The sunset concept provides for programs and agencies to terminate automatically according to a predetermined schedule unless explicitly renewed by law. Sunset measures usually contain two elements: an action-forcing mechanism, carrying the ultimate threat of elimination, and a framework or guidelines for the systematic review and evaluation of past performance. The idea of sunset thus stresses legislative oversight of government agencies, so as to further economy and efficiency and control the growth of government, or "bureaucratic sprawl." Termination of budget authority for a program or agency after a specified time is perhaps the most commonly employed mechanism. Other possible action-forcing tools include periodic expiration of the organic statute establishing an agency, or of the rules and regulations issued by an agency. Ideally, the timetable for review places functionally related programs on the same schedule. The sunset idea was refined and popularized by the Colorado chapter of the public interest group Common Cause, as a consequence of the frustrations experienced in efforts to reform Colorado's regulatory structure. Perhaps borrowing from the western imagery of the cowboy riding off into the sunset, agencies subject to sunset provisions were to "fade into the sunset," unless, following oversight review, the legislature acted to extend their existence. Or sunset might be viewed as the inescapable "end of the day" for terminated agencies. In 1976, Colorado became the first state to enact a sunset law. By 1982, sunset measures had been considered in all 50 state legislatures, and 36 states had enacted some version of the sunset review process, "representing a remarkably rapid diffusion of a state innovation." However, state experiences proved to be mixed. By 1990, 12 of the 36 states with sunset laws had "ceased the use of this legislative oversight mechanism because of high monetary and temporal costs of sunset review, intensive lobbying by vested interests, unfulfilled expectations of agency termination, low levels of citizen participation, and other perceived problems." Still, the study stated, "Results indicate that sunset has resulted in some agency terminations and, more importantly, numerous substantive, procedural, and crosscutting modifications aimed at increasing accountability, efficiency, and effectiveness in state agencies." Since 1978, most editions of The Book of the States , compiled by the Council of State Governments (COSG), have included a table titled "Summary of Sunset Legislation." States having a sunset review process are identified by scope of the framework: C for comprehensive, R for regulatory, S for selective, and D for discretionary. A careful review of the table included in the 2010 edition, derived from 2009 COSG surveys, suggests that 24 states have an active sunset review process. The COSG table further indicates that nine states have terminated or suspended their sunset procedures, while in two of those states sunset-like reviews continue. Three states have never had a sunset review process. A second source of data on state sunset laws comes from the Council on Licensure, Enforcement, and Regulation (hereafter referred to as CLEAR). While the CLEAR chart uses categories that are differently conceived from those used by COSG, one category appears of special interest for historical evolution of state sunset laws, namely, where the sunset law has been repealed, terminated, or suspended. A tabulation of the CLEAR chart indicates 13 states in this category. In addition to the nine identified in the COSG table, in at least three states sunset laws apparently were terminated or repealed and subsequently reinstated, and another termination is coded as "discretionary" by COSG. The record of the sunset process in Texas is of special interest, both because it is generally recognized as one of the more active state efforts and because recent federal legislative proposals borrow from that model. The website of the Texas advisory commission offers a 70-page Guide to the Texas Sunset Process , noting that the sunset process in Texas "is guided by a 12-member body appointed by the Lieutenant Governor and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Assisting the Commission is a staff whose reports provide an assessment of an agency's programs, giving the Legislature the information needed to draw conclusions about program necessity and workability." According to the Guide , since the Texas sunset process began in 1978, 58 agencies have been abolished and another 12 agencies have been consolidated, for an estimated savings of nearly $783.7 million. When reviewing the accomplishments of sunset in Texas, however, it is well to recall that the Texas Sunset Advisory Commission, while ultimately saved by its supporters in the Texas legislature, was nearly abolished in 1993. At the federal level, over 70 bills were introduced in the 94 th Congress (1975-1976) proposing various sunset arrangements, and sunset measures have continued to be introduced in each subsequent Congress. Many hearings have been held on sunset measures, and several bills have been reported, but the only floor action occurred in the 95 th Congress. On October 11, 1978, the Senate passed S. 2 , the Program Reauthorization and Evaluation Act, by vote of 87-1. Unlike some of the earlier frameworks