens Against Government Waste, Prime Cuts 2018, https://www.cagw.org/reporting/2018-prime-cuts

52 NASA Enhanced Use Leasing Extension Act of 2019, H.R. 5213, 116th Cong.

53 Further Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2020, H. R. 1865, 116th Cong.

UNDERUTILIZED 

BUILDINGS

UNUTILIZED 

BUILDINGS

3,120

7,859

crs 2017 report
page 24

than tied to a larger more contentious spending bill. This more stable approach 

would allow for NASA officials to have more predictability when pursuing contracts 

that generate revenue for NASA. Finally, Congress should consider granting similar 

authority to other agencies.

Enact the Transparency in Federal Buildings Projects Act 

Being the largest employer in the nation, the federal government has a lot of office 

space. This reality stems from federal officials constantly planning, building, and 

discerning projects to build offices. It is difficult for policymakers and private sector 

stakeholders who want to better understand the full portfolio of federal office 

buildings, as there is no centralized location sharing this vital information. 

The Transparency in Federal Buildings Projects Act, a commonsense piece of 

legislation sponsored by Rep. Gary Palmer (AL-06), would require the GSA 

to publish online all prospectuses submitted by GSA to Congress concerning 

proposed public building projects and associated information.54 This legislation 

already passed the House of Representatives in October 2019.55 It is time for the Senate 

to pass this important reform and send it to the White House to be signed into law. 

Leverage Common Contracts

The enormity of the federal government has created a system where government 

agencies often obtain duplicative services and products from third-party vendors. 

Yet, if the government more often approached contracts as a unified buyer, it could 

leverage the buying power that comes with great size. 

The GEAR Task Force supports the OMB Performance Plan’s proposal for agencies 

to leverage common contracts so that the shared contracts allow for taxpayer 

savings, increased efficiency, and greater value. The elimination of fragmented 

buying by agencies and duplicative contracts to the same vendor for largely 

the same work is estimated to lead to a savings of billions of taxpayer dollars.56

Congress should require agencies to use common contracting techniques when 

such practice is feasible.

Stop Paying Dead People

According to the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) Inspector General (IG), 

millions of hard-earned tax dollars are paid out to deceased people every year. 

The SSA’s IG received data identifying 17 million deceased individuals from the 

Veterans Administration (VA) in 2016. The IG ran this data against SSA records 

and was able to estimate that the SSA paid $37.7 million to 746 dead veterans.57

54 Transparency in Federal Buildings Projects Act, H.R. 2502, 116th Cong.

55 Office of Congressman Gary Palmer, Palmer Stands for Increased Access to Federal Building Proposals, 

(Oct. 28th, 2018), https://palmer.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/palmer-stands-increased-access-federal-building-proposals

56 General Services Administration, Category Management: Leveraging Common Contracts and Best Practices to Drive Savings and Efficiencies, (Dec. 2019)

57 Matthew Adams, Kennedy Sponsors Bill to Stop Paying Dead People, AMERICANS FOR TAX REFORM 
page 25

Because this sample size was limited to just veterans, it can be assumed that this 

issue is far vaster when all deceased Americans are included. In 2015, the SSA IG 

identified 6.5 million individuals listed as being 112 years of age or older without 

any recorded death information.58 The SSA’s failure to curb these improper payments 

to deceased individuals is an embarrassing problem for the federal government.

If agencies were able to better communicate and had 

access to a complete death database, there should 

be no improper payments made to the deceased. 

GEAR Task Force Chairman Rep. Greg Gianforte 

(MT-At Large) is the lead Republican spearheading 

the bi-partisan effort to fix this problem. To that end, 

he has cosponsored the Stopping Improper Payments 

to Deceased People Act.59 This commonsense bill 

would allow federal agencies to work together and 

have access to the complete death database in order 

to prevent payments to dead people. It would also 

require the SSA to partner with states in compiling 

and sharing death data.60 Finally, the bill would 

provide a framework for state and local agencies to 

appropriately collect and disseminate death data. 

This legislation would end the piecemeal approach 

to collecting data on deaths ensuring that no more 

federal tax dollars are wasted on the dead. 

Enact Permitting Reform

Obtaining a permit through the federal government 

is a process fraught with inefficiency. President Trump 

described the problems with federal permitting as 

“big government at its worst.” Perhaps the largest 

hinderance encountered during the federal permitting 

process is the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA).61 NEPA requires federal agencies to assess 

the potential impact certain projects will have on the environment.62 The term 

impact has been understood more broadly over time to include more indirect 

or cumulative effects. In 2016, for instance, the Obama Administration issued a 

rule requiring agencies to consider the “reasonably foreseeable” climate impacts 

(Mar. 15th, 2018), https://www.atr.org/kennedy-sponsors-bill-stop-paying-dead-people

58 Office of Inspector General, Numberholders Age 112 or Older Who Did Not Have a Death, SOCIAL 

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (Mar. 2015) https://oig.ssa.gov/sites/default/files/audit/summary/pdf/

Summary%2034030_0.pdf

59 Stopping Improper Payments to Deceased People Act of 2019, H.R. 2543, 116th Cong. 60 Id.

61 Kelsey Brugger, Trump unveils landmark rewrite of NEPA rules, E&E NEWS (Jan. 9th, 2020) https://www.

eenews.net/stories/1062036913

62Republican Study Committee, FY2020 Budget, (May 2019) https://mikejohnson.house.gov/sites/mikejohnson.house.gov/files/Final%20RSC%20FY%202020%20FOR%20PRINT.pdf

CWA 401 

WATER QUALITY 

CERTIFICATION

STATE 

DOT/PROJECT 

SPONSOR

STIP/TIP

PROJECT

NEPA LEAD 

FEDERAL AGENCY

PRELIMINARY

SCOPING

SIGNIFICANT

IMPACTS?

IMPACTS 

UNCERTAIN

PREPARE 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

ASSESSMENT (EA)

IDENTIFY AND CONSULT 

WITH RELEVANT 

FEDERAL, STATE, LOCAL 

AND TRIBAL AGENCIES

CONSULT 

FWS/NOAA

ENDANGERED 

FISH/WILDLIFE

SURVEY AND 

VERIFICATION 

OF SPECIES

PUBLISH NOTICE OF INTENT 

(NOI) TO PREPARE AN 

ENVIORNMENTAL IMPACT 

STATEMENT (EIS)

YES

YES

PROJECT INVOLVE 

HAZARDOUS WASTE?

SITE ASSESSMENT

HAZARDOUS 

MATERIALS

SITE ID NO. 

ISSUED

SUBMIT APPLICATION 

TO STATE/EPA FOR 

RCRA SITE ID NO.

APPLY TO STATE/

LOCAL/TRIBAL WATER 

QUALITY AUTHORITY

PUBLIC NOTICE/ 

COMMENT

PERMIT 

EVALUATION

401 CERTIFICATION

NO

NO

CATEGORICAL 

EXCLUSION

CWA 404/ RIVERS 

AND HARBORS ACT 

SECTION 10

APPLICATION 

TO USACE

the process of 

obtaining a federal 

permin (only half 

the chart shown)
page 26

arising from greenhouse gases produced by a number of economic and energyrelated activities.63 This burdensome and confusing regulatory structure has led to 

the NEPA review taking nearly 6 years on average.64 

Congress has sought to address inefficiency in the permitting process in recent 

years. For instance, Title 41 of the FAST Act, enacted in 2015, contained temporary 

reforms to streamline permitting for certain covered infrastructure projects.65

Covered projects include anything subject to NEPA, valuing at least $200 million, 

that is ineligible for existing streamline or exemption. While these reforms were 

significant, borrowing mostly from the Federal Permitting Improvement Act, they 

were limited in scope.66

In 2017, the Trump administration issued Executive Order 13807 to address some of 

the problems created by NEPA. The E.O. instituted the “One Federal Decision” policy 

that places a 2-year goal on NEPA reviews. It also requires the lead State agency 

to set a timetable for the NEPA review process and a structure for issue resolution.67

GEAR Task Force member Rep. Kelly Armstrong (ND-At Large) has introduced bipartisan legislation, the Federal Permitting Reform and Jobs Act, which would build 

on recent reforms and greatly improve the federal permitting process.68 The bill 

would expand and make permanent the reforms implemented in the Title 41, of the 

FAST Act, commonly known as FAST-41. This would make permanent a significant 

reduction of the burden created by NEPA. It would also create a two-year deadline 

for agencies to finalize permitting determinations. Furthermore, the bill would 

codify President Trump’s Executive Order 13807 allowing for the Steering Council 

to help overcome any obstacles in an individual permitting process, if the agency 

or applicant seek assistance.

As Rep. Armstrong has stated, “Anyone who has dealt with the federal government 

knows the frustration that the slow bureaucratic process can bring. Government 

delays to infrastructure projects have a tangible cost to job growth.” Congress must 

continue to improve the permitting process if the federal government is going to 

operate more efficiently.

To begin the new decade, the President announced his plans to further reform the 

regulatory regime codified in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).69

This landmark proposal would end the requirement that permit applicants account 

63Natural Resources Committee, Hearing Summary: Full Committee Oversight hearing titled “Modernizing 

NEPA for the 21st Century”, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (Nov. 29th, 2017) https://republicans-naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hearing_memo_--_fc_ov_hrg_on_nepa_11.29.17.pdf

64 Phillip Rossetti, Addressing Delays Associated with NEPA Compliance, AMERICAN ACTION FORUM 

https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/addressing-delays-associated-nepa-compliance/

65 42 U.S.C. § 4370m

66 Federal Permitting Improvement Act of 2015, S. 280, 114th Cong.

67 Exec. Order No. 13807, 82 FR 40463 (2017)

68 Federal Permitting Reform and Jobs Act of 2019, H.R. 3671, 116th Cong.

69Brugger, supra note 47.

“Anyone who 

has dealt with 

the federal 

government knows 

the frustration 

that the slow 

bureaucratic 

process can bring. 

Government delays 

to infrastructure 

projects have a 

tangible cost to 

job growth.”

GEAR Task Force member 

Rep. Kelly Armstrong 

(ND-At Large)
page 27

for “cumulative effects” and “indirect impacts.” These standards have often 

proved to be impossibly burdensome, asking contractors to consider implications 

beyond reasonable predictability and with indirect relation to a potential project. 

Furthermore, the Trump administration has announced plans to exempt projects 

with minimal federal funding from NEPA review and to require one agency to take 

the lead in processing applications to reduce duplication.

Modernize the Endangered Species Act 

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) directs the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) 

and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to list or delist animal species 

as endangered based upon the use of “Best Available Science.”  Unfortunately, 

this term has largely been left open to interpretation. This has created a gap in 

a broad range of interpretations. Since the ESA does not define what constitutes 

best available science, courts have interpreted the obligation often falling back on 

deferential review and contributing to endless litigation.

Government practices that hinge upon a crucial phrase should not be left so vague 

as to undermine the enforcement of a policy. Thus, the phrase “Best Available 

Science” needs to be clearly defined and modernized in its application. The 

Endangered Species Transparency and Reasonableness Act, sponsored by Rep.

Tom McClintock (CA-04), offers a solution that clarifies the meaning of “Best 

Available Science.”70 This legislation would require that data used by federal 

agencies for ESA listing decisions be publicly available online. This proposal 

would create accountability as it would allow individuals to know the basis for the 

government’s listing decision.71

Another problem posed by the ESA listing process is the inappropriate designation 

of critical habitat space by the FWS. Critical habitat space is land that is preserved 

to help protect an endangered species. In the past, designations of critical habitat 

space have involved setting aside vast amounts of land to protect species that cannot 

inhabit the land. For example, in 2018, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that 

the FWS could not take over 1,500 acres of private and commercial land in an 

attempt to recover an endangered species of frog. This decision was made on the 

simple basis that the land had never been inhabited by the endangered species, 

and the land did not possess the environmental features the frog needed for 

survival.  In plain terms, the Court ruled that critical habitat must be actual habitat 

for the species.72

To address this issue the GEAR Task Force recommends that Congress enact 

the Critical Habitat Improvement Act, sponsored by RSC Chairman and House 

70 Endangered Species Transparency and Reasonableness Act of 2018, H.R. 3608, 115th Cong.

71 Id. 

72 Faimon Roberts, In Louisiana dusky gopher frog case, U.S. Supreme Court overturns lower courts, NEW 

ORLEANS ADVOCATE (Nov. 28th, 2018) https://www.nola.com/news/courts/article_69e7aae2-b56d55cd-be36-33e47af62125.html
page 28

Committee on Natural Resources member, Rep. Mike Johnson (LA-04).73 This 

legislation would codify the August 2019 Department of Interior (DOI) rule that 

reformed the standards related to the designation of critical habitats.74 Specifically, 

the legislation would require that critical habitat designations be made only with 

land where the DOI Secretary has identified what elements are necessary for the 

survival of an endangered species. Furthermore, the DOI Secretary can only use 

land that is deemed essential to species survival. Finally, the DOI must exhaustively 

attempt to use land currently inhabited by an endangered species, before turning 

to unused land to be designated as critical habitat.75

Overhaul Federal Technology Practices

Successful businesses understand that operations cannot happen efficiently without 

an effective technology policy. According to GAO, the federal government 

invests over $90 billion annually in information technology (IT). Yet, government 

technology is completely lagging, and aspects of federal IT management are 

outdated or duplicative. The federal workforce is undertrained in applicable 

technologies and most agencies have not fully implemented required reforms in 

software management. Furthermore, the government’s incredible capacity for 

collecting data through various agency reports has little use without an effective 

management of government IT. Congress has taken a proactive role in IT oversight 

in the last decade but must continue to lead needed reforms to promote better 

efficiency and accountability.

Improve the Federal Information Technology Acquisition 

Reform Act (FITARA) Scorecard 

In 2014, Congress passed the Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform 

Act (FITARA) into law.76 FITARA was the first major reform to congressional oversight 

of federal government IT in the new millennium.77 FITARA created a scorecard system 

where agencies are given a grade on their IT policies and how well they have 

implemented the reforms required under FITARA. Grades are determined based 

on compliance with seven categories. Categories include data consolidation, 

transparency and risk management, Chief Information Officer (CIO) authority 

enhancement, software purchasing, and other related factors. Agencies must testify 

before Congress about their grades and steps they are taking to improve poor 

performance. This accountability-based model has produced effective results. For 

example, in 2018, only seven agencies started the year with the highest possible 

score.78 However, by the end of the year with the help of effective oversight, 18 of 

the 24 agencies under FITARA had obtained the highest possible score.

