Trump Administration Reform and Reorganization Plan: Discussion of 35 "Government-Wide" Proposals
Congressional research reportJul 25, 2018
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
MEMORANDUM
July 25, 2018
Subject:
Trump Administration Reform and Reorganization Plan: Discussion of 35
“Government-Wide” Proposals
From:
Henry B. Hogue, Coordinator, Specialist in American National Government,
hhogue@crs.loc.gov, 7-0642
Clinton T. Brass, Coordinator, Specialist in Government Organization and Management,
cbrass@crs.loc.gov, 7-4536
This memorandum was prepared to enable distribution to more than one congressional office.
This memorandum provides a brief summary and some preliminary analysis of the Donald J. Trump
Administration’s recent proposals to restructure and reform agencies, programs, and operations in the
executive branch.1 Specifically, the memorandum covers the 32 proposals characterized by the Trump
Administration as “Government-wide.”2 The 32 proposals include several sub-proposals, which, when
enumerated separately as they are in this memorandum, bring the total to 35.3 The analysis of each
proposal includes, to the extent possible, a discussion of statutes that might be involved in the proposed
changes, and whether some changes might be achieved through administrative action. The memorandum
includes research and writing of analysts and information professionals from across the Congressional
Research Service (CRS).4
1 U.S. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget (hereinafter OMB), Delivering Government
Solutions in the 21st Century: Reform Plan and Reorganization Recommendations, [June 21, 2018], at
https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/management/government-reform/ and https://www.whitehouse.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2018/06/Government-Reform-and-Reorg-Plan.pdf. See also the related “fact sheet”: U.S. President (Trump),
“President Donald J. Trump Is Reforming the Federal Government, Making it More Efficient, Effective, and Accountable,” June
21, 2018, at https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trump-reforming-federal-government-makingefficient-effective-accountable/.
2 The plan lists 32 “Government-wide” proposals in the document’s table of contents and some 50 additional “Agency-Specific
Reform Proposals.” Although most of the 32 proposals involve more than one agency, arguably only a subset of these reaches
across the entirety of the executive branch. Some proposals, such as the structural change at the U.S. Agency for International
Development and the consolidation of applied energy offices at the Department of Energy, do not appear to involve more than
one agency, much less to apply across the executive branch.
3 The Trump Administration enumerated the proposals on pp. 15-18 of the plan. The Trump Administration’s proposal #2
includes two separate components, the first of which is listed in this memorandum as proposal #2 and the second of which is
listed as #2(a). The Administration explicitly breaks out proposal #15 in three parts as #15(a), #15(b), and #15(c), which this
memorandum mirrors.
4 CRS staff across multiple research divisions contributed to this memorandum, as shown in footnotes for each sub-section,
below. These authors may be contacted directly by Members and congressional staff with questions about specific proposals. The
coordinators of the memorandum may be contacted for assistance with more general questions.
{222A0E69-13A2-4 985-84AE-73 CC3D FF4D02}- CD-158160 170223 194245 034107 085087 191217 000101 186106 254157 071117 154239 198161 075245 060094 221204 052128 032020 152161 099127 040014 088120 208079 166105 113076 115080 056086 148053 104163 037024 222141 236118 128017 239117 215 02312809 106124 110202 805407 511625 114621 7
Congressional Research Service
2
The next section of this memorandum identifies each proposal, as enumerated and described by the
Trump Administration. For each proposal, the memorandum provides the following:
Entry heading and author information: a heading, generally taken verbatim from the
table of contents of the Trump Administration’s document, accompanied by a footnote
that identifies the entry’s CRS author(s) and provides their contact information;
Brief summary: a brief summary of the proposal;
Affected agencies/programs:
information about departments, agencies, or programs that might be affected by the
proposal, if the proposal were enacted or implemented; or
an indication whether the proposal would be executive branch-wide in
implementation across all departments, agencies, or programs;
Statutes: illustrative statutes, if any, that might need to be amended, repealed, or
otherwise modified in order to implement the proposal;
Administrative actions: illustrative administrative actions, if any, that could be taken to
implement aspects of a proposal;
Uncertainties: a brief discussion, if applicable, of uncertainties associated with the
proposal in light of the information that the Trump Administration provided and other
perspectives that may help to illuminate issues of potential interest; and
Observations: a discussion, if applicable, of any relevant observations that might be
helpful for contextualizing the proposal or related issues (e.g., past legislation or
administrative actions, historical developments).
