On February 17th, Chairman Lieberman and Senator Warner introduced S. 2129, entitled “Reforming and Consolidating Government Act of 2012”, a bill renewing the Presidential authority to propose government organizational changes and obtain congressional approval through an expedited process. From 1932 to 1984, Congress provided the President with some form of reorganization authority. S. 2129 renews most of the statutory framework as it existed before the authority lapsed in 1984. However, S. 2129 proposes noteworthy changes, both in terms of eliminating restrictions on the scope of a President’s plan and placing additional requirements on such plans. Unlike the 1984 version of the law, under S. 2129, the President would be permitted to propose the creation of a new department (or renaming of an existing department), the abolishment or transfer of an executive department, or the consolidation of two or more departments. There are currently fifteen departments, including the Department of State and the Additionally, the President would be Department of Homeland Security.permitted to propose the creation of a new agency, a restriction which was included by the 1984 amendment of this authority. The reorganization authority proposed under this bill would permit the President, as in the 1984 version of the law, to prepare and submit to Congress reorganization plans that call for the (1) transfer of an agency or some of its functions to another agency, functions of an agency, (3) consolidation of an agency or its functions or parts of an agency or some of its functions with another agency or part of another agency, (4) consolidation of part of an agency or some of its functions with another part of the same agency, or (5) authorization of an officer to delegate his or her functions. (2) abolishment of all or some The bill also renews most of the restrictions which have been imposed over time on the President’s authority to reorganize. Such restrictions prohibit plans which (1) abolish or transfer an independent regulatory agency or all its functions, (2) consolidate two or more independent regulatory agencies or all their functions, (3) continue an agency or function beyond the period authorized by law, (4) authorize an agency to exercise a function not expressly authorized by law, (5) increase the term of an office beyond the period authorized by law, (6) deal with more than one logically consistent subject matter, or (7) abolish enforcement functions or programs established by statute. A President’s submission of plans is restricted to no more than three plans pending before Congress at any time. Finally, the authority imposes a limit on the duration of the authority, which in this case is two years from enactment. As commonly understood, an “agency” can be a component of a department or a free- standing entity (for example, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration). example, combining two agencies into one, but does not require that the consolidation result in cost savings. Also consistent with prior law, under S. 2129 the President’s submission of a reorganization plan to Congress must include an estimate of any reduction or increase in expenditures realized as a result of the reorganizations included in the plan as well as an implementation section that describes in detail (1) actions necessary or planned to complete the reorganization, (2) the anticipated nature and substance of any orders, directives, and other administrative and operational actions which are expected to be required, (3) preliminary actions which have been taken in the implementation process, and (4) a projected timetable for completion of the implementation process. Finally, S. 2129 renews the expedited congressional approval process as that process was modified in 1984. The 1984 amendments to the reorganization authority eliminated the procedure that allowed a President’s plan to go into effect unless either house acted by passing a motion of disapproval within a fixed period of time. Under the 1984 amendments, a plan could become effective only if approved by both houses of Congress through a joint resolution (approved by the President) within 90 days after the plan is submitted to Congress. This change addressed constitutional concerns with the one-house legislative veto, and set a higher bar for success and in essence gave Congress a stronger role than under past reorganization authorities. Under this expedited process, recommendations from the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to the full Senate and House must be made within 75 days and consideration of the resolution in both houses must be within 90 days from submission of the plan. Consideration is limited to an up or down vote, no amendment to a plan may be considered. The President is permitted to amend or modify the plan at anytime within the first 60 days after submission. Any such change to a plan during this period does not impact the deadlines for congressional consideration. The authority to modify a plan allows the President to address any problems identified or concerns expressed during the pendency of a plan before Congress since a plan cannot be changed by Congress through a joint resolution. Presidents have used reorganization authorities to submit more than 100 plans to Congress, proposing a variety of changes from minor reorganizations to major ones.include: Examples of approved Presidential plans creation of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, proposed by President Eisenhower in 1953 to improve the administration of health, education, and social security functions by