73 Critical Habitat Improvement Act of 2019, H.R. 5591, 116th Cong.

74 U.S. Department of Interior, Trump Administration Improves the Implementing Regulations of the Endangered Species Act, (Aug. 12th, 2019) https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/endangered-species-act

75 House Western Caucus, Modernizing the Endangered Species Act, https://westerncaucus.house.gov/

issues/issue/?IssueID=14890

76 40 U.S.C. 11302 and 11319 (2019)

77 FITARA Overview, CIO.GOV, https://management.cio.gov/

78 Government Accountability Office, Report to Congress: Substantial Efforts Needed to Achieve Greater 

Progress on High-Risk Areas (Mar. 2019) https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/697245.pdf#page=47
page 29

The GEAR Task Force believes that Congress should continue to build off the success 

of the FITARA model by seeking improvements from agencies where they currently 

fall short.79 As of 2018, no agency had fully implemented the FITARA requirements 

for streamlining CIO authorities. Furthermore, in 2018, agencies were found to 

have underreported IT contracts by a value of approximately $4 billion. Despite 

the generally positive results of the FITARA program, this lack of accountability is 

unacceptable. Congress should more thoroughly provide oversight in the areas of 

FITARA scoring where agencies are falling short, so that FITARA requirements will 

become fully implemented across agencies.

Consolidate Data Centers

Federal agencies have recently identified over 12,000 data centers, a number 

that continues to climb.80 There is no reason for the federal government to have 

countless data centers, especially considering that maintaining so many is costly 

and inefficient. Since 2011, the government has offered FedRAMP as a security 

monitoring service to secure agency data on the cloud. Transitioning data to the 

cloud has been stalled by agencies not granting reciprocal authorization when 

using FedRAMP. Currently the federal government spends over $70 billion on IT 

system operations and maintenance.81 Much of this cost is due to duplication, which 

is exacerbated by duplicative data centers and inefficient implementation of cloud 

technology. In 2017, the GAO High Risk Report recommended that the government 

create savings through data center consolidation. Currently, the OMB IT Dashboard 

tracks the costs of federal IT and provides guidelines for federal agencies on how 

to execute cost-saving consolidation. Recommendations were made by GAO to 

agencies to achieve $5.7 billion in savings through data center consolidation.82

A simple step for Congress to inject accountability into the process of consolidation 

is to require that all federal data center consolidation cost savings are reported 

to OMB. This would provide increased transparency for policymakers as it would 

centralize important data in one public platform. Furthermore, some data is already 

collected and disseminated by OMB, so the precedent for the government practice 

is already established. The GEAR Task Force recommends that Congress overhaul 

federal data storage by incentivizing agencies to consolidate and move towards 

the cloud. Agency funding should be maintained for those who reach consolidation 

benchmarks set by Congress, while agencies that fail to meet such benchmarks 

should have funding incrementally reduced until corrective action is taken.

79 Id. at 74. 

80 Government Accountability Office, DATA CENTER OPTIMIZATION: Additional Agency Actions Needed 

to Meet OMB Goals (Apr. 2019), https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/698448.pdf#page=14

81 Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Hearing Summary: To the Cloud: The Cloudy Role of 

FEDRAMP in IT Modernization, U.S. House of Representatives (Apr. 11th 2019) https://oversight.house.

gov/legislation/hearings/to-the-cloud-the-cloudy-role-of-fedramp-in-it-modernization

82 Government Accountability Office, supra note 77.
page 30

Increase Use of Software Asset Management

With government investing an enormous amount of money in technology and the 

constant innovations being made in software, it is understandable that agencies 

will often update their software assets. By the same token, the process of managing 

these costly assets is crucial, with there being an absolute need to keep an accurate 

inventory of existing software.

In GAO’s 2018 report on government duplication, it was revealed that 20 agencies 

had not completed software inventories required by law.83 Agencies will often purchase 

duplicate programs simply because they are not tracking what they already own.84

Congress should require that all agencies eliminate redundant software products and 

services and reduce excessive information technology software licenses. Furthermore, 

Congress must conduct rigorous oversight to ensure that agencies are in compliance 

with federal law pertaining to software asset management. 

Transition Government Records to Electronic Systems

A recent White House plan called for the conversion of all records from paper 

to electronic form.85 This may seem obvious as we enter the third decade of the 

21st century, but this is a major undertaking. The National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA) is attempting to convert its treasure trove of information to 

electronic systems by 2022. While agencies across government have many important 

tasks in front of them, converting records to modern system is essential to efficient 

data management. By moving all records to electronic systems, government will be 

better equipped to access its data and respond to individual requests more quickly. 

Congress should assist in this historic effort by codifying the Trump administration’s 

deadline for NARA and using it as a benchmark for all federal agencies. 

Efficient Practices for National Security 

America stands at a critical juncture concerning its national security. The government 

must always prepare for threats spanning from the violence of terrorists and cartels 

to high tech nuclear and cyber threats from near-peer adversaries. America’s 

national security apparatus needs to run as a well-oiled machine. Efficient practices 

and fiscal accountability are just as critical to national security efforts as any other 

factor involved. Congress must do what it can to maintain a robust oversight role in 

all aspects of governance concerning the defense of our nation.

83 The Chief Information Officer (CIO) of each executive agency is required to create a full inventory including 80 percent of software license spending and enterprise licenses in the agency. They are also required to 

regularly track licenses and license management, analyze software usage for the purposes of cost-effective 

decision making, deliver training on software license management, and establish the goals of software management for the agency. CIOs are required to report to the agency’s Director on financial savings, which then 

must be made public. Government Accountability Office, 2018 Annual Report: Additional Opportunities to 

Reduce Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication and Achieve Other Financial Benefits (Apr. 2018) https://

www.gao.gov/assets/700/691514.pdf#page=89

84 Citizens Against Government Waste, supra note 57.

85 White House Office of Management & Budget, Memorandum: Transition to Electronic Records (Jun. 28th, 

2019), https://fas.org/sgp/trump/omb-electronic.pdf
page 31

Reduce Government Security Clearance Processing Delays

The federal government has long struggled with processing security clearances in a 

timely manner. In October 2019, a new agency, the Defense Counter Intelligence 

and Security Agency (DCSA) was created through a merger between the Defense 

Department’s Defense Security Service (DSS) and OPM’s National Background 

Investigations Bureau (NBIB) into one office.86 The backlog of pending clearances, 

inherited from OPM has been significantly reduced from 725,000 pending 

investigations in 2018 to under 218,000 at the onset of 2020. This number is in line 

with the administration’s “steady-state” inventory target. Secret level clearances 

were processed 55% faster and top-secret applications were processed 60% 

faster.87 This is a major improvement when previously a top-secret security clearance 

took over a year to process, and a secret level clearance took close to a year.88

The GEAR Task Force recommends that Congress codify GAO’s recommendation 

to allow for clearance investigations to be executed more efficiently.89 In doing 

so, Congress should request an evidence-based review of investigation and 

adjudication timeliness objectives, with a report to Congress on their findings. This 

report should review the quality of background investigative measures. Congress 

should also require DCSA to develop and implement a comprehensive IT and workforce 

plan that identifies what is needed to meet current and future demand for background 

investigations services and to improve the processing time for investigations. 

Address Cybersecurity Shortcomings 

America’s critical infrastructure, along with the ability for all federal offices to be 

able to conduct business is dependent on the government’s cybersecurity system 

and capabilities. Hackers, criminals, and terrorists seek to exploit America’s 

cybersecurity systems in the same way threatening actors seek to overcome physical 

security systems. For example, in early 2020 a group of Iranian affiliated hackers 

penetrated the U.S. Federal Depository Library Program’s website and wrote proIranian messages, depicted the President of the United States being assaulted, 

and wrote an ominous message about Iranian cyber capabilities.90 While the 

breach did not produce overly harmful results, it nonetheless demonstrated current 

vulnerabilities within the federal network. Cybersecurity needs are constantly 

evolving as the capacity of hackers change, so the government must continue to 

update its cyber practices to protect America’s systems.

86 Lindy Kyzer, DoD Appoints NBIB Director as Acting Director, Defense Counterintelligence and Security 

Agency, CLEARANCEJOBS.COM (Jun 24th, 2019), https://news.clearancejobs.com/2019/06/24/

dod-appoints-nbib-director-as-acting-director-defense-counterintelligence-and-security-agency/

87Adam Mazmanian, Clearance Backlog Continues to Drop, FEDERAL COMPUTER WEEK (Jan. 22nd, 

2020)https://fcw.com/articles/2020/01/22/clearance-backlog-drops-senate-hearing.aspx

88 Lindy Kyzer, OPM Cuts Security Clearance Backlog in Half, But Processing Delays Spell Trouble for Pentagon, GOVEXEC (Jul. 22nd, 2019) https://www.govexec.com/management/2019/07/opm-cuts-security-clearance-backlog-half-processing-delays-spell-trouble-pentagon/158586/

89 Government Accountability Office, supra note 77.

90 Lex Haris, Hackers briefly deface website for U.S. government library with pro-Iranian message, CBS 

NEWS (Jan. 4th, 2020) https://www.cbsnews.com/news/iran-hackers-briefly-deface-website-for-u-sgovernment-library-with-pro-iranian-message/
page 32

Since 2010, GAO has made over 3,000 recommendations concerning 

the U.S. government’s cybersecurity policies.91 As of GAO’s last full 

survey of these concerns in 2017, only 448 recommendations had 

been implemented. The Trump administration has made cyber security 

a priority and has implemented important policies addressing current 

federal practices.92 The administration has released multiple strategy 

documents and attempted to address current threats such as the need to 

fully staff cyber security positions within the federal government.

Congress should use its oversight authority to support the Trump 

administration’s cybersecurity initiatives. Specifically, Congress should 

require that an inter-department strategy be developed to implement the 

suggestions of GAO that remain outstanding.93 Furthermore, Congress must require 

reports to the relevant congressional committees on governmental efforts to secure 

federal information systems, protect cyber infrastructure while also safeguarding 

individuals’ privacy and personal data. 

Safeguard State Secrets Through Security Clearance Reform 

A major threat to the security of state secrets is the recruitment of federal workers 

with newly acquired security clearances to work at private entities with questionable 

ties to nefarious governments. Security clearances are a state privilege and many 

companies are seeking consultants with clearances under the guise of innocuous 

purposes with the potential to exploit their access to classified information. With the 

current debate raging over Huawei as an example, the threat of foreign government 

affiliated companies exploiting access to America’s secrets through individuals with 

limited experience cannot be overstated.94 In fact, President Obama’s Senior Director 

for Cyber Security Policy is now a lobbyist for a Chinese government shell company.95

The Safe Career Transitions for Intelligence and National Security Professionals 

Act, sponsored by Rep. Jim Banks (R-IN), is a leading proposal to address this 

issue.96 This legislation would ban companies that are barred from doing business 

with the federal government, like Huawei and ZTE, from being able to hire former 

civil servants with security clearances. It would also give the Director of National 

Intelligence (DNI) the ability to add companies to the list.

91 Government Accountability Office, supra note 77, at 58.

92 White House Press Release, President Donald J. Trump is Strengthening America’s Cybersecurity Workforce to Secure Our Nation and Promote Prosperity (May 2nd, 2019), https://www.whitehouse.gov/

briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trump-strengthening-americas-cybersecurity-workforce-secure-nation-promote-prosperity/

93 Government Accountability Office, supra note 77, at 28.

94 Thomas Ayres, How to Pre-Empt the Huawei Threat, WALL STREET JOURNAL (Nov. 17th, 2019) https://

www.wsj.com/articles/how-to-pre-empt-the-huawei-threat-11574018700

95 Dan Strumpf, Trump Takes Aim at Huawei After Ex-Obama Official Becomes Lobbyist, WALL 

STREET JOURNAL (Apr. 15th, 2019) https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-to-pre-empt-the-huaweithreat-11574018700

96 Safe Career Transitions for Intelligence and National Security Professionals Act of 2019, H. R. 3997, 116th 

Cong.

448

of 3,000

only 448 of the 3,000 

gao recommendations 

for U.S. government’s 

cybersecurity policies 

have been implemented 
page 33

Enacting Fundamental Reform to Federal Judicial Practices

When courts are unable to efficiently administer justice, the integrity of America’s 

rule of law is put at risk. Furthermore, when our nation’s system for redressing 

grievances between individuals, organizations and government is weighed down 

with inefficiency, unnecessary conflicts can linger in society. Congressional and 

executive operations become jeopardized when laws and policies are held up 

in lengthy and unaccountable legal proceedings. For these reasons, the virtues of 

efficiency and accountability should drive reforms to the federal judicial system just 

as they should within the other two branches of the federal government.

Modernize the 9th Circuit Court

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has grown too large to effectively carry out the 

duties of an appellate circuit. Compared to other circuits, it requires the most judges 

by far and covers the most geography and population. The 9th Circuit covers 

around 40 percent of America’s land mass and 65 million people, amounting to 

20 percent of our population.97 It also has over 11,000 pending cases, which make 

up nearly one third of the backlog miring America’s circuit courts.98 As described 

by former House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte, “[the 9th 

Circuit is] twice the size of any other circuit. The geographic breadth and workload 

of the Ninth Circuit makes it challenging for parties and their counsel to have timely 

court dates in their region.”

The administrative challenges posed by its size have been a matter of debate for 

many decades.99 Two non-partisan reports analyzing the challenges faced by 

the 9th Circuit have been commissioned. In 1973, the Hruska Commission was 

published by then Senator Roman Hruska (R-NE) which called for the 9th Circuit 

to be broken into two separate circuits.100 More recently, in 1998 Supreme Court 

Justice Byron White produced the White Commission, which suggested reforming 

the structure of the 9th Circuit.101 The need to more efficiently administer the 9th 

Circuit is simply undeniable. 