Several caveats attend the information in this memorandum.
CRS is not able to predict future actions by the President or executive agencies, including
how they will interpret relevant statutes and exercise any associated discretion in pursuit
of the Administration’s proposals. Consequently, this memorandum’s discussion of the
proposals should not be considered to be forecasts or definitive interpretations of how
discretion may be used.
The aim of this memorandum is to provide timely, brief discussion of selected aspects of
the Administration’s proposals. Consequently, the information in this memorandum is
illustrative and not necessarily comprehensive. Furthermore, the memorandum generally
does not discuss the potential policy and societal implications of each proposal, if it were
to be implemented, along with any associated advantages or disadvantages.
Each entry uses a standard set of subheadings. However, the format, content, and length
of written material under each of the subheadings differs depending on the nature of the
underlying proposal and associated issues. Some proposals would make changes in
organizational structures, while others would change procedures or policy. The
memorandum uses citations as each respective policy community typically cites them,
which may make citations inconsistent in format across policy domains.
A table of contents is included, below, for easier reference to each proposal. Congressional readers may
contact the relevant authors directly with questions about specific proposals or contact the coordinators
with more general questions.
Table of Contents
Capsule Discussions of Discrete Proposals .................................................................................................. 3
Congressional Research Service
3
Proposal #1: “Department of Education and the Workforce” ................................................................. 5
Proposal #2: “Consolidate Non-Commodity Nutrition Assistance Programs into HHS,
Rename HHS the Department of Health and Public Welfare...” ......................................................... 9
Proposal #2(a): “Establish the Council on Public Assistance” ............................................................. 12
Proposal #3: “Consolidate Mission Alignment of Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works with
Those of Other Federal Agencies”..................................................................................................... 15
Proposal #4: “Reorganize Primary Federal Food Safety Functions into a Single Agency, the
Federal Food Safety Agency” ............................................................................................................ 18
Proposal #5: “Move Select USDA Housing Programs to HUD” ......................................................... 21
Proposal #6: “Merge the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS)” ................................................................................................................... 23
Proposal #7: “Consolidation of Environmental Cleanup Programs” .................................................... 25
Proposal #8: “Optimization of Humanitarian Assistance”.................................................................... 28
Proposal #9: “Development Finance Institution” ................................................................................. 30
Proposal #10: “Structural Transformation of Central Washington-Based Bureaus at the U.S.
Agency for International Development” ........................................................................................... 33
Proposal #11: “Reorganizing the U.S. Office of Personnel Management” .......................................... 34
Proposal #12: “Consolidation of Veterans Cemeteries” ....................................................................... 38
Proposal #13: “Reorganizing Economic Statistical Agencies” ............................................................. 40
Proposal #14: “Consolidation of the Department of Energy’s Applied Energy Offices and
Mission Refocus” .............................................................................................................................. 43
Proposal #15(a): “Divesting Federal Transmission Assets” ................................................................. 47
Proposal #15(b): “Restructure the Postal Service” ............................................................................... 50
Proposal #15(c): “DOT Mission Adjustments” .................................................................................... 52
Proposal #16: “Reform Federal Role in Mortgage Finance” ................................................................ 57
Proposal #17: “Create the Bureau of Economic Growth” .................................................................... 59
Proposal #18: “U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps” ..................................................... 63
Proposal #19: “Improving NASA’s Agility through Increased Use of Federally Funded
Research and Development Centers” ................................................................................................ 65
Proposal #20: “Management Consolidation of Federal Graduate Research Fellowships” ................... 67