proposed for a federal sunset process, some bills introduced in the last 15 years have incorporated a commission approach. In 1997, H.R. 2939 (105 th Congress) was introduced by Representative Kevin Brady of Texas. Modeled on the Texas sunset process, the bill called for establishment of a 12-member "Federal Agency Sunset Commission," to review and make recommendations at least every 12 years regarding the reorganization or abolishment of each federal agency, with the schedule for review to be determined by the commission. The Speaker of the House and the majority leader of the Senate were to appoint the members, each naming four congressional Members and two private citizens "with experience in the operation and administration of Government programs." Each agency was to be abolished within a year of completion of the commission's review, unless Congress acted to continue the agency. In September 1998, the House Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology held a hearing on the bill. Representative Brady and four other Members provided testimony in favor of the bill. Arguably the most serious criticism of the bill raised at the 1998 hearing concerned potential constitutional problems with the commission framework. An advisory opinion from the Department of Justice provided for the record referenced the INS v. Chada decision by the Supreme Court in 1983 (462 U.S. 919), and concluded the following: Because this bill [ H.R. 2939 ] would allow the abolishment of a statutorily created executive agency, not through legislation passed in conformity with Article I, but at the discretion and in accordance with a timetable imposed by a twelve-member Commission composed of eight members of Congress and four persons selected by the Speaker of the House and the majority leader, unless Congress affirmatively decides to adopt legislation preserving the agency, it violates the constitutionally required separation of powers. In 1999, Congressman Brady, along with 92 cosponsors, introduced a revised bill, H.R. 2128 (106 th Congress), a modified version of the sunset commission legislation containing two noteworthy additions. First, a new subsection was added under "Review and abolishment of federal agencies" relating to extensions that would have allowed the deadline for abolishment of the agency, absent congressional action to reauthorize it, to be extended for an additional two years if approved by a super-majority of the House and the Senate. Second, a new section was added providing for compilation by the three congressional support agencies of a "Program Inventory." In language reminiscent of federal sunset measures dating back to the 1970s (including S. 2 in the 95 th Congress), the section would have directed the Comptroller General of the General Accounting Office (now designated the Government Accountability Office) and the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, in cooperation with the Director of the Congressional Research Service, to prepare an inventory of federal programs within each agency for the purpose of advising and assisting Congress and the commission in carrying out the requirements of the act. On June 28, 2001, Representative Brady reintroduced virtually the same bill, now called the "Abolishment of Obsolete Agencies and Federal Sunset Act," in the 107 th Congress as H.R. 2373 . On April 23, 2002, the House Government Reform Subcommittee on Civil Service, Census, and Agency Organization held a hearing on H.R. 2373 , at which Texas Representatives Brady and Jim Turner, who had both served in the Texas legislature, testified in favor of the bill. The witness from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) testified in general support of a sunset review process for the federal government. While acknowledging possible constitutional issues to be resolved, subsequently detailed in a letter from the Justice Department, the OMB spokesman noted that the sunset commission as outlined in the legislation was similar to the proposal for a sunset review board that President Bush endorsed during the 2000 campaign. In final days of the 107 th Congress, a substitute amendment to H.R. 2373 was circulated for comment, but no formal consideration of it occurred before adjournment. Congressman Brady introduced a measure virtually identical to H.R. 2373 , as H.R. 1227 in the 108 th Congress, but the bill received no further action. In the Analytical Perspectives volume of the President's budget submission for FY2006, sent to Congress on February 7, 2005, several budget process reform proposals were endorsed by the President. Among the actions requested, the Administration called for establishment of a federal sunset commission to provide a process by which programs undergo the regular scrutiny brought about by having to defend their existence. Programs would be reviewed according to a schedule enacted by Congress. The Commission would consider proposals to retain, restructure, or terminate programs. Programs would automatically terminate according to the schedule unless Congress took some action to reauthorize them. Discussion of reform proposals in the FY2006 budget submission also called for creation of results commissions, "to consider and revise Administration proposals to improve the performance of programs or agencies by restructuring or consolidating them."