To resolve this issue, the GEAR Task Force supports enactment of the Judicial 

Administration and Improvement Act of 2019, sponsored by Rep. Andy Biggs (AZ05). Similar to the suggestion of the Hruska Commission, this legislation would 

97 Mark Brnovich & Ilya Shapiro, Split Up the Ninth Circuit—but Not Because It’s Liberal, WALL STREET 

JOURNAL (Jan. 11th, 2018) https://www.wsj.com/articles/split-up-the-ninth-circuitbut-not-because-its-liberal-1515715542

98 Senate Judiciary Committee, Testimony of DIARMUID F. O’SCANNLAIN (Jul. 31st, 2018), https://www.

judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/07-31-18%20O’Scannlain%20Testimony.pdf#page=8

99 Aquiles Suarez, No More Justice Delayed: Time To Divide the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

HERITAGE FOUNDATION (Jun. 14th, 1989) https://www.heritage.org/node/21644/print-display

100 Commission on Revision of the Federal Court Appellate System, Report: Structure and Internal Procedures: Recommendations for Change, (Jun. 1975), https://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/library/document/0019/4520540.pdf

101 Commission on Structural Alternatives for the Federal Courts of Appeals, Final Report, (Dec. 18th, 1998), 

https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Commission-on-Structural-Alternatives-for-the-Federal-Courts-of-Appeals-1998.pdf
page 34

divide the 9th Circuit into two separate federal circuits. The new 9th Circuit would 

maintain California, Guam, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, and Northern Mariana 

Islands. The legislation would also create a 12th Circuit composed of Alaska, 

Arizona, Idaho, Montana, and Nevada. This proposal offers a balanced solution 

by splitting states and territories equitably between two circuits to better promote 

the efficient administration of federal court duties. As Ilya Shapiro of the Cato 

Institute put it, “Smaller circuits encourage substantive knowledge of local law and 

collegiality among the judges.”102

Optimize Immigration Court Efficiency

Similar to the issues concerning the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the challenges 

faced by immigration courts have recently been greatly politicized. Nonetheless, 

there are severe non-partisan challenges that currently undermine the simple 

function of American immigration courts. Due 

to extreme inefficiency, the current backlog of 

cases in immigration courts now exceeds 1 

million claims.103 This backlog has grown rapidly 

over the past decade. As the backlog has 

grown, wait times have increased, sometimes 

even taking years to process a case, according 

to the Bi-Partisan Policy Center.104 This burden 

is currently imposed upon approximately 400 

immigration judges, according to the Department 

of Justice.105 The backlog not only increases wait 

times, it strains housing facilities, and undercuts 

the ability of judges to swiftly grant asylum to 

genuine claimants or quickly remove individuals 

who abuse the system. Overall immigration 

court inefficiencies undermine America’s 

national security and humanitarian concerns in 

adjudicating immigration law.

The RSC GEAR Task Force recommends Congress prioritize hiring more immigration 

judges. Specifically, Congress should pass Rep. Debbie Lesko’s (AZ-08) legislation 

that would authorize the Attorney General to appoint 100 more immigration 

judges.106 This would expand the number of judges by about a quarter of its current 

102 Mark Brnovich & Ilya Shapiro, Split up the Ninth Circuit–but Not Because It’s Liberal, CATO INSTITUTE, 

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/split-ninth-circuit-not-because-its-liberal

103 Michelle Hackman, U.S. Immigration Courts’ Backlog Exceeds One Million Cases, WALL STREET JOURNAL (Sep. 18th, 2019) https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-immigration-courts-backlog-exceeds-one-million-cases-11568845885

104 Aquiles Suarez, No More Justice Delayed: Time To Divide the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

HERITAGE FOUNDATION (Jun. 14th, 1989) https://www.heritage.org/node/21644/print-display

105 U.S. Department of Justice, About the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge, https://www.justice.gov/

eoir/office-of-the-chief-immigration-judge

106 A Bill to authorize the Attorney General to appoint 100 additional immigration judges, and for other 

purposes of 2019, H.R. 3859, 116th Cong.

2005

0.5M

100M

150M

200M

250M

300M

350M

400M

STATUS QUO

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

0.0M

COMPARISON OF MEASURES MEANT TO

 MITIGATE THE IMMIGRATION COURT

Backlog: Impact by 2030
page 35

size. A major increase in judges will lessen the caseload burden per judge allowing 

for more time to process individual cases more efficiently. It is disgraceful that an 

administrative court system designed to be efficient has become more bogged down 

than an appeals court. There is nothing partisan about efficiently administering the 

law and providing effective due process by processing cases reasonably quickly 

out of respect to the interest of both parties in any case.

Provide Accountability for the Judgement Fund

The Judgment Fund was created to provide for payments to successful plaintiffs in 

civil suits brought against the United States. The fund is managed by the Bureau of 

Fiscal Service under the Department of the Treasury.107Payments from the Judgement 

Fund are non-discretionary, due to its function in paying out judgments and 

settlements as they occur. Unfortunately, there historically has been little effective 

oversight of the Judgement Fund because specifics about its payments have long 

been obscured.108

Congress has recently begun to remedy this problem. Recently, two leading 

proposals the Judgment Fund Transparency Act, sponsored by Rep. Chris Stewart 

(UT-02).109 Tand Rep. Doug Collins’ (GA-09) the Open Book on Equal Access to 

Justice, sponsored by Rep. Doug Collins, were signed into law in early 2019 as part 

of a larger legislative package110 These reforms allow for transparent reporting on 

payments made by the federal government to award attorney’s fees of prevailing 

parties in suits against the federal government. Congress should continue to enhance 

accountability for the Judgment Fund. Current reporting standards regarding 

payments received can be strengthened to require specific reporting on the facts 

of a case. Reporting can also be broadened for national security consideration 

to disclose if a prevailing party has ties to foreign governments. Finally, since 

Judgment Fund accountability measures are a new government practice, Congress 

should work with the Department of the Treasury to review current reporting and 

standardize best practices. The Department of the Treasury should also report to 

Congress on any anomalies outside of current reporting requirements, including 

flagging the largest payments from the Judgement Fund and the most frequent 

recipients of funds. Measures like these, allow for Congress to be better informed 

when considering structural reforms to the Judgement Fund in order to provide for 

greater efficiency and transparency. 

Provide Checks on Federal Injunctive Authority

Activist judges have recently assumed the authority to frequently issue nationwide 

injunctions on laws and regulations.111 This practice, according to Supreme Court 107 U.S. Department of Treasury, Judgment Fund FAQs, https://fiscal.treasury.gov/judgment-fund/faqs.html 108 House Committee on the Judiciary, Hearing Transcript: Oversight of the Judgment Fund (Mar 2nd, 2017) 

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-115hhrg25481/html/CHRG-115hhrg25481.htm

109 Judgment Fund Transparency Act of 2017, H.R. 1096, 115th Cong. 110 Open Book on Equal Access to Justice Act of 2015, H.R. 3279, 114th Cong.

111 Marcia Coyle, Clarence Thomas, Alone, Asserts National Injunctions Are ‘Historically Dubious’, NA-

‘This practice, 

according to 

Supreme Court 

Justice Clarence 

Thomas, is 

“legally and 

historically 

dubious.”’ 

Supreme Court Justice 

Clarence Thomas
page 36

Justice Clarence Thomas, is “legally and historically dubious.” Thomas noted that 

these injunctions did not take place until approximately 150 years after America’s 

founding. He further explained, “These injunctions are beginning to take a toll on 

the federal court system— preventing legal questions from percolating through the 

federal courts, encouraging forum shopping, and making every case a national 

emergency for the courts and for the executive branch.”112

Simply put, nationwide injunctions breed inefficiency. When hastily enacted, a 

federal judge can halt a national policy without a full proceeding that weighs 

its Constitutionality. Furthermore, under current law there is little recourse to hold 

accountable a federal judge who is hasty when issuing nationwide injunctions. 

To appropriately rein in runaway federal courts, it is Congress that must act. Article 1, 

Section 8, Clause 9 states, “The Congress shall have Power To ...constitute Tribunals 

inferior to the supreme Court....” and Article Three, Section 1 of the Constitution states, 

“The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and 

in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” 

The Constitution makes clear that all inferior federal courts are created and given 

legitimacy through an act of Congress. Congress has acted over the years to create 

and reform the circuits which make up the federal judiciary. These decisions have been 

made within the context of figuring out what practices would allow for the administration 

of justice most efficiently for Americans within each court jurisdiction. 

Congress should address the problem of activist judges so that government can 

more efficiently enact policy goals that elected officials are entrusted to advance.113

The GEAR Task Force recommends that Congress enact the Nationwide Injunction 

Abuse Prevention Act of 2019, sponsored by Rep. Mark Meadows (NC-11).114 This 

legislation would limit the injunctive authority of a federal judge to their federal 

circuit or the parties represented in a case. Individual judges would no longer act as 

de facto policymakers, as they would be unable to declare sweeping nationwide 

injunctions that prevent the enforcement of law far beyond their own jurisdictions. 

This would also take pressure off the Supreme Court to hear every case where a 

federal judge freezes an executive action, since its complete implementation and 

enforcement would not be frozen by the partisanship of a single judge.

Consolidate and Restructure Government

Historically the federal government has reorganized its offices to meet great 

challenges. After World War II, President Truman proposed to Congress the idea 

to create a unified Department of Defense to organize greatly expanded military 

assets to meet the needs of America’s future armed conflicts.115 In the aftershock 

TIONAL LAW JOURNAL (Jun. 26th, 2018) https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2018/06/26/clarence-thomas-alone-asserts-national-injunctions-are-historically-dubious/?slreturn=20200013200336

112 TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL. v. HAWAII ET AL., 585 U. S., 48 113 William Barr, End Nationwide Injunctions, WALL STREET JOURNAL (Sept. 5th, 2019), https://www.wsj.

com/articles/end-nationwide-injunctions-11567723072

114 Nationwide Injunction Abuse Prevention Act of 2019, H.R. 4292, 116th Cong.

115 50 U.S.C. ch. 15 § 401 (2019)
page 37

of the attacks on September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush led the largest 

reorganization of government since President Truman by working with Congress to 

create the Department of Homeland Security, to secure the homeland in the face of 

modern global terrorist threats.116

As America enters a new decade, our nation faces a crisis in government inefficiency. 

The federal government has never been larger or more expensive, yet, we have 

never had more tools at our disposal to streamline, consolidate, and reduce the 

size of government. To meet this challenge conservatives have long preached of 

the need to lessen the size and scope of the federal government and have put forth 

many policies that would work toward such an end. 

The Trump administration has shown a strong desire to restructure and consolidate 

core components of the executive branch. Their zeal has been made clear by OMB’s 

Reform Plan and Reorganization plan entitled “Delivering Government Solutions in 

the 21st Century.”117 Thus, the GEAR Task Force has chosen to highlight proposals 

that represent a strong first step in streamlining and restraining government. 

The practice of restructuring, consolidating, and moving offices and functions 

in the name of the efficiency and accountability is a mandate owed to the 

American people. Federal realignment should be business oriented. Government 

reorganization should reduce waste and be undertaken with the same vigor 

that came with reorganization to confront previous challenges. Accordingly, the 

RSC GEAR Task Force urges Congress to undertake many of the conservative 

commonsense proposals by the Trump Administration for federal reorganization 

designed to reduce the size and scope of government.118

Merge the Department of Education into the Department of Labor

The Department of Education’s Washington-centric approach often harms students 

who would be more effectively served if policy was set at the state and local level. 

The Department’s lack of focus on developing students to be ready for the demands 

of a 21st century career is a fatal flaw. America needs a well-educated workforce 

to tackle tomorrow’s problems, and sadly today’s Department has been unable 

to deliver in this respect. A strong first step in addressing this failure is to limit the 

government’s role to assisting the states in preparing students for successful careers 

after graduation. To do so, the Education Department should be merged into the 

Department of Labor in line with the proposal advanced by the Trump administration.119

This proposal recognizes the intrinsic connection between education and the 

formation of America’s workforce. Both chambers of Congress already recognize 

116 Andrew Glass, On This Day: Homeland Security Department Begins Operations, Jan. 24th, 2003, POLITICO (Jan. 24th, 2019) https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/24/homeland-security-department-begins-2003-1116070

117 White House Office of Management and Budget, Reform and Reorganization Plan, (June 2018) https://

www.performance.gov/GovReform/Reform-and-Reorg-Plan-Final.pdf

118 Id. 

119 Id. at 25. 
page 38

this link through the jurisdiction of their committees. The House has a Committee 

on Education and Labor while the Senate has a Committee on Health, Education, 

Labor and Pensions. By merging the Department of Education into the Department 

of Labor, the executive branch can similarly address policies related to workforce 

development while shrinking the size and scope of government. 

The RSC’s American Worker Task Force has been developing its own plan that, 

among other goals, seeks to empower students, educators, and local communities 

so that today’s students can achieve meaningful and well-paying jobs tomorrow. 

Additionally, the RSC’s American Worker Task Force will offer proposals designed 

to foster innovative education and training policies, remove bureaucratic 

red tape preventing competition in the workforce, and addressing issues that 

disproportionately punish families and workers in the current welfare system. The 

RSC will chart a course for empowering the American worker. 

Move Non-commodity Nutrition to the Department of Health and Human Services.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is tasked with broad authority far 

beyond the scope of analyzing agricultural commodity markets, assisting with 

agriculture-based trade, and managing federal programs designed to assist 

America’s farmers. One of the primary issues USDA is forced to address beyond 

agriculture is welfare policy. 

The GEAR Task Force recommends that Congress codify the White House Proposal 

to move non-commodity nutrition programs to the Department of Health and 

Human Services.120 This proposal would involve moving welfare policy into the 

Office of Administration for Children and Families at HHS. Programs subject to this 

reform include SNAP, Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, 

and Children (WIC), the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP), and the 

Farmers’ Market Nutrition Programs. These programs should be viewed primarily 

through the lens of welfare policy. Furthermore, moving these tense debates out of 

USDA allows for agricultural policy to be focused on maintaining America’s status 

as the breadbasket of the world. 