Proposal #21: “Rationalize the Federal Real Property Approach” ....................................................... 69
Proposal #22: “Consolidate and Streamline Financial Literacy Efforts” ............................................. 70
Proposal #23: “Streamline Small Business Programs”......................................................................... 73
Proposal #24: “Consolidation of Certain Protective Details” ............................................................... 75
Proposal #25: “Small Grants Consolidation” ....................................................................................... 78
Proposal #26: “Transition to Electronic Government” ......................................................................... 79
Proposal #27: “Customer Experience (CX) Improvement Capability” ................................................ 82
Proposal #28: “Next Generation Federal Student Aid Processing & Servicing Environment” ............ 85
Proposal #29: “Solving the Federal Cybersecurity Workforce Shortage” ............................................ 87
Proposal #30: “The GEAR Center” ...................................................................................................... 90
Proposal #31: “Transfer of Background Investigations from the Office of Personnel
Management to the Department of Defense” .................................................................................... 93
Proposal #32: “Strengthening Federal Evaluation” .............................................................................. 94
Capsule Discussions of Discrete Proposals
This section of the memorandum discusses the 32 proposals that are included among the Trump
Administration’s “Government-wide reorganization proposals” in the plan’s table of contents. The
memorandum addresses the proposals in 35 sections to separately discuss significant sub-components of
proposals #2 and #15. Each heading reflects the Trump Administration’s enumeration of proposals (see
Congressional Research Service
4
pp. 15-18 of the plan) and the short titles given to the proposals in the underlying document’s table of
contents.
Many of the Trump Administration’s proposals focus on moving organizational units and statutory
functions, while other proposals focus on operational or policy changes.5 Some involve a mixture of these
kinds of proposals. Moving or redistributing units and functions may raise questions regarding when and
under what conditions a proposed change would require legislation.
Reorganizations that exceed the boundaries of one department or agency, or that are inconsistent with
existing law, generally are accomplished through the legislative process. In some cases, Congress has
changed organizational arrangements within a department or agency by shifting funding and functions
between offices. Where functions are statutorily vested in the President, they may be delegated and
redelegated. In general, department heads have discretion, consistent with existing statutory mandates, to
organize and manage the day-to-day operations of the organizations for which they are responsible. These
authorities do not, however, supersede or conflict with specific statutory directives, limitations, or
organizational arrangements.6 A CRS Legal Sidebar elaborates further:
The [Trump] Administration has indicated that it considers some of these proposals to be within its
existing authority, while others may require new legislation authorizing such action. These orders
and proposals have prompted a recurring question concerning the composition of the federal
government: who decides how to organize agencies and departments within the executive branch?
The ultimate answer to this question is Congress. Legislative enactments create executive agencies
and delegate authority to those entities to carry out various statutory functions and duties. But
executive branch agencies also typically enjoy some discretion in determining how best to structure
themselves to carry out their statutory responsibilities, provided that reorganization does not conflict
with their governing statutes or legislative funding restrictions. 7
With regard to proposals that focus primarily on operational or procedural changes, the assessment of
whether a proposal may be implemented administratively, without resort to legislation, can be challenging
and typically is assessed on a case-by-case basis. Complicating the matter, the explanatory text and
justification that accompanies proposals of this type may not be precise regarding which statutory
authorities are being relied upon for current activities and whether proposed changes to activities or
processes could take place under the authorities. In addition, authorizing statutes often do not specify in
detail all aspects of how a policy or process shall be carried out, and they also often include general
instead of highly specific statements of purpose. Consequently, the implementation of statutes often
necessitates that agencies exercise some level of discretion.
A general treatment of how agencies may exercise discretion is beyond the scope of this memorandum.
With respect to more operational matters within agencies, however, multiple points of reference may be
relevant from time to time in how agencies may seek to exercise discretion in carrying out statutes,
including but not limited to the following.
