A House hearing on White House proposals to overhaul the federal government was marked by criticism of their "good government" justifications and impassioned arguments about separation of powers. The Sunset and Results Commissions The House Government Reform Subcommittee on Federal Workforce and Agency Organization held a hearing Sept. 27 on two bills that advance a White House proposal for fast-track reorganization authority and mandatory program sunsets. H.R. 3276, the Government Reorganization and Improvement Performance Improvement Act, introduced by Rep. Jon Porter (R-NV), authorizes the president to establish a Results Commission, appointed by the president in consultation with Congress, to review proposals submitted by the president for government reorganization. The Results Commission would be able to amend or add to such a proposal, which would then be fast-tracked through Congress with very limited time for debate and no option for amendments. H.R. 3277, the Federal Agency Performance Review and Sunset Act, introduced by Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX), would require agencies to regularly justify their continued existence or be automatically eliminated. The bill establishes a Sunset Commission that will review executive agencies and programs on a ten-year schedule. Congress would then vote to keep or to eliminate the program. As with the results commission bill, this legislation mandates an expedited vote, stymieing deliberation and forcing a "take-it-or-leave-it" vote with no possibility of amendments. H.R. 3277 does make an exemption for regulations that protect the environment, health, safety or civil rights. The exemption, however, applies only to sunsets; key agencies are still vulnerable to being restructured into irrelevance. Further, the exemption addresses only programs related to enforcement of regulations; it does not address programs within agencies that conduct needed scientific research or that develop new protective standards. Norton Condemns Bills as Violating Separation of Powers The White House proposal embodied in these bills would usurp power from Congress by entrusting unelected commissions with important decisions about the structure and function of all government services, according to Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC). Congress already has the power to reorganize government programs when it determines the need to do so. Congress creates the agencies by statute in the first instance, and it revisits their effectiveness and continued existence each year through the budget process as well as through the reauthorization process. During a fiery question-and-answer period with OMB Deputy Director for Management Clay Johnson, Norton criticized the bills as "a radical assault on separation of powers," because they force an up-or-down vote from Congress and preclude deliberation or compromise. Norton also noted that the commission would not be free of political influence or bias and would in no way ensure a more efficient, effective government. "I don't think any of us are naïve enough to believe," Norton commented, "that the only programs that would somehow find their way off the table would be the inefficient programs." Experts Disagree on Mechanisms of Government Reform The committee heard from a range of experts including OMB Watch's Director of Regulatory Policy Robert Shull; Paul Light, professor of public service at New York University; Tom Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste; and, Maurice McTigue, vice president for outreach at the Mercatus Center. The witnesses provided a diverse array of opinions on government reform, from arguing that the White House proposals for reorganization were too tepid to questioning the parameters of evaluation. While Light endorsed the bills overall, he argued that the best approach is "a much more aggressive, government-wide assessment of the organization of government, rather than starting with programs as our focus." McTigue also endorsed the bills but disagreed with nuances of the approach, asserting that the focus of government reform should not be on government organization or program effectiveness but should rather focus on the capability of each department. McTigue believes the Office of Personnel Management "should shift from thinking about itself as the manager of the federal workforce, and should think about itself in terms of, do we have the capability in each of the government's organizations to be able to do this job effectively?" OMB Watch's Robert Shull offered a counter to the results and sunset commission proposals, suggesting that government should be evaluated not in corporate terms of efficiency and effectiveness but instead in terms of whether public needs are met. While supporters of the bills decried what they characterized as wasteful redundancy in government spending, Shull argued that seemingly duplicative programs may be necessary to address the needs of marginalized or underserved populations. For instance, Shull noted, "the severely disadvantaged populations of Appalachia have not been enjoying any of the benefits that come from the EPA, from welfare programs, from all the programs that should be addressing their needs. And that's why Congress created the Appalachian Regional Commission, to coordinate resources, to target new resources to serve that population." Shull also argued that the bills would divert government resources away from their missions towards needlessly justifying their continued relevance. "When it comes to waste," Shull noted, "forcing programs to plead for their lives every 10 years is a waste." Review of government programs is especially wasteful for programs that have an established public need, such as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration or the Department of Education. "There are some needs that are eternal," Shull commented.