Housing these welfare programs into one office would also be better for creating 

policies that impact beneficiaries. Having one office with jurisdiction over these 

programs will allow for a more systematic understanding of the interconnections 

in America’s welfare system. It would further enable experts to make decisions 

that are prudent not just for one program’s beneficiaries, but for all Americans in 

need. Finally, having one office would streamline government accountability as 

individuals would easily know what office to reach out to with any questions that 

they have about any program they may be using, rather than wondering which 

agency handles it.

120 White House Office of Management and Budget, supra note 118, at 29.
page 39

Merge the Department of Commerce National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 

with the Department of Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)

Under the status quo, America has two agencies in different Departments with 

very similar missions. Both the NMFS and FWS are charged with enforcing the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). 

These laws seek to protect vulnerable species through federal regulation and, 

among other things, charge each agency with recommending conservation action 

in relation to infrastructure projects. If a highway or dam is being erected through a 

newly impacted ecosystem both agencies can be requested to do duplicative work 

outlining the impact on vulnerable species. This process is not only inefficient but 

can also be confusing if the agencies offer differing proposals.

Congress should enact legislation to codify the White House proposal to merge the 

NMFS with the FWS.121 This agency would have unified policies toward maintaining 

fisheries and conserving wildlife. It would also create a more streamlined chain 

of command when doing ESA and MMPA reconditions, thus allowing for better 

turnaround in processing permitting requests.

Move the Policy Function of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to the 

Executive Office of the President (EOP)

OPM is outdated and in need of reform. Created in Title II of the 1978 Civil Service 

Reform Act, OPM was designed to manage personnel and management functions 

of the federal government.122 OPM’s most important duty is to conduct personnel 

support for executive branch policy staff which is easily overshadowed by the work 

of individual agencies like the General Services Administration (GSA), which has 

arose to conduct overlapping responsibilities in the modern government structure. 

Congress should codify the White House proposal to elevate the OPM’s policy 

work in personnel management to the EOP. This would enhance the work of OPM 

policy personnel staff by better resourcing them through the EOP and centralizing 

their role in the overall mission of a President to hire competent policy staff in the 

White House and across all agencies.

Consolidate the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Applied Energy Programs into an 

Office of Energy Innovation

Under the current structure of the Department of Energy, much of the research and 

development (R&D) funding that is invested in energy research is compartmentalized 

by energy source. This structure effectively contradicts the vision of the Trump 

administration to have an all energy source, free-market, approach that promotes 

American energy independence. It also invites commercial energy interests to 

lobby for funding for their individual energy interest without gearing their argument 

toward a wholistic national policy vision. 

121 White House Office of Management and Budget, supra note 118, at 39.

122 5 U.S. Code § 1103. (2019).
page 40

The GEAR Task Force recommends that Congress codify the White House proposal 

to combine and consolidate applied energy programs into a new office called the 

Office of Energy Innovation.123 This structural change would recognize that all R&D 

funding in energy research should be conducted in the interest of America’s energy 

independence. By having all R&D programs funded out of the same office, funding 

would be tied to merit-based arguments. Having competition in funding promotes 

the national interest and competition, rather than the interest of a single industry. 

Furthermore, lawmakers will be able to provide better oversight of R&D funding, as 

it would be housed in a unified location.

Provide Accountability for Programs

The GEAR Task Force recognizes that making the federal government more efficient 

and accountable requires a frank discussion identifying some of the misguided 

programs crafted by our elected representatives. It is unreasonable to expect 

perfection from anyone, including from our federal lawmakers, but constant 

evaluation of past decisions is a prerequisite to an efficient and accountable 

government. This means that lawmakers must regularly determine what programs 

warrant continued operation, in their present form or otherwise.

Conservatives recognize it would be impossible for every program to be a 

resounding success. In fact, the web of federal agencies and activities has grown so 

large, that the federal government cannot even keep track of how many programs 

it has.124 In 2010, Congress enacted the Government Performance and Results Act 

(GRPA), a bill that among other things required OMB to list all federal programs 

by October 1, 2012 on a single website.125 The executive branch not only missed 

this deadline, but to date has been unable to accurately determine exactly how 

many programs exist within the federal government. Seven years later, the Trump 

administration OMB stated that the data infrastructure was not in place for a federal 

program inventory in 2012.126

To address this the GEAR Task Force recommends that Congress pass the Taxpayers Right 

to Know Act, introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Tim Walberg (MI-07).127

This legislation would create an online inventory of all federal programs by using program 

activities defined by agencies in the budget cycle as the basis for creating a federal 

program database. This practice was recommended by OMB in 2019.128 

Under the status quo, if government cannot keep track of the totality of federal 

programs, it should be expected that the merit and efficiency of individual programs 

must be reviewed from time-to-time. The evaluation process of programs by 

123 White House Office of Management and Budget, supra note 118, at 65. 124 Andrew Lautz, How Many Government Programs Are There?, NATIONAL TAXPAYERS UNION, 

(Jul. 22nd, 2019), https://www.ntu.org/publications/detail/how-many-federal-government-programs-are-there

125 5 U.S.C. § 306(a)(5) 126 Russel Vought, Letter to Senator Lankford regarding GPRMA, White House Office of Management 

and Budget (Oct. 8th, 2019) https://gallery.mailchimp.com/d4254037a343b683d142111e0/

files/1545c47c-7109-49db-ac49-fec53691bb40/2019_10_08_OMB_GPRMA_Response_Letter.pdf

127 Taxpayers Right to Know Act of 2019, H.R. 3830, 116th Cong. 128 Russell Vought, supra note 127.
page 41

lawmakers could result in a reduction in scope of a program, a reform of its internal 

operation, or even its complete elimination. Moreover, the reasons why federal 

lawmakers may reconsider the continued operation of a federal program are 

many. For instance, a federal program could be obsolete, fail to produce expected 

outcomes, become redundant of other programs, or surpass the bounds of federal 

authority. A few federal programs may even laughably defy common sense. With 

this in mind, the GEAR Task Force has supplied a sampling of federal programs 

across a broad subject matter that lawmakers should reevaluate. 

Arts & Sciences/Service

National Capital Arts and Cultural Affairs Grant Program

This grant program provides funding for Washington D.C. cultural institutions. This 

revenue could be generated by outside ticket sales, private donations, and private 

investors.129 The goal of offering art for the public is a noble one, but it forces taxpayers 

to become the patrons of projects that private individuals support. It also puts the 

government in the impossible situation of deeming what is art and what is not art. 

D.C. Streetcar Funding

The D.C. Streetcar program is a highly inefficient form of public transportation in 

Washington D.C. Despite its peculiarity it is comically unpopular. The program has 

already cost over $200 million to the taxpayer.130131

National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) and for the Arts (NEA) 

The NEH and NEA fund a broad scope of arts and cultural projects. While some 

are popular, they routinely use taxpayer money to fund questionable initiatives. For 

instance, in 2017, these programs funded an all dog performance of Hamlet and a 

climate change art camp for adults. Whether or not any initiative is worthy of being 

called art is something the American people can and should debate. But this debate 

should not be decided by Washington bureaucrats with taxpayer funding.132

Save America’s Treasures (SAT) Grants Program

The SAT program was created to help preserve historic locations throughout the 

country. Sadly, its funding has been directed toward unessential causes like the 

San Francisco Art collection. There have been issues of improper use of grant funds 

in the past too. In 2017, the city of Derby had to return $110,000 in grant funds 

originally awarded to help restore an opera house.133 134

Stennis Center for Public Service

This program exists to recruit young people to careers in Congress and public 

life. The Stennis Center for Public Service annually costs $1.4 million to American 

taxpayers. Jobs in public life are already popular and competitive making the 

Stennis Center superfluous.135

135 Daren Bakst, Budget Book, HERITAGE FOUNDATION (2015), https://budgetbook.heritage.org/agriculture/eliminate-conservation-technical-assistance-program/ (last visited Jan. 8th, 2020).
page 42

National Science Foundation Research of Social Sciences

Originally, the National Science Foundation was created to fund projects 

promoting American scientific interests, such as STEM or medical research for 

national defense purposes. Instead, the program has poured billions of dollars into 

questionable social science studies examining topics such as, the “social impacts” 

of tourism in the northern tip of Norway, and “whether hunger causes couples to 

fight” according to the Washington Examiner. The National Science Foundation 

was appropriated over $8 billion for FY 2019. STEM research that promotes our 

national interest may warrant taxpayer funding, but social sciences and arts simply 

do not rise to the same level.136

Environment/Conservation

Aquatic Plant Control Research Program

The Aquatic Plant Control Research Program is administered by the U.S. Army Corp 

of Engineers. It funds individual projects to research and combat invasive aquatic 

plants in domestic waters. According to Citizens Against Government Waste, 

the program has funded 24 earmarks since 1994, totaling over $58 million for 

aquatic plant control projects. One such earmark was $400,000 from Senator 

Schumer (D-NY) to upstate New York to help eradicate undesired plants in the 

Finger Lakes.137, 138

Brown Tree Snake Eradication Program

The Brown Tree Snake is an invasive species from Australia that has become a 

major problem for Guam. The snake is responsible for eliminating 10 of 12 birds 

indigenous to Guam. To eliminate the Brown Tree Snakes, the federal government 

resorted to an unusual method of animal control.139 The government pumps rats 

full of acetaminophen, basically Tylenol, which is poisonous to snakes.140 Then the 

government drops the poison-filled rodents onto the island of Guam by parachute 

in the hopes that the hungry snakes will scavenge them up and slowly die over 

60 hours. As serious as this snake problem is, there must be more efficient ways to 

address it than dropping dead drug filled rodents out of planes by parachute.

136 David Muhlhausen, et. al, supra note 25. 137 Citizens Against Government Waste, supra note 57. 138 Office of U.S. Senator Schumer, SCHUMER ANNOUNCES, AFTER HIS PUSH TO SECURE FEDERAL 

FUNDING THIS SUMMER TO ATTACK INVASIVE HYDRILLA, ARMY CORPS WILL SPEND $400K TO REMEDIATE 27 ACRE AREA OF HYDRILLA IN CAYUGA LAKE, (Jun. 15th, 2017), https://www.schumer.senate.

gov/newsroom/press-releases/schumer-announces-after-his-push-to-secure-federal-funding-this-summerto-attack-invasive-hydrilla-army-corps-will-spend-400k-to-remediate-27-acre-area-of-hydrilla-in-cayugalake-senator-says-these-federal-funds-will-help-eradicate-invasive-species139 Ker Than, Drug Filled Mice Air-Dropped Over Guam to Kill Snakes, NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC, (Sept. 

26th, 2010), https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/9/100924-science-animals-guambrown-tree-snakes-mouse-tylenol/

140 M. Alex Johnson, Two thousand mice dropped on Guam by parachute — to kill snakes, NBCNEWS.

COM, (Dec. 2nd, 2013), https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/two-thousand-mice-dropped-guamparachute-kill-snakes-flna2D11685572
page 43

The Maritime Guaranteed Loan Program

The maritime guaranteed loan program provides loan guarantees to cover the costs 

of ship building and rebuilding in American shipyards. This loan program has been 

suspended in the past for loan defaults and has long been criticized.141 President 

George W. Bush called the program an “unwarranted corporate subsidy” and 

Senator McCain described it as an “egregious example of pork barrel spending.”142

The government should not provide services that more reasonably could be obtained 

through the free market.

The Conservation Technical Assistance Program

The Natural Resources Conservation Service runs this program as an advisory 

resource for governmental and private landowners.143 The program provides 

technical assistance for the maintenance of land and soil conservation as well as 

legal assistance. This program uses taxpayer money to offer services landowners 

could reasonably purchase in the private sector. As currently structured, the program 

will cost $4.8 billion over the next 5 years.

National Estuarine Research Reserve System

The National Estuarine Research Reserve System is a federal network of 29 protected 

coastal estuaries that are preserved for conservation and research efforts. The work 

of preserving estuaries should belong to local communities. Taxpayers in Alabama, 

Illinois, and Pennsylvania should not be forced into funding the San Francisco Bay 

National Estuarine Research Reserve System, which recently studied the impact of 

climate change on oysters.144 Furthermore, research is already done by many private 

organizations and academic institutions pertaining to these issues at no federal cost. 

This program has an annual cost of $23 million.145

Sea Grant Program

The Sea Grant is duplicative of many federal programs, such as other NOAA coastal 

funds that study ecological issues at the Great Lakes. This includes two National 

Estuarine Research Reserves in the Great Lakes region. Furthermore, due to the 

narrow scope, this issue falls within the purview of state and local governments. This 

program costs $73 million.146

141 Citizens Against Government Waste, supra note 57. 38.

142 Ryan Sibley, Government Agency with a History of Losses Keeps it Up, SUNLIGHT FOUNDATION (Apr. 

12th, 2010) https://sunlightfoundation.com/2010/04/12/government-agency-history-taxpayer-losses-keeps-it/

143 Daren Bakst, supra note 136. 144 San Francisco Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, Current and Past Research, (Dec. 2nd, 2013), 

http://www.sfbaynerr.org/research/current-and-past-research/

145 Wasson and Zabin, et. al, A Guide to Support Olympia Oyster Restoration and Conservation, SFBAYSUBTIDAL.org (Jun, 2015), http://www.sfbaysubtidal.org/OYSTERGUIDE-FULL-LORES.pdf

146 Chelsea Harvey & Chris Mooney, Trump’s proposed NOAA cuts would disarm our coasts in the face of 

rising seas, scientists say, WASH. POST (Mar. 10th, 2017), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/03/10/proposed-noaa-cuts-would-disarm-our-coasts-in-the-face-of-risingseas-scientists-say/
page 44

Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Fund

The Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Fund disproportionately benefits the West Coast 

and a narrow fishing industry interest. There is no precedent for creating funds to 

conserve every vulnerable fish population. This issue could more appropriately be 

dealt with at the state level or by private industry. This fund has cost the American 

taxpayer $1.4 billion since its creation in 2000.147

Energy

Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Loan Program

The Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Loan Program provides 

subsidies for manufacturers producing technology that promote national energy 

independence. This fund exists largely to encourage companies into introducing 

more fuel-efficient cars, rather than letting manufacturers produce solely what the 

market dictates. Having a subsidy that encourages producers to ignore the will of 

consumers is wasteful and puts government inappropriately in the board room of 

a private company. This program was created in 2007 and given $25 billion of 

taxpayer-backed loan authority that it has used to extend credit to some of the 

largest auto manufacturers in the world.148

ENERGY STAR Program

This program promotes partisan environmental policy outside the purview of the 

executive branch by selectively providing subsidies to companies that reduce 

carbon emissions. According to a GAO study in 2010 this program is vulnerable 

for fraud and abuse.149 GAO created four fake manufacturing companies to submit 

20 products with fake emissions claims. Under this program 15 were certified and 

offered federal subsidies.150

Domestic Energy Subsidies 

In 2017, American consumers spent $1.1 trillion on their energy needs.151 This 

staggering amount of money supported an industry that makes up 5.8 percent of 

our nation’s GDP.152 Thus, one might question why the federal government spends 

billions in direct subsidies and tax breaks to support research and development in 

the private sector. 