Since the 1950s, the powers, duties, and functions of the component offices of most
agencies have been vested in the agency head, who is, in turn, empowered to delegate
these powers, duties, and authorities. The agency head’s authority does not, however,
supersede congressional authority to provide for specific organizational arrangements or
to vest powers, duties, or authorities in particular offices established in this way.8
5 CRS Insight IN10920, The Trump Administration’s Reform Plan and Reorganization Recommendations, by Henry B. Hogue.
6 CRS Report R44909, Executive Branch Reorganization, by Henry B. Hogue.
7 CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10158, Organizing Executive Branch Agencies: Who Makes the Call?, by Jared P. Cole.
8 In addition, an agency may face constraints associated with appropriations acts in how it may use discretion to create, eliminate,
or reorganize its organizational subunits. For example, appropriations committees often include language in statutory text to
Congressional Research Service
5
Section 301 of Title 5, U.S. Code, provides in part that the “head of an Executive
department or military department may prescribe regulations for the government of his
department, the conduct of its employees, the distribution and performance of its
business, and the custody, use, and preservation of its records, papers, and property.”9
31 U.S.C. 1301(a), relating to the purposes for which appropriations are made, provides
that “[a]ppropriations shall be applied only to the objects for which the appropriations
were made except as otherwise provided by law.” The Government Accountability Office
(GAO) has discussed interpretation of this provision in light of the “necessary expense
rule.”10 Under this framework, an appropriation of funds for a particular object or purpose
confers authority to an agency to incur expenses which are necessary or proper or
incident to the proper execution of the object or purpose. This typically means that an
agency may, unless otherwise prohibited or directed by law, exercise some discretion in
how to allocate funding among certain organizational subunits, objects (e.g., salaries,
rent, contracts), and policy priorities, within the contours of the agency’s statutory
authorities and obligations.11
Proposal #1: “Department of Education and the Workforce”12
Brief Proposal Summary
This proposal would merge the Departments of Education (ED) and Labor (DOL) into a single Cabinet
agency, the Department of Education and the Workforce (DEW). The proposed goals of the new agency
stated in the proposal would include streamlining education and workforce development programs in a
single agency and creating four main sub-agencies focused, respectively, on (1) K-12 education, (2)
higher education/workforce development, (3) enforcement, and (4) research/evaluation/administration.
One stated goal of the proposed merger is to eliminate possible duplication of effort between the
workforce development and education programs currently housed at ED and DOL.
prohibit reprogramming of funds within a single appropriations account that would create, eliminate, or reorganize organizational
units in an agency, without advance notification. After this notification is made, the provision would not necessarily prevent these
changes from being made. However, some committees may use notification requirements like these as opportunities to engage
with agencies and exert influence over their use of discretion, to ensure the agencies follow congressional intent.
9 5 U.S.C. §101 specifies the current list of 15 executive departments.
10 The Government Accountability Office (hereinafter GAO) was called the General Accounting Office until July 2004.
11 According to GAO, “The Comptroller General has never established a precise formula for determining the application of the
necessary expense rule. In view of the vast differences among agencies, any such formula would almost certainly be unworkable.
Rather, the determination must be made essentially on a case-by-case basis.” GAO employs a three-step analysis in applying the
rule: (1) “The expenditure must bear a logical relationship to the appropriation sought to be charged. In other words, it must make
a direct contribution to carrying out either a specific appropriation or an authorized agency function for which more general
appropriations are available.”; (2) “The expenditure must not be prohibited by law.”; and (3) “The expenditure must not be
otherwise provided for, that is, it must not be an item that falls within the scope of some other appropriation or statutory funding
scheme.” See GAO, Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, 4th ed., “Chapter 3, Availability of Appropriations: Purpose,”
2017 revision, GAO-17-797SP, pp. 3-14 – 3-17, at https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/687162.pdf#page=14.
12 This section was prepared by David H. Bradley, Specialist in Labor Economics, dbradley@crs.loc.gov, 7-7352; Boris
Granovskiy, Analyst in Education Policy, bgranovskiy@crs.loc.gov, 7-7759; and Rebecca R. Skinner, Specialist in Education
Policy, rskinner@crs.loc.gov, 7-6600.