elevating these functions to the departmental level; creation of the Office of Management and Budget, proposed by President Nixon in 1970, in part, to place greater emphasis on the evaluation of program performance, particularly in programs that cross agency lines, and to expand efforts to improve interagency cooperation; creation of the Environmental Protection Agency, proposed by President Nixon in 1970 to consolidate the federal government’s environment-related activities in order to ensure the effective protection, development, and enhancement of the environment; and creation of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, proposed by President Carter in 1978 to improve federal emergency management and assistance by consolidating federal emergency preparedness, mitigation, and response activities. President Carter was the last President to use this general grant of reorganization authority. During the Reagan Administration, the reorganization authority was only in place briefly at the beginning of his first term until it lapsed, and then was reauthorized for less than two months in 1984 at the end of his first term. The authority has not been granted since then. Although there was expressed interest during the 108th Congress in renewing this authority, from both the Administration and members of Congress, no such reauthorization was forthcoming. A major issue for consideration for today’s hearing is the question of whether and how to change Congress’ normal deliberative process for reviewing and shaping executive branch reorganization proposals. Expedited reorganization authority can enable the President to propose reorganizations that are intended to increase the efficiency and effectiveness with which the government can meet existing and emerging challenges. However, all key players should be engaged in discussions about reorganizing government: the President, Congress, and other parties with vested interests, including state and local governments, the private sector, and citizens. It is important to ensure a consensus on identified problems and needs, and to be sure that the solutions our government legislates and implements can effectively remedy the problems we face in a timely manner. Fixing the wrong problems, or even worse, fixing the right problems poorly, could cause more harm than good. It is imperative that Congress and the administration form an effective working relationship on restructuring initiatives. Any systemic changes to federal structures and functions must be approved by Congress and implemented by the executive branch, so each has a stake in the outcome. In this regard, an administration seeking expedited approval of complex government reorganization proposals could enhance its prospects for success by reaching out to Congress beforehand to ensure that congressional concerns are identified, solutions are developed, and general agreement is reached. The normal legislative process, which by design takes time to encourage thorough debate, helps to ensure that any related actions are carefully considered and have broad support. Therefore, Congress may wish to consider whether 90 days is a sufficient amount of time for Congress to review proposals and conduct its due diligence. Even more importantly, all segments of the public that must regularly deal with their government—individuals, private sector organizations, states, and local governments—must be confident that the changes that are put in place have been thoroughly considered and that the decisions made today will make sense tomorrow. Excluding any key player increases the risk of sub-optimization or failure. Congressional deliberative processes serve the vital function of both gaining input from a variety of clientele and stakeholders affected by any changes and providing an important constitutional check and counterbalance to the executive branch. Only Congress can decide whether it wishes to limit its powers and role in government reorganizations. In certain circumstances, Congress may deem limitations appropriate; however, care should be taken regarding the nature, timing, and scope of any related changes. Lessons can be learned from prior approaches to granting reorganization authority to the President. As discussed below, prior successful reorganization initiatives reinforce the importance of maintaining a balance between executive and legislative roles in undertaking significant organizational changes. Safeguards are needed to ensure congressional input and concurrence on the goals as well as overall reorganization proposals. Throughout the 20th century, efforts to structure the federal government to address the economic and political concerns of the time met with varying degrees of success. The first Hoover Commission,from 1947 to 1949, is considered by many to have been the most successful of government restructuring efforts. The membership was which lasted bipartisan, including members of the administration and both houses of Congress. Half its members were from outside government. The commission had a clear vision, making reorganization proposals that promoted what they referred to as “greater rationality” in the organization and operation of government agencies and enhanced the president’s role as the manager of the government—principles that were understood and accepted by both the White House and Congress. Former President Hoover himself guided the creation of a citizens’ committee to build public support for the commission’s work. More than 70 percent of the first Hoover Commission’s recommendations were implemented, including 26 out of 35 reorganization plans.