147 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Fund, NOAA.GOV, 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/grant/pacific-coastal-salmon-recovery-fund-0

148 U.S. Department of Energy, ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY VEHICLES MANUFACTURING (ATVM) LOAN 

PROGRAM, NOAA.GOV, https://www.energy.gov/lpo/advanced-technology-vehicles-manufacturing-atvm-loan-program

149 Government Accountability Office, Covert Testing Shows the Energy Star Program Certification Process Is 

Vulnerable to Fraud and Abuse, (Mar. 5th, 2010) https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-470

150 Citizens Against Government Waste, supra note 57.note 57. 151 University of Michigan, U.S. ENERGY SYSTEM FACTSHEET, Center for Sustainable Systems (2019), 

http://css.umich.edu/factsheets/us-energy-system-factsheet

152 Id. 
page 45

Moreover, the federal government funds various energy programs that favor certain 

types of energy over others to artificially prop up certain industries with taxpayer 

dollars. Intervening in the private market in this way fuels inefficiency and ultimately 

produces higher overall costs for Americans. The federal government should not 

pick and choose winners in the energy market.153

Labor and Economic Development/Finance

Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation 

This program is duplicative and has an infamous history. GAO found NeighborWorks 

gave grants to the now notorious company Acorn.154 ACORN employees were 

caught advising people on how to commit various criminal actions including 

trafficking prostitutes and evading the IRS.155 It is also duplicative of already existing 

programs at HUD, according to CBO.156

Susan Harwood Training Grants

These safety training grants to non-profits duplicate already existing Occupational 

Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) activities.157 Funding is not well targeted 

as it may also be used for non-training related goals, such as paying for overhead. 

The LIUNA Training and Education Fund requested grant money in 2017 in order 

to pay toward supporting the salary of five employees making six-figures each.158

Trade Adjustment Assistance

The Trade Adjustment Assistance program provides aid to individuals whose jobs 

were displaced by international trade. Regardless of one’s thoughts on whether this 

is a proper role of government, Congress appropriates over $800 million annually, 

but only about 37% of aid recipients report landing jobs in their targeted field.159

DOL Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs

This office is a costly bureaucratic mess for federal managers and is redundant 

of the EEOC. The Federal Contract Compliance Programs office cost over $103 

million in FY 2019 alone.160

153 Energy sector subsidies cover production methods such as hydroelectric, wind, solar, geothermal, natural 

gas, crude oil, coal, nuclear, and biomass.

154 Government Accountability Office, Letter: NeighborWorks America: Availability of Appropriations for 

Grants to Affordable Housing Centers of America, (Sept. 29th, 2010) https://www.gao.gov/decisions/

appro/320329.htm

155 Bill Tucker, Chris Murphey and Steve Turnham, ACORN workers caught on tape allegedly advising on 

prostitution, CNN (Sept. 10th, 2009) https://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/10/acorn.prostitution/

156 Citizens Against Government Waste, supra note 57.Citizens Against Government Waste, supra note 57. 157 Id. 158 ALG Research, The Labor Department’s Harwood Grant Program Should Be Eliminated, (May 17th, 2019) 

http://algresearch.org/2019/05/labor-departments-harwood-grant-program-eliminated/

159 Eric Morath, President Trump’s Fiscal 2019 Budget Proposal -- Live Analysis, WSJ (Feb. 12th, 2018), 

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/trumps-2019-budget-proposal-live-analysis/card/1518462457

160 U.S. Department of Labor, Congressional Budget Justification, (2019) https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/general/budget/2020/CBJ-2020-V2-10.pdf
page 46

National Technical Information Service

NTIS is a laboratory in the Department of Commerce created for helping American 

industry be more competitive.161 Considering how inefficient federal practices and 

structures are, it is unlikely American industry needs the governments advice on 

competition. This fund received $985 million in FY 2019 alone.162

Education 

Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants 

Education policy, including funding, is best handled at the state and local level. This 

program allows communities to underfund programs they intend to use knowing 

they can count on additional federal funding to plug the holes. Costing over $1 

billion annually, this fund has almost no restraints on it.163

Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants

This program provides funds to recruit, train, and support local schoolteachers. 

These grants makeup the third largest program at the Department of Education, yet 

evidence shows that the program conveys little value for teacher development.164

Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants

This program provides need-based grants for individual undergraduate education. 

This is duplicative of other federal financial subsidies for college education and cost 

over $800 million in FY18.165

21st Century Community Learning Centers

These centers, which cost $1 billion annually, exist to help students perform better 

on standardized tests. The efficacy of the program has not been measured in 

collected data.166

Housing

Public Housing Capital Fund

This fund assists public housing agencies in modernizing their facilities. These federal 

funds are duplicative of state and local programs that are better suited to address 

housing. This program is funded at $2.78 billion.167

161 Doug Bandow, The More Wasteful a Federal Program Is, the More Essential It Is to Washington, FORBES 

(Jan. 6th, 2014) https://www.forbes.com/sites/dougbandow/2014/01/06/the-more-wasteful-is-thefederal-government-program-the-more-essential-it-is-to-washington/#7cb768e36cb4

162 Paul Bedard, Trump to cut $4 billion in domestic programs, elimination of Legal Services Corporation, 

WASH. EXAMINER (Mar. 11th, 2019), https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/

trump-to-cut-4-billion-in-domestic-programs-elimination-of-legal-services-corporation 

163 Alyson Klein, What’s in ESSA’s Big Flexible-Spending Pot, ED. WEEK, (Jun. 8th, 2018) https://www.

edweek.org/ew/articles/2018/06/06/whats-in-essas-big-flexible-spending-pot.html

164 Lindsay M. Burke, “What Trump’s Education Budget Gets Right, and Where It Can Improve” HERITAGE 

FOUNDATION, https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/what-trumps-education-budget-getsright-and-where-it-can-improve

165 Klein, supra 166 Bedard, supra note 163. 167 Donna Kimura, Fiscal 2019 HUD Budget Approved, AFFORDABLE HOUSING FINANCE (Feb. 20th, 

2019), https://www.housingfinance.com/news/fiscal-2019-hud-budget-approved_o
page 47

Public Housing Operating Fund

This program provides federal funds for housing agencies to supplement the cost 

of their daily operations. This federal program is duplicative of state and local 

programs that are better suited to address housing.168

Home Investment Partnership Program

This program seeks to help improve low-income housing. Housing is an issue that 

primarily falls within the purview of state and local government. This federal intrusion 

into housing funds provides a shield from accountability for state governments who 

can fall back on the federal funding debate when faced with scrutiny.169

Foreign Policy

McGovern-Dole International Food for Education Program

The McGovern-Dole program, run by the United States Department of Agriculture 

(USDA), provides foreign aid through NGOs working in impoverished nations. 

There is no evidence to say that this program eliminates food insecurity. 170

Cultural Exchange Programs

The State Department offers Cultural Exchange Programs through the Bureau 

of Educational and Cultural Affairs. These programs sponsor students, teachers, 

and other leaders to travel to other nations for a cultural exchange. This service 

is offered privately by many universities and non-profits. This program costs over 

$300 million with over 90 percent of expenses unaccounted for.171

Clean Technology Fund

This fund helps and encourages developing countries to use green energy 

technology and costs American taxpayers $5.4 billion annually.172

Strategic Climate Fund

This program funds international efforts to limit carbon caused by deforestation, 

create “climate resilience,” and develop renewable energy technology in 

developing nations. The fund functions through a multilateral agreement and costs 

billions of dollars to impose partisan energy policy on sovereign nations.173

168 Id. 169 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, FY 2016: HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS 

PROGRAM, (2016) https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/comm_planning/affordablehousing/programs/home/

170 Tim Worstall, A Good Part Of Donald Trump’s Budget - Eliminating McGovern-Dole, FORBES.COM 

(Mar. 18th, 2017), https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2017/03/18/a-good-part-of-donaldtrumps-budget-eliminating-mcgovern-dole/#486f8f344ff3

171 Bedard, supra note 163.

172 Climate Investment Funds, Clean Technologies Fund, https://www.climateinvestmentfunds.org/topics/

clean-technologies

173 Climate Investment Funds, About the Funds, https://www.climateinvestmentfunds.org/node/5
page 48

Green Climate Fund

The Green Climate Fund invests in developing nations’ efforts to combat “climate 

change.”174 President Trump announced the U.S. would no longer pay into this fund 

when he pulled America out of the Paris Climate Accords. Initially, President Obama 

had pledged $3 billion, but Trump saved over $2 billion from being wasted on it.175

Global Environment Facility

This program operates through NGOs around the world to provide support for 

addressing environmental issues.176 The program functions as an account for 

environmental initiatives that governments can invest in without further control 

over where that money is spent. Since 1994, the U.S. has given $2.7 billion to this 

multilateral slush fund for environmental policies.177

United States Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund

This program was created to help Cuban refugees in 1962 who did not qualify for the 

status of refugee, or the aid associated with the status. The authority to use the fund 

has been reinterpreted and broadened by DOJ rulemaking. This program is almost 

entirely rolled into USAID in the President’s budget.178

DOL International Labor Affairs Bureau

The DOL International Labor Affairs Bureau (ILAB) costs nearly $70 million annually 

and most of its budget is spent on advocating on foreign labor practices. The program 

was originally created to advocate for American labor interests in trade negotiations.179

Contributions to the International Development Association

This is a Department of the World Bank that is charged with helping developing 

countries. It advances partisan policies on climate and gender. Any American aid 

should be given directly through State and USAID.180

Contributions to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development

Originally created to help rebuild Europe after WWII, this office has become a global 

slush fund with evolving purposes. Any American aid should be given directly through 

State and USAID.181

174 The Green Climate Fund Website, https://www.greenclimate.fund/home

175 Associated Press, Nations pledge $9.8B to global climate fund to help the poor, AP (Oct. 25th, 2019), 

https://apnews.com/ae7e3e749afa4dc788ff6303ad01006c

176 The Global Economic Facility Website, https://www.thegef.org/ 177 Congressional Research Service, Paris Agreement: U.S. Climate Finance Commitments, (Oct. 2nd, 2019), 

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/IF10763.pdf

178 Rachel Oswald, Lawmakers from both parties resist humanitarian and refugee aid changes, ROLL CALL (Mar. 

22nd, 2019), https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/lawmakers-resist-humanitarian-refugee-aid-changes

179 Bedard, supra note 163. 180 Congressional Research Service, 2018 World Bank Capital Increase Proposal (Dec. 14th, 2018), https://fas.

org/sgp/crs/misc/IF10895.pdf

181 Id.
page 49

Complex Crises Funds

This program was originally created as DOD funding for evolving geo-political 

situations. Now, it is a USAID fund with little restrictions, managed solely at the 

discretion of the USAID Administrator.182

U.S. Trade and Development Agency

This independent agency is duplicative of many federal offices including the Office 

of the U.S. Trade Representative. It costs over $50 million annually.183

Foundations 

The federal government contributes to multiple funds that are used as a resource for 

NGOs with a focus on a specific geopolitical region. While debating foreign aid is 

important, investing in foundations that indiscriminately fund NGOs over an entire 

region may not provide enough accountability for policymakers to target U.S. 

investment overseas. Furthermore, NGOs that specifically target different regions 

can operate on private donations and investors, they do not need American taxpayer 

money. Examples of these programs include the Inter-American Foundation, the 

Asia Foundation and Development Bank, and the African Development Foundation 

and Bank.

182 Congressional Research Service, Department of State, Foreign Operations Appropriations: A Guide to 

Component Accounts (Apr. 10th, 2019), https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/IF10763.pdf

183 Daren Bakst, supra note 136.
page 50

A perfect plan, policy, or system is meaningless without having the right people. Yet, 

without a federal workforce made up of true civil servants that are talented, patriotic, 

and hardworking, meaningful reform cannot be implemented. Unfortunately, the 

Trump Administration has at times been burdened as commonsense proposals are 

undermined by partisan federal bureaucrats. 

By contrast, in the world of business, a company cannot be successful without 

having the right people in place. The need to have effective personnel policies in 

order to maximize efficiency and success is true for any employer, including the 

federal government. After all, the federal government is the largest employer in 

the nation. Businesses go to great lengths to develop successful personnel policies 

from hiring, to compensation, to promotion and accountability. It is past time that 

government function more like a business. 

Most federal workers are passionate and devoted to carrying out the mission of 

their office. Sadly, the behavior of the worst bad actors in the federal government 

undermines the commitment of our hardworking civil servants. The Task Force 

commends those federal workers that approach each day as an opportunity to 

serve the American people but are guided by the age-old truth that a chain is only 

as strong as its weakest link. With this in mind, the Task Force seeks to advance 

reforms that ensure that the federal government has the strongest links possible 

for the sake of ensuring the American people are served by an efficient and 

accountable government.

Instances of unacceptable federal employee behavior have been well-documented 

over the years. Some involve a federal employee abusing their position at the 

expense of coworkers. Take for example Paula M. Steen, an IT Specialist at the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA). 184 Paula scammed three of her co-workers, 

including a blind individual, out of over $100,000 over the course of four years 

using false charges, loans, and repayments. In other occurrences, federal workers, 

including supervisors, have knowingly looked the other way as employees took 

advantage of taxpayers. In one instance an assistant commissioner of the Bureau of 

Public Debt committed fraud to the point of hardly working while earning $170,000 

a year. 185 She would come in hours late, if at all and leave early. She also used 

much of her official time to conduct personal business for the Humane Society. 