Congressional Research Service
6
Affected Departments, Agencies, or Programs
The two federal agencies that would be most directly affected by this proposal are the Department of
Education (ED) and the Department of Labor (DOL). While the proposal might affect other entities, this
analysis considers only ED and DOL.
Department of Education
ED, created in 1979 through the Department of Education Organization Act (DEOA; P.L. 96-88), is the
federal agency with the primary responsibility for administering federal elementary, secondary, and
postsecondary education programs. It supports the general welfare of the United States by working to
ensure equal access to educational opportunity, and it supplements the efforts of state, local, and private
entities in improving the quality of education. ED's mission is “to promote student achievement and
preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.”
The majority of the federal programs, activities, and benefits supportive of education at the elementary,
secondary, and postsecondary levels are authorized by a handful of major education laws. While federal
education programs, activities, and benefits have varied foci and address many different aims, broadly
speaking, they collectively provide for the following:
Research and statistics on the progress and condition of education and on the efficacy of
programs and practices;
Supplemental grants supporting core services and programs in elementary and secondary
schools serving concentrations of disadvantaged students;
Targeted grants supporting the creation, improvement, and/or operation of programs
targeting particular educational aims, at all levels of education; and
Financial aid for postsecondary students, such as grants, loans, work-study assistance,
and tax benefits to encourage college access, persistence, and attainment.13
Department of Labor
DOL was created in 1913 by “An Act to create a Department of Labor” (P.L. 62-426) with the purpose “to
foster, promote, and develop the welfare of the wage earners of the United States, to improve their
working conditions, and to advance their opportunities for profitable employment.” The act initially
authorized a new mediation service and four pre-existing bureaus, two of which covered immigration.
Numerous laws since 1913 have added responsibilities to DOL such that it is now comprised of multiple
entities that provide services related to employment and training, worker protection, income security, and
contract enforcement. DOL administers and enforces more than 180 federal laws.14
The DOL entities fall primarily into three main functional areas—workforce development, worker
protection, and income security:
Workforce Development. Several DOL entities administer workforce employment and
training programs—such as the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) state
formula grant programs, Job Corps, and the Employment Service—that provide direct
funding for employment and training activities Also included in this area is the Veterans'
Employment and Training Service (VETS), which provides employment services
specifically for the veteran population.
13 For more information on the functions of the Department of Education, see CRS In Focus IF10551, A Summary of Federal
Education Laws Administered by the U.S. Department of Education, by Adam Stoll, Rebecca R. Skinner, and David P. Smole.
14 https://www.dol.gov/general/aboutdol/majorlaws.
Congressional Research Service
7
Worker Protection. Several agencies provide various worker protection services, such as
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the Mine Safety and Health
Administration (MSHA), and the Wage and Hour Division (WHD). DOL entities focused
on worker protection provide services to ensure worker safety, adherence to wage and
overtime laws, and contract compliance, among other duties.
Income Security. DOL administers income security programs, including the
Unemployment Insurance program and certain provisions of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act.
In addition to these three main functional areas, DOL's Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) collects data and
provides analysis on the labor market and related labor issues.15
Statutes
The proposal would appear to require statutory changes to the laws that established ED and DOL, as well
as to the laws administered by each agency. The extent of needed changes may vary by law.
Department of Education
Provisions contained within the DEOA include the creation of several Assistant Secretary
positions16 and establish a number of offices in statute. These include the Office for Civil
Rights, the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, the Office of Postsecondary
Education, the Office of Vocational and Adult Education,17 the Office of Special
Education and Rehabilitative Services, and several others.18
In addition to the DEOA, there are several laws currently administered by ED that it
appears would need to be amended if this proposal was implemented. These include the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the Higher Education Act, the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act, the Perkins Career and Technical Education Act, among
others.
Department of Labor
Although the act establishing DOL in 1913 (P.L. 62-426) authorized five bureaus, numerous subsequent
laws have created offices, bureaus, and divisions within DOL to implement and enforce various labor
statutes. The major statutes that DOL administers and that it appears would have to be amended are listed
below, organized by thematic area.
Wages and Hours. The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938; labor standards provisions of
the Immigration and Nationality Act; Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker
Protection Act.
Workplace Safety and Health. Occupational Safety and Health Act; Mine Safety and
Health Act.
15 Under the Administration’s reorganization plan, BLS would be moved from DOL to the Department of Commerce; see
“Proposal #13: Reorganizing Statistical Agencies” in this memorandum.
16 P.L. 96-88, Section 202.
17 Later renamed the Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education.
18 P.L. 96-88, Sections 204-214.
Congressional Research Service
Workers’ Compensation. The Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act; Energy
Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act; Federal Employees’
Compensation Act; Black Lung Benefits Act.
Employee Income and Benefit Security. Employee Retirement Income Security Act;
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation; Unemployment Insurance.
Labor Relations. Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act; Civil Service
Reform Act.
Veterans. Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act; Veterans’
Preference; Jobs for Veterans Act.
Workplace Rights. Employee Polygraph Protection Act; Consumer Credit Protection Act
(garnishment of wages provisions); Family and Medical Leave Act; Worker Adjustment
and Retraining Notification Act.
Labor Standards for Federal Contracts. Davis-Bacon Act; McNamara-O’Hara Service
Contract Act; Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act; Copeland Act.
Workforce Development. Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act; Wagner-Peyser
Act; Community Service Senior Opportunities Act.
8
Finally, the proposal would consolidate the state formula grants from four programs – WIOA Adult,
WIOA Dislocated Worker, Employment Service, and Jobs for Veterans State Grants. These four programs
have three different authorizing statutes that it appears would have to be amended in order for fund
consolidation to occur.
Administrative Actions
Section 413 of the DEOA allows the Secretary of Education to “allocate or reallocate
functions among the officers of the Department, and to establish, consolidate, alter, or
discontinue such organizational entities within the Department as may be necessary or
appropriate.” However, this authority does not appear to extend to entities established in
statute, including entities established by the DEOA.
Section 6 of P.L. 62-426 states that “all laws prescribing the work and defining the duties
of the several bureaus, offices, departments, or branches of the public service by this Act
transferred to and made a part of the Department of Labor shall, so far as the same are not
in conflict with the provisions of this Act, remain in full force and effect, to be executed
under the direction of the Secretary of Labor.”
Uncertainties
Given the lack of specificity in the proposal, it is not clear what the proposed changes would mean at the
programmatic level for many ED and DOL programs and which statutory or administrative actions would
be required to implement these proposals. A few specific measures to consolidate or streamline several
programs were mentioned in the proposal that seemingly would require statutory action. Specifically:
Streamline workforce development programs by “moving from the current arrangement
or more than 40 programs at 15 agencies to 16 workforce development programs at seven
agencies.”
Consolidate a “range of disparate grants programs into a single fund that is focused on
testing and replicating effective apprenticeship, workforce development, and
postsecondary education models.”
Congressional Research Service
9
Consolidate “three Native American-serving workforce development programs currently
spread across three agencies.”
Observations
Proposals for the elimination of ED, the consolidation of ED and DOL, or the consolidation of DOL with
other federal agencies have been introduced by previous administrations and considered by past
Congresses. For example, the Reagan Administration put forth a proposal to eliminate ED in 1984, during
the 98th Congress,19 and Congress considered merging ED, DOL, and the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission during the 104th and 105th Congresses.20 In addition, bills were introduced in the 112th and
113th Congresses that would have merged DOL, the Department of Commerce, and the Small Business
Administration into a new Department of Commerce and the Workforce.21
Most recently, bills have been introduced in the 115th Congress that would abolish ED.22 Past proposals
have ranged from those similar to the current proposal under consideration, in that they would preserve
most of the current functions of the Department, to those that would eliminate a number of the
Department’s core functions and shift administrative responsibility for a number of federal education
programs to the states. Some of the proposals that would eliminate ED would transfer the federal student
aid functions of ED to other agencies, such as the Department of the Treasury.