Investigators estimated she was paid for $100,000 in hours she did not work. Her 

supervisor also admitted to knowing about these issues and not acting.

Perhaps the most incredible instance of fraud committed by a federal employee in 

the last decade was done by a man named John Beale. 186 Over 13 years, Beale 

184 U.S. Department of Justice, Former Federal Employee Pleads Guilty to $113,000 Scheme to Steal from 

Co-workers (Dec. 18th, 2013), https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdmo/pr/former-federal-employee-pleadsguilty-113000-scheme-steal-co-workers (last visited Jan. 8th, 2020).

185 Luke Rosiak, Top Treasury employees swindled thousands of dollars, in-the-know bosses did nothing, 

WASHINGTON EXAMINER (Feb. 27th, 2014), https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/top-treasury-employees-swindled-thousands-of-dollars-in-the-know-bosses-did-nothing (last visited Jan. 8th, 2020).

186 Ian Simpson, Ex-EPA adviser admits to fraud, CIA stint claim, 13 years of lies, REUTERS (Sept. 27th , 

REFORM GOVERNMENT 

PERSONNEL POLICIES

Step three
page 51

skipped work as an EPA advisor while claiming to work for the CIA. If having a fake 

career with the CIA was not egregious enough, Beale further pretended to have 

malaria to receive a special parking spot that cost hundreds of dollars per month. It is 

believed John Beale cheated the government out of nearly $1 million all by himself.

While these are a few extreme examples of misconduct by federal employees, 

unfortunately there are other misdeeds happening in our agencies today that left 

unaddressed impact the morale of the many diligent civil servants operating in 

our government today. It is with those individuals in mind that the RSC GEAR Task 

Force has accumulated proposals that collectively create a transformative vision 

for civil service reform. If the ideas, legislation, and policies espoused in this section 

were enacted, it would move our government toward parity with the private sector, 

empower managers to lead, and honor hard work.

Reform Hiring and Removal of Federal Employees

Hiring and removal of employees in the United States federal government is a 

mess. Unlike in the private sector, federal employees generally do not work at the 

will of their boss or supervisor. Instead, removing a federal employee is extremely 

difficult and time consuming. It currently takes about a full calendar year to remove 

one federal employee. The federal system for hiring and removing does not 

empower managers, office executives, or department leaders. Instead managers 

are effectively forced to keep problematic employees to the detriment of effective 

federal workers. The reforms supported by the RSC GEAR Task Force will allow 

agencies to utilize more efficient and fair hiring and removal practices resembling 

those used in the private sector.

Modernize the Hiring Process

The federal government cannot expect to have a more professional workforce 

without having a faster and more reliable process for hiring highly qualified 

candidates. Unfortunately, one of the largest gaps in efficiency between the 

practices of business versus that of government is in hiring. According to the Office 

of Personnel and Management (OPM), the 2016 Merit Principles Survey found that 

federal supervisors believe their most difficult workforce management task is getting 

a pool of quality candidates.187 Additionally, only 42 percent of respondents to the 

2018 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) believe that their work unit is 

able to recruit people with the appropriate skills.188 

2013), https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/top-treasury-employees-swindled-thousands-of-dollars-inthe-know-bosses-did-nothing (last visited Jan. 8th, 2020).

187 Margaret Weichert, Memo on Strategies to Advance Mission Outcomes, OFFICE OF PERSONNEL 

MANAGEMENT (Sept. 19th, 2019), https://www.chcoc.gov/sites/default/files/OPM Memo Improving 

Federal Hiring through the Use of Effective Assessment Strategies to Advance Mission Outcomes.pdf

188 Office of Personnel Management, 2018 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey Results, (2019) https://

www.opm.gov/fevs/reports/governmentwide-reports/governmentwide-management-report/governmentwide-report/2018/2018-governmentwide-management-report.pdf
page 52

On average, it takes federal agencies three times longer than private entities, to 

complete the hiring process for a single employee.189 In 2017, it took an average of 

106 days to complete a hire within a federal agency.190 Being without a worker for 

that long could deter managers from seeking to upgrade their employees. 

Wisely, the Trump administration has made overhauling federal hiring practices a 

major priority for OPM.191192 The administration has begun the process of empowering 

human resources to utilize better business techniques when hiring. One reform that 

is currently being implemented is an aggressive expansion of training for human 

resources staff under the delegated examining (DE) system. Congress should assist 

the Trump administration in empowering professionals in charge of hiring to work 

more efficiently like their private sector peers. Congressional action should focus 

on two intertwined goals: constructively utilizing hiring managers and automating 

human resources functions193. 

The present hiring system is administered by OPM. OPM is responsible for posting 

vacancies, screening and compiling applicants, and referring most qualified 

candidates to hiring managers at agencies. Hiring managers are not able to recruit 

or consider applicants outside of OPM’s initial referral. Furthermore, subject matter 

experts at agencies are completely separated from the process. Hiring managers 

are seldomly included in a constructive way during the current hiring system. This 

paradigm jeopardizes the ability to hire a highly qualified candidate because the 

people most essential to hiring are largely removed from the hiring process. 

Furthermore, OPM’s standardized screening of candidates leaves too much latitude 

for applicants to self-certify their qualifications, which can leave hiring managers 

with a pool of applicants who lack genuine accreditation. Congress should require 

executive branch agencies to create new hiring standards that tangibly tie in the 

hiring manager. By requiring hiring managers to be a more significant part of 

the process, efficiency can be brought back to the hiring process in a way that is 

consistent with the agency culture. Furthermore, Congress should require that hiring 

managers include advice from subject matter experts in the hiring process. Each 

agency hires personnel to fill a broad spectrum of functionality. In order to help 

ensure that an agency is hiring the best personnel for each role, it makes sense to 

include feedback from those who best understand the job and policies it covers.

189 Volcker Alliance, Volcker Alliance and Partnership for Public Service Launch Civil Service Reform Initiative 

(Sept. 5th, 2017), https://www.volckeralliance.org/news/volcker-alliance-and-partnership-public-service-launch-civil-service-reform-initiative

190 Volcker Alliance, Renewing America’s Civil Service (Oct., 2018), https://www.volckeralliance.org/projects/renewing-americas-civil-service (last visited Jan. 8th, 2020

191 Office of Personnel Management, Technology Systems, 

.https://www.opm.gov/services-for-agencies/technology-systems/

192 White House Office of Management and Budget, Improving the Hiring Process Action Plan, (Dec. 2019), 

https://www.performance.gov/OPM/2019_dec_OPM_Improve_the_Hiring_Process.pdf

193 Jeff Neal, What it would take to create real hiring reform, FEDERAL NEWS NETWORK (Apr. 13th, 2017) 

https://federalnewsnetwork.com/commentary/2017/04/what-it-would-take-to-create-real-hiring-reform/
page 53

The Trump administration recently had success with a pilot program that put hiring 

managers and subject matter experts at the center of the hiring process. The Department 

of Interior and Department of Health and Human Services recently placed eight 

subject matter experts in the hiring process for every two human resources staff.194

Baseline data shows that selecting a new hire took on average 37 days in the tested 

categories. During the pilot, selection took 11 and 16 days respectively.195

The GEAR Task Force recommends that Congress also conduct oversight on the use 

of automation in hiring preclearance procedures.196 OPM employees are charged 

with trying to prescreen applicants for referral. By reasserting a hiring manager’s 

role in hiring, the need to have a nuanced preclearance process is removed. Instead 

human resources functions should be focused on quickly removing unqualified 

applicants. Congress should investigate best practices used in the private sector, 

such as automation to better track and remove unqualified job applicants through 

techniques like key word usage.197

Another hiring reform that has been tested as a pilot program is called “hiring 

to attrition.” This pilot, carried out by the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) 

involved hiring candidates based on the rolling needs of the FBI rather than simply 

hiring when a new position became available. In other words, the FBI created and 

maintained a pipeline of qualified candidates to ensure that they bureau maintained 

adequate staffing. This concept is important because the federal government has 

a significantly higher attrition rate when compared to the private sector. Under the 

pilot program, the FBI recently faced 78 percent employment levels and an annual 

attrition rate of 9 percent but was able to create a fully operational pipeline of 

applicants and have a fill rate approaching 98 percent. 

To maximize the value of targeted recruitment and combat federal attrition rates, 

all federal agencies should build off of the FBI’s pilot program to continuously vet 

current civil servants for vacant roles across government. This tactic could allow 

for quicker transitions and higher employment levels to combat the unique nature 

of federal employment. Continuous vetting of federal employees would maximize 

the utility of the federal workforce and would likely be more efficient than passive 

recruiting efforts including non-targeted job postings.

194 Jessie Bur, Can agencies improve hiring by letting current feds in on the process?, FEDERAL TIMES, 

https://www.federaltimes.com/management/hr/2019/10/23/can-agencies-improve-hiring-by-lettingcurrent-feds-in-on-the-process/

195 Erich Wagner, Efforts to Reform Federal Hiring Already Showing Results, GOVEXEC.COM, (Oct. 22nd, 

2019) https://www.govexec.com/management/2019/10/efforts-reform-federal-hiring-already-showing-results/160781/

196 Society for Human Resource Management, Screening by Means of Pre-Employment Testing (Sept. 10th, 

2018), https://www.shrm.org/ResourcesAndTools/tools-and-samples/toolkits/Pages/screeningbymeansofpreemploymenttesting.aspx

197 Suresh Sambandam, The New Age of Automation in the Recruitment Process, HRTECHNOLOGIST.COM 

(May 1st, 2019) https://www.hrtechnologist.com/articles/recruitment-onboarding/the-new-age-of-automation-in-the-recruitment-process/
page 54

Enact the MERIT Act

It is a fact of modern life that not every employee that gets hired is a shining star. 

For this reason, it is just as critical to have an efficient mechanism for removing 

toxic employees as it is to hire new workers. The MERIT Act, introduced by GEAR 

Task Force member Rep. Barry Loudermilk (GA-11), offers much needed reforms to 

enhance employee removal practices in the federal government.198 This legislation 

would shorten the timeframe necessary to remove a bad employee to 30 days. 

On average, it currently takes over 300 days to remove a toxic federal worker. By 

eliminating the red tape that exists when taking adverse actions against a bad actor in 

the federal government and allowing for senior executives to be removed rather than 

demoted, the MERIT Act offers a framework much closer to the efficiency and rigor found 

in the private sector.

Another commonsense reform offered by Rep. Loudermilk’s legislation is to limit the 

retirement compensation awarded to a federal employee removed for committing a felony 

in abuse of their official duties. The period of service during which the crime occurred 

would be eliminated when calculating the annuity owed to a criminal federal employee. 

The MERIT Act also reins in unnecessary appeals. The bill would prohibit union 

appeals to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) based upon adverse 

personnel actions. Further, it would prohibit appeals to the MSPB in response to 

short-term furloughs or furloughs during a government shutdown. 

Finally, the MERIT Act grants managers the authority to recoup bonuses paid to 

employees who were later found to have committed workplace violations, if that 

violation would have led to a bonus not being granted in the first place.

Provide Mandatory Removal of Federal Employees Who Commit Crimes 

Without question, federal employees who commit crimes during their tenure of 

service in the government should be removed from public service. Under current 

law, agencies may indefinitely suspend without pay an individual who committed a 

serious crime, while their removal is processed.199 However, it is not uncommon that 

agencies claim they are required to keep employees guilty of committing serious 

crimes, arguing removal would equate to wrongful termination. For example, in 

2016, the VA admitted to demoting, but keeping on staff an individual who was 

convicted of assisting an armed robbery.200 The decision was made because the 

individual supposedly did not pose a direct threat to VA employees. There should 

be no gray area or hesitation when it comes to firing serious criminals.

198 MERIT Act of 2017, H.R. 559, 115th Cong. 199 Ian Simpson, MSPB Reminds Agencies They Don’t Need Airtight Proof to Get Suspected Criminals Off the 

Payroll , GOVEXEC.COM (May 24th, 2016), https://www.govexec.com/management/2016/05/mspbreminds-agencies-they-dont-need-airtight-proof-get-suspected-criminals-payroll/128567/ (last visited Jan. 

8th, 2020).

200 Eric Katz, Employees Can Be Involved in Armed Robberies as Long as It’s On Their Own Time, VA Says, 

GOVEXEC (Apr. 25th, 2016) https://www.govexec.com/federal-news/2016/04/employees-can-drivegetaway-cars-armed-robberies-long-its-their-personal-time-va-says/127771/
page 55

Modernize the Evidentiary Threshold Necessary for Removal 

Current federal regulation requires federal managers who seek to remove an 

employee to show that a preponderance of evidence must exist to support their 

removal.201 Furthermore, managers must demonstrate evidence that the removal of 

an employee would improve the overall performance of their agency. This effectively 

imposes an enhanced judicial standard of evidence on federal managers, rather 

than allowing them to make sensible business-minded removal decisions. After all, 

the goal of federal personnel policy should be to provide the best possible value to 

the American taxpayer, not make Washington bureaucrats even less accountable 

for their actions. 

To make upgrading personnel more efficient, the legal standard for removing a 

poor performing federal employee should be reformed so that managers are not 

overly hamstrung in these decisions. A good starting point would be to adopt the 

standard proposed by The Heritage Foundation, under which managers would have 

to possess “substantial evidence” supporting the decision to remove the employee. 

For context, this is the standard used in administrative law to review the decisions of 

administrative law judges. This standard simply means, “that a reasonable person 

could come to that conclusion, although another reasonable person could look at 

the evidence and disagree.”202 Considering that this standard would still generally 

insulate federal employees more than their private sector counterparts from adverse 

employment actions, the GEAR Task Force urges lawmakers to consider reducing 

this standard even further.

By creating a new evidentiary standard that appropriately entrusts a manager’s 

ability to make a judgement pertaining to efficiency while simply requiring 

reasonable grounds for that judgment, firing practices in the federal government 

will become more businesslike and less like arduous court proceedings.

Reform Adverse Employment Action Authority

In addition to establishing an appropriate evidentiary standard for removing 

problematic federal employees, the scope of offenses for which employees are 

regularly removed should be rightsized to promote accountability as well. A great 

place to start is updating the Anti-Deficiency Act. 

Under the Anti-Deficiency Act, spending taxpayer money on a program or during 

a time-frame for which there is no appropriation is punishable by firing, fines, and 

even jail time. Sadly, no one has ever been prosecuted under this statute.203 This 

is despite the fact that in the last 10 years, 197 violations were reported with the 

201 5 CFR 1201.4 202 Rachel Greszler and James Sherk, Why it is Time to Reform Compensation for Government Employees, HERITAGE FOUNDATION (July 27th, 2016), https://www.heritage.org/jobs-and-labor/report/

why-it-time-reform-compensation-federal-employees (last visited Jan. 8th, 2020). 

203 Arnold, William G. (2009). The Antideficiency ACT Answer Book. Management Concepts. p. 112.
page 56

estimated value of violations equaling $9.66 billion dollars.204 Over this period, 

only eight federal employees were suspended or removed. Moreover, violations 

were not hidden away deep in administrative files, but rather made headline 

news. The New York Times reported that the Obama administration paid health 

insurance companies around $7 billion despite failing to receive congressional 

appropriation.205 In addition, the Obama administration’s prisoner transfer deal for the 

famous deserter Bowe Bergdahl involved violations of the Anti-Deficiency Act too.206 

The Anti-Deficiency Reform and Enforcement Act, introduced by Rep. Paul Mitchell 

(MI-10), is a good first step in rightsizing the scope of the actions for which a 

federal employee can be punished.207 It would expand grounds for removing 

employees under the Anti-Deficiency Act to include misusing an official vehicle or 

aircraft for personal travel. Furthermore, the legislation would strengthen the AntiDeficiency Act by incentivizing reporting and requiring agency action when antideficiency violations are reported. Under this legislation individuals who report 

violations can be given a monetary award up to $1,000 or 1 percent of the value 

of the violation. 

Ban Taxpayer-Funded Union Work

While unions can offer employees a range of resources and purport to contribute 

to a healthy work environment, they can also restrict workers’ ability to represent 

themselves, force members to pay dues, and even put their own interests over 

those of their membership and the American people. According to OPM, under 

current law, federal employees are paid for the time they spend “performing 

representational work for a bargaining unit in lieu of their regularly assigned work.” 

OPM further explained “[i]n other words, official time is treated as work time, [and] 

thus is funded by the American taxpayers.” 208

The RSC GEAR Task Force recognizes that the concept of “official time” violates 

basic principles of stewardship to the American taxpayer. As such, it should be 

explicitly banned and treated as a fireable offense. In order to move toward such 

a change, Congress should enact two pieces of legislation sponsored by Rep. 

Jody Hice (GA-10). 209210 Rep. Hice’s bills would provide needed accountability 

regarding federal official time policy. First, the Official Time Reform Act, would 

ban federal employees from lobbying while on official time. Second, the Official 

204 Gordon Gray, Primer on the Anti-Deficiency Act, American Action Forum (Aug. 3rd, 2016) https://www.

americanactionforum.org/research/antideficiency-act-primer/

205 Carl Hulse, In a Secret Meeting, Revelations on the Battle over Health Care, NEW YORK TIMES (May 

30th, 2016)

206 Government Accountability Office, Letter: Department of Defense—Compliance with Statutory Notification Requirement, (Aug. 21st, 2014) https://www.gao.gov/assets/670/665390.pdf

207 Anti-Deficiency Reform and Enforcement Act of 2019, H.R. 1203, 116th Cong. 208 U.S. Office of Personnel Management, FY2016 Report on Official Time Usage in the Federal Government, 

(May 2018) https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/labor-management-relations/reports-on-official-time/reports/2016-official-time-usage-in-the-federal-government.pdf

209 Official Time Reporting Act of 2019, H.R. 605, 116th. Cong. 210 Official Time Reform Act of 2017, H.R. 1364, 115th Cong. 
page 57

Time Reporting Act would simply require OPM to report to Congress on all agency 

personnel conducting union duties at work.

Limit Adverse Employment Action Appeals 

Partially covered by the MERIT Act, appeals of adverse action should be limited 

and well defined. Currently, the appeals process employees can take in response 

to adverse action is overly broad and redundant. The prospect of time-consuming 

appeals can deter federal managers from taking adverse employment actions 

that are warranted against a poorly performing employee. According to Rachel 

Greszler of The Heritage Foundation, federal employees can appeal certain 

decisions “through union grievances or the Merit Systems Protection Board, and 

ultimately through the court system.”211

The GEAR Task Force supports a reform proposed by Rachel Greszler to limit 

outside appeals to formal disciplinary actions, such as removal or demotion, but 

not to compensation decisions.212 Barring appeals of management decisions such 

as performance ratings and step increases would cut down on frivolous appeals 

and increase efficient managerial decisions. 

Furthermore, Congress should enact legislation that limits the venue for outside 

appeals to be heard. Under current law the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 

(MSPB), U.S. Federal Labor Relations Authority, (FLRA), Office of Special Counsel 

(OSC), and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) are all available 

venues for appeals to be processed. Legislation should be enacted limiting appeals 

to any one of these offices in response to disciplinary action.

Pay and Benefits

The GEAR Task Force recognizes that modernizing the federal workforce must 

include reforming how federal employee pay and benefits are structured. The 

federal government’s current compensation framework largely ignores the more 

efficient compensation approach that has evolved out of the private market. In 

the federal government, employees receive on average 17 percent more in total 

compensation, when benefits are included, than their counterparts in the private 

sector. This amounts to $31 billion per year in added compensation costs that are 

borne by the American taxpayer. It does not adequately incentivize productive 

behavior, overcompensates many employees at the cost of undercompensating 

others, and relies on hidden and overgenerous benefits. Unfortunately, this 

approach only tends to fuel the poor performance of federal workers and overall 

operation of the federal government. 

211 Rachel Greszler and James Sherk, Why it is Time to Reform Compensation for Government Employees, HERITAGE FOUNDATION (July 27th, 2016), https://www.heritage.org/jobs-and-labor/report/

why-it-time-reform-compensation-federal-employees (last visited Jan. 8th, 2020).

212 Id. 
page 58

Incentivize Performance and Recruitment of Highly Qualified Employees

If people working in federal offices are expected to innovate, their managers must 

be empowered to develop individuals and teams to their full potential. Rewarding 

employees based on performance is critical to achieving this. Unfortunately, the 

existing compensation system for federal employees is almost entirely devoid of a 

merit-based component. 

Federal employee base pay uses a standardized, seniority-based system that 

revolves around the General Schedule (GS) pay scale. It entitles federal employees 

to a “step increase” pay raise every year that they demonstrate an “acceptable 

level of competence.” In other words, federal employees get a raise for merely 

not getting fired—which as was noted above, is virtually impossible to carry out. 

Furthermore, managers are largely limited in trying to prevent a below adequate 

employee from getting scheduled raises within one paygrade. For a manager 

to delay a within grade pay raise, they must assess the employee as performing 

below an “acceptable level of competence” before a scheduled raise. After a 

denial is made, a manager must reassess the decision every 52 weeks, as they look 

for results that the employee has reformed their practices and become relatively 

competent in their performance.213

Federal compensation is further inflated because employees are entitled by statute 

to an annual cost of living adjustment (COLA) pay increase. This COLA varies 

year-to-year, but cannot exceed 3%, based upon inflation. With a compensation 

package almost completely removed from merit, employees have little incentive to 

perform at a higher level that would ultimately benefit the American taxpayer. 

Employees are also eligible to receive bonuses that are supposed to be meritbased, but even these are deeply flawed. These so-called ratings-based awards 

are virtually guaranteed to all employees. According to the GAO, over 99 percent 

of federal employees were rated high enough to receive a ratings-based award.214

The GEAR Task Force recognizes that from an incentives perspective, a standard 

bonus for everyone equates to a bonus for none. Starting in FY2020, the relative 

size of employee bonuses will be increased as a way of injecting more meritbased considerations into federal compensation. 215 This move unfortunately has 

historically been negated by the fact that nearly every employee qualifies for this 

type of bonus. 

213 U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Handling Issues Within Grade Increase Denials, https://www.

opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/employee-relations/reference-materials/handling-issues-related-to-within-grade-increases.pdf

214 Government Accountability Office, Distribution of Performance Ratings Across the Federal Government, 

2013, https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-16-520R

215 For FY 2010 to FY 2017, bonuses were capped at 1 percent of aggregate funds spent on salaries for 

non-Senior executive Service (non-SES) level employees. For the same time period, SES level employees 

were capped at 4.5 percent. From FY 2017 to FY 2020 those numbers have shifted to 1.5 percent and 

7.5 percent, respectively. https://chcoc.gov/content/guidance-awards-ses-and-slst-employees-fiscalyear-2017
page 59

Wisely, the Trump administration, under the direction of Margaret Weichert, the 

Acting Director of OPM, has issued guidance designed to better reward high 

performers with bonuses. For instance, in July 2019, Acting Director Weichert 

directed federal agencies to “ensure only employees who have demonstrated 

the highest levels of individual performance receive the highest annual ratings of 

record and the highest performance awards.”216

Also in July 2019, Weichert and Acting Director of OMB Russell Vought, directed 

agencies to “adjust as appropriate, the balance between rating-based awards 

and individual contribution awards (e.g., special act awards)” as a more effective 

way “to reward and recognize high performing employees and those with talent 

critical to mission achievement.”217 The new policy also calls for agencies to utilize 

their “Work Force Funds” to carry out these goals.

While these recent administrative changes are a welcome shift toward merit-based 

compensation, there are still other changes that can and should occur. The Task Force 

urges Congress to statutorily reduce the federal government’s reliance on annual 

step increases. Managers should be given reasonable discretion to determine 

how employees progress up the GS pay scale based on performance. As a first 

step to accomplishing this, the extent to which a federal employee’s compensation 

automatically grows over every year by virtue of advancing one “step” should 

be cut in half. Savings from doing so should then be used to give discretion to the 

manager to award raises to those employees that deserve them based on their job 

performance and increase managers’ authority to reward annual bonuses. 

Additionally, OPM’s description of “fully successful” provided by its July 2019 

guidance, while an improvement over current agency practice, still falls short of 

describing the level of performance that many Americans would deem worthy of a 

bonus. The guidance describes this updated threshold as follows: 

Performance at the Fully Successful level is a positive notation. 

Fully Successful individuals deliver on behalf of our citizens, 

meeting prescribed objective, measurable outcomes relating to 

the duties that they perform. Fully Successful should be seen as 

the category for employees who are meeting valid performance 

standards designed to deliver on what the American public 

should be able to expect from their civil servants.218

216 Chief Human Capital Officer Council, Guidance on Awards for SES and SL/ST employees for Fiscal 

Year 2017, (Aug. 12th, 2016) https://chcoc.gov/content/applying-rigor-performance-management-process-and-leveraging-awards-programs-high-performing

217 Chief Human Capital Officer Council, Guidance on Awards for Employees and Agency Workforce Fund 

Plan (Jul. 12th, 2019https://chcoc.gov/content/guidance-awards-employees-and-agency-workforcefund-plan

218 Id.
page 60

The GEAR Task Force believes that bonuses should not be rewarded for a level of 

performance that simply meets expectations. They should be reserved for those 

employees that exceed expectations. Therefore, the Task Force recommends making 

“Exceeds Fully Successful” the new benchmark for bonuses. Exceeds Fully Successful, 

according to the new OPM guidance is “reserved for the individuals who are 

delivering measurable outcomes for the American public in a way that is measurably 

beyond the standard set for fully successful.” Additionally, pursuant to this enhanced 

standard, Departments should be required to set their own explicit framework for 

managing benchmarks guiding positive financial reinforcement for employees.219

Finally, the Task Force recommends repealing current law prohibiting basing bonus 

decisions on the relative performance of an employee compared to their peers. 

In other words, employees cannot be “graded on a curve”, or competitively.220

Repealing this prohibition would simply add another tool to the toolbox for 

managers freeing them to design innovative incentive models for the top performers 

and encourage increasingly productive behavior.

Reform the GS Pay Scale to Attract Higher Performing Employees

Another flaw in the federal employee compensation system is the fact that it 

overcompensates less qualified employees while undercompensating employees 

with higher qualifications. The natural byproduct of this incongruity—along with 

the dearth of performance incentives noted above—is to repel highly qualified 

candidates while incentivizing those with less qualifications to retain federal 

employment. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), federal 

employees with a high school diploma or less receive wages 34 percent higher 

than those of their private sector counterparts, while federal employees with a 

doctorates and professional degrees were underpaid by 24 percent.221

The GEAR Task Force urges lawmakers to explore options for rightsizing the wages 

of federal workers to better match their qualification in order to ensure that the 

federal workplace does not become a bastion for low-achieving employees. For 

example, the GS scale could be expanded at both ends to accommodate higher 

and lower wage-earners. Lawmakers could also expand the usage of Special 

Rates, which OPM currently uses to address staffing problems. These challenges 

are caused by, among other things, “significantly higher non-Federal pay rates 

than those payable by the Federal Government within the area, location, or 

occupational group involved.”222

219 Kettl, et. al., supra note 11. 

220 Chief Human Capital Officer Council, Applying Rigor in the Performance Management Process and 

Leveraging Awards Programs for a High-Performing Workforce (Jul. 12th, 2019 https://chcoc.gov/content/

applying-rigor-performance-management-process-and-leveraging-awards-programs-high-performing

221 Chart of Federal Employee Pay Compared to Private Sector, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE (Apr. 

25th 2017), 

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52637#section1 (last visited Jan. 8th, 2020). 

222 Special Rate Requests, OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, 

https://apps.opm.gov/SpecialRates/srsrequest.aspx (last visited Jan. 8th, 2020).
page 61

Congress should also limit having to make a performance improvement plan only 

for those they want to take an adverse employment action against. Performance 

improvement plans are burdensome and requiring them is an inefficient use of 

managerial resources and taxpayer funds.

Reform Federal Retirement Plans

The other weakness of the federal 

compensation system is the bloated 

benefits package the federal workforce 

receives. Not only are these benefits 

expensive to fund, they tend to mask the 

true costs of the workforce and further 

fuel a compensation system lacking 

performance incentives. 

Federal retirement benefits account for 

the largest benefit-based expense of the 

federal government. The primary driver of 

retirement benefits is the federal pension 

called the Federal Employee Retirement 

System (FERS). Federal employees also 

receive a 401k-style Thrift Savings Plan 

(TSP), but unfortunately this makes up 

a much smaller piece of the retirement 

package. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), in 2016, these 

exorbitant benefits cost taxpayers $91 billion, with $83 billion for federal pensions 

and only $8 billion for TSP contributions.223

The FERS system is simultaneously immoderate and unstable, while remaining a 

burden on the American taxpayer. While federal employees enjoy benefits from 

both types of retirement plans, only 56 percent of private sector employees have a 

job where they participate in some type of retirement benefit.224 Federal employees 

also receive benefits worth 14.0 to 14.2 percent of their wages, while the average 

retirement benefit for private sector employees is 3 percent.225 Moreover, this massive 

system is an inherently unstable retirement model. For the pension system to work as 

designed, it requires a very low rate of error based upon many assumptions. 

223 Justin Falk, et. al., Options for Changing the Federal Retirement Service, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE (Aug. 2017), https://www.cbo.gov/publication/53003

224 National Compensation Study: 2019, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (Sept. 2019), https://www.bls.gov/

ncs/ebs/benefits/2019/employee-benefits-in-the-united-states-march-2019.pdf

225 Andrew Biggs, Have Public Pensions Become More Generous, FORBES.COM (Aug. 14th, 2018) https://

www.forbes.com/sites/andrewbiggs/2018/08/14/have-public-employee-pensions-become-more-generous-or-less/#57be31611e20

WAGES BENEFITS TOTAL COMPENSATION

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

DIFFERENCES IN AVERAGE HOURLY COMPENSATION BETWEEN FEDERAL AND 

PRIVATE-SECTOR WORKERS, BY EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT

 Difference by Percentage

Chart of Federal Employee Pay Compared to Private Sector, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE (Apr. 25th 

2017), https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52637#section1(last visited Jan. 8th, 2020). 
page 62

The evidence of failed pension systems litters the entire United States.226 According 

to ALEC, the staggering unfunded liabilities of state administered pension plans 

exceeds $6 trillion.227 Sadly, even the best managed, most stable, state pension 

plans have a significant funding gap.228

The GEAR Task Force supports a phase-out of the FERS system for future federal 

hires, eventually offering an enhanced TSP-only system in its place.229 This would 

raise the base federal TSP contribution as well as the cap on federal matches. This 

approach would create savings for the taxpayer, while granting greater certainty 

to future contributors. By having a higher contribution threshold with an increased 

benefit option, employees will one-day invest more personally in their savings and 

have a more transparent view of their personal responsibility in saving for retirement. 

Optimize Paid Leave Benefits

In recent years many private sector businesses have been moving to provide a 

paid leave program to their employees to meet a growing market demand in the 

talent retention and recruitment space. In December of 2019, Congress reacted to 

this by passing into law a 12-week paid parental leave program that applied to 

nearly all federal workers.230 CBO has estimated that this plan will cost taxpayers 

approximately $8 billion over ten years.231

On its face this may seem like a prudent act designed to allow the federal government 

to compete with the private sector for personnel. However, when viewed in the 

context of overall federal paid leave policy, this only adds to an already bloated 

compensation and benefits system for federal workers in comparison to private 

sector workers. 

In 2015, private sector employees at large companies received an average of 29 

days of paid leave, including vacation, sick leave, and holidays.232 On the other 

hand, federal employees with just three years of service are able to receive 43 days 

of paid leave per year, can access up to 30 days of advanceable sick leave for 

reasons such as illness, childbirth, and adoption,233 and now, pursuant to the paid 

226 Powers, et. al., Unaccountable and Unaffordable, AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE COUNCIL 

(Dec. 2017) https://www.alec.org/app/uploads/2017/12/2017-Unaccountable-and-Unaffordable-FINAL_DEC_WEB.pdf

227 Id. 228 Id. 229 Greszler & Sherk, supra note 217. 230 Jack Kelly, In A Historic Bill, Federal Workers Will Receive 12 Weeks Of Paid Parental Leave, FORBES.

COM (Dec. 19th, 2019), https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2019/12/19/in-a-historic-bill-federalworkers-will-receive-12-weeks-of-paid-parental-leave/#6ef6f3722902

231 Congressional Budget Office, Letter regarding Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Effects of S. 1790, the National 

Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 and the Budgetary Effects of the

Federal Employee Paid Leave Act, (Dec. 11th, 2019) https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-12/

s1790paygosenate.pdf

232 Greszler & Sherk, supra note 217. 233 Fact Sheet: Advanced Sick Leave, OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, 

https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/leave-administration/fact-sheets/advanced-
page 63

parental leave expansion of 2019, get an additional 12 weeks of paid parental 

leave. Thus, a qualifying federal employee could be paid for nearly an entire year 

of leave. This calculation does not even account for the “wide range of leave options 

and workplace flexibilities” available to federal employees “to assist an employee 

who needs to be away from the workplace” that include “leave under the Family 

and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), donated leave under the voluntary leave transfer 

program, leave without pay, alternative work schedules, credit hours under flexible 

work schedules,  compensatory time off  and  telework. Agencies may also have 

a voluntary leave bank program.”234

The GEAR Task Force recognizes that this imbalance between federal employee 

and the private sector leave policy is simply gratuitous and should be corrected as 

part of a larger goal of shifting federal personnel policies closer to those driven by 

the private employment market. To do so, the GEAR Task Force recommends that 

lawmakers make the newly available 12 weeks of parental leave count against 

existing paid leave days. Additionally, lawmakers should phase in a reduction in 

the total amount of traditional paid leave days to match the 29 days available in 

the private sector. 

Promote Responsible Federal Employee Health Insurance Plans

Lastly, federal employee health insurance benefits should be restructured to 

incentivize employees to choose more affordable plans. Currently under the Federal 

Employee Health Benefits program (FEHB) participants choose from a range of 

plans and pay for about 30 percent of premiums, with the federal government 

covering the remaining 70 percent.235 Since this ratio does not change with the 

higher-priced coverage options, federal employees have no incentive to choose 

the cheaper plan, as the majority of the cost is covered by the government.

The GEAR Task Force supports transitioning to a premium support system under 

which the government would offer a standard, flat federal contribution toward the 

purchase of health insurance and employees would be responsible for paying the 

rest. This option is designed to encourage employees to purchase plans with the 

appropriate amount of coverage that fits their needs. 

sick-leave/ (last visited Jan 7, 2020) 

234 Fact Sheet: Voluntary Leave Bank Program, OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, https://www.

opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/leave-administration/fact-sheets/voluntary-leave-bank-program/ 

235 Greszler & Sherk, supra note 217. 
page 64

The expectations in Washington D.C. are different than those experienced by the 

rest of the nation. Around the country, hardworking Americans are expected to 

be efficient and accountable when running their businesses, their households, and 

their personal lives. 

On the other hand, in Washington D.C., expectations are hardly the same. 

Government efficiency and accountability is the exception, not the rule. This 

tolerance of waste and irresponsibility has further engrained a toxic mindset in 

government that puts bureaucracy over American citizens.

While well-intended, the answers offered by the political Left are not solutions, but 

rather superficial stopgaps that prolong problems while also creating new ones. 

Democrats would continue to abdicate legislative power to an administration that 

shares their policy goals. They would create more executive offices and programs to 

spend taxpayer money on wishful campaign promises. They would continue to allow 

judges to create policy in spaces where they encounter political resistance within the 

legislative process. In short, the answer the Left has offered, is the same that they will 

continue to propose: more government, more spending, and more bureaucrats.

The RSC GEAR Task Force has offered a practical vision to achieve an efficient and 

accountable government with three simple steps: 

1. Reform Government POWER structures

2. Reform Government PRACTICES

3. Reform Government PERSONNEL policies

This proposal offers over 100 commonsense policy solutions to transform the 

government and deliver better results to the American people. 

Most people would agree that the government should not pay benefits to dead people 

and that it should be able to count how many programs it has. Most people would 

also agree that the three branches of government should function efficiently and with 

accountability to the American people. The federal government should waste no time 

in working toward this simple vision of efficiency and accountability. Congress should 

lead this reform by beginning to enact the policies recommended in this report so that 

our government can live up to the expectations of the American public.

CONCLUSION

the
page 65

GEAR TASK FORCE REPORT: POLICY RECOMMENDATION LIST

REFORM GOVERNMENT POWER STRUCTURES

Restrain Executive Rulemaking Authority

1. Enact the REINS Act

2. Expand Usage of the Congressional Review Act (CRA)

3. Codify CRA Coverage of Regulatory Dark Matter

4. Enact the Article I Restoration Act 

5. Cap National Emergencies Act Authority

Contain the Costs of Federal Regulations

6. Enact the Article I Regulatory Budget Act

7. Enact the Regulatory Accountability Act 

8. Enact the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act

Increase Regulatory Transparency

9. Create Regulatory Report Cards for Agencies

10. Require Agency Data Disclosure in Support of New Proposed Rules 

11. Require all Regulatory Submissions to be Made through OMB’s Office of Information on Regulatory Affairs

12. Enact the ALERT Act

13. Enact the Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act

14. Require Independent Agencies to Comply with Existing Rulemaking Requirements 

15. Enact the Guidance Out of Darkness (GOOD) Act

16. Reform the National Emergencies Act

Regulatory Reform through Litigation and the Judiciary

17. Subject Regulatory Impact Analysis to Judicial Review

18. Enact the Separation of Powers Restoration Act

19. Enact the REVIEW Act

20. Prevent Sue and Settle

21. Enact the Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act

REFORM GOVERNMENT PRACTICES

Governmentwide Practices

22. Create a Best Practices Study on Metrics

23. Require Agencies to Harmonize Data Collection Terminology

24. Utilize Excess Federal Office Space

25. Extend NASA Enhanced Leasing Authority

26. Enact the Transparency in Federal Buildings Projects Act

27. Leverage Common Contracts

28. Enact the Stopping Improper Payments to Deceased People Act 

29. Enact the Federal Permitting Reform and Jobs Act

30. Enact the Endangered Species Transparency and Reasonableness Act

31. Enact the Critical Habitat Improvement Act 

Overhaul Federal Technology Practices 

32. Push Agencies to Fully Implement FITARA

33. Require Reporting on Data Center Consolidation to OMB
page 66

34. Incentivize Data Center Consolidation

35. Increase Use of Software Asset Management

36. Require Agencies to Eliminate Redundant Software Purchases 

37. Codify Administration Push to Convert Paper Records to Electronic

Efficient Practices for National Security 

38. Reduce Security Clearance Delays by Codifying GAO Recommendations

39. Require Interagency Development of Cybersecurity Plan to Implement GAO Recommendations

40. Require Agencies to Report on Cybersecurity and Data Privacy to Congress

41. Safeguard State Secrets through Security Clearance Reform 

Enact Fundamental Reform to Federal Judicial Practices

42. Enact the Judicial Administration and Improvement Act

43. Enact Rep. Lesko’s Legislation to Hire More Immigration Judges

44. Enact the Judgment Fund Transparency Act

45. Enact the Nationwide Injunction Abuse Prevention Act 

Consolidate and Restructure of Government

46. Merge the Department of Education into the Department of Labor

47. Move Non-Commodity Nutrition Programs into Department of Health and Human Services

48. Merge National Marine Fisheries Service and Fish & Wildlife Service

49. Move the Policy Function of Office of Personnel Management to the Executive Office of the President

50. Consolidate Department of Energy Applied Energy Programs to a consolidated Office of Energy Innovation

Provide Accountability for Programs

51. Enact the Taxpayers Right to Know Act

52. National Capital Arts and Cultural Affairs Grant Program

53. D.C. Streetcar Funding

54. National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) and for the Arts (NEA)

55. Save America’s Treasures Grants Program

56. Stennis Center for Public Service

57. National Science Foundation Research of Social Sciences

58. Aquatic Plant Control Research Program

59. Brown Tree Snake Eradication Program

60. The Maritime Guaranteed Loan Program

61. The Conservation Technical Assistance Program

62. National Estuarine Research Reserve System

63. Sea Grant Program

64. Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Fund

65. Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Loan Program

66. ENERGY STAR Program 

67. Domestic Energy Subsidies

68. Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation

69. Susan Harwood Training Grants

70. Trade Adjustment Assistance

71. DOL Office of Federal Contract Compliance 

72. National Technical Information Service

73. Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants 

74. Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants

75. Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants
page 67

76. 21st Century Community Learning Centers

77. Public Housing Capital Fund

78. Public Housing Operating Fund

79. Home Investment Partnership Program

80. McGovern-Dole International Food for Education Program

81. Cultural Exchange Programs

82. Clean Technology Fund

83. Strategic Climate Fund

84. Green Climate Fund

85. Global Environment Facility

86. United States Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund

87. Department of Labor International Labor Affairs Bureau 

88. Contributions to the International Development Association

89. Contributions to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development

90. Complex Crises Funds

91. U.S. Trade and Development Agency

92. Inter-American Foundation

93. Asia Foundation and Development Bank

94. African Development Foundation and Bank

REFORM GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL POLICIES

Reform Hiring and Removal

95. Require Agencies to Include Hiring Managers and Subject Matter Experts in Federal Hiring

96. Investigate Automated Tools to Assist in Civil Service Hiring

97. Build an Applicant Vetting Pipeline to “Hire to Attrition”

98. Enact the MERIT Act

99. Remove Federal Employees Who Commit Crimes 

100. Modernize the Evidentiary Threshold Necessary for Removal 

101. Enact the Anti-Deficiency Reform and Enforcement Act 

102. Ban Taxpayer-Funded Union Work

103. Enact the Official Time Reform Act

104. Enact the Official Time Reporting Act

105. Limit Basis for Adverse Employment Action Appeals

106. Limit Venue for Outside Appeals

Pay and Benefits

107. Reduce the Federal Government’s Reliance on Automatic Pay Increases

108. Require a Higher Standard of Performance to Receive a Bonus

109. Reform the GS Pay Scale to Attract Higher Performing Employees

110. Allow for Competitive Bonuses

111. Reform Federal Retirement Plans for Future Hires

112. Optimize Paid Leave Benefits by Creating Parity with the Private Sector

113. Provide a Fixed Federal Employee Health Benefit Contribution