Proposal #2: “Consolidate Non-Commodity Nutrition Assistance
Programs into HHS, Rename HHS the Department of Health and Public
Welfare...”23
Brief Proposal Summary
The plan proposes to move specific nutrition assistance programs from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) into the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which would be renamed
the Department of Health and Public Welfare (DHPW). Those programs are: the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP), the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and
Children (WIC), the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP), and the Farmers’ Market Nutrition
Programs.
The proposal differentiates between non-commodity or “near-cash” nutrition programs, which provide
money to participants in the form of a voucher or electronic benefit transfer card, and commodity-based
programs, which, in part, involve federal procurement and distribution of U.S.-produced food. The plan
notes that with the exception of CACFP, the programs to be moved are near-cash assistance programs. As
a rationale for the reorganization, the plan asserts, “Near-cash benefit programs do not need to leverage
USDA’s expertise in food procurement or delivery, nor do they primarily fit with USDA’s core mission
of supporting American farmers and agriculture. Rather, these programs are designed to support low-
19 For more information on this proposal, see http://www.cq.com/doc/weeklyreport-WR098403991?0&search=VWrWbNrp.
20 For more information on this proposal, see GAO, Congressional Proposal to Merge Education, Labor, and EEOC, HEHS-95-
140, June 28, 1995, https://www.gao.gov/products/HEHS-95-140.
21 S. 1116 in the 112th Congress, and S. 1836 in the 113th Congress.
22 See, for example, H.R. 899 and H.R. 1510.
23 This section was prepared by Kara Clifford Billings, Analyst in Social Policy, kbillings@crs.loc.gov, 7-2043, and Randy
Alison Aussenberg, Specialist in Food Assistance Policy, raussenberg@crs.loc.gov, 7-8641.
Congressional Research Service
10
income Americans, a mission area better situated in [DHPW].”24 The plan also states the proposed
reorganization “would allow for better and easier coordination across programs that serve similar
populations, ensuring consistent policies and a single point of administration for the major public
assistance programs.” 25
Affected Departments, Agencies, or Programs
USDA, Food and Nutrition Service (FNS)
SNAP
WIC
CACFP
Farmers’ Market Nutrition Programs26
Seniors Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program (SFMNP)
WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program (FMNP)
HHS, Administration for Children and Families (ACF)27
Statutes
For policy, legal, and technical reasons, relocating the specified USDA nutrition programs to HHS is
likely to involve many statutory changes, in particular, to the authorizing laws of the to-be-moved
nutrition programs, SNAP, WIC, CACFP, SFMNP, and WIC FMNP. As a threshold matter, the
authorizing laws of each of these USDA nutrition programs require the Secretary of Agriculture to
administer them by defining “Secretary” as “Secretary of Agriculture.”28 In the case of CACFP, the
definition of Secretary applies to all programs authorized by the Richard B. Russell National School
Lunch Act, so the Administration’s proposal to move CACFP but not to move other programs authorized
by the National School Lunch Act may require amending this provision accordingly.
As far as renaming HHS, the department's current name was established in Section 509 of the Department
of Education Organization Act (P.L. 96-88, 93 Stat. 668, 695; 20 U.S.C. §3508). Changes to this provision
may be necessary to change the department’s name.
Administrative Actions
While statutory changes may be necessary for a different department to administer these nutrition
assistance programs, some administrative actions within USDA might be taken to further the
24 OMB, Delivering Government Solutions in the 21st Century: Reform Plan and Reorganization Recommendations, [June 21,
2018], p. 28.
25 Ibid.
26 The Administration’s proposal does not name these programs, but they are generally understood to be SFMNP and WIC
FMNP as listed in this memorandum.
27 The proposal specifically notes ACF’s administration of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Head Start, and
Child Care. It is possible that all ACF programs could be affected by relocating the nutrition programs.
28 Respective definitions of Secretary are located as follows: SNAP (Section 3(p) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, 7 U.S.C.
§2012(p)); WIC and WIC FMNP (Section 17(b)(12) of the Child Nutrition Act, 42 U.S.C. §1786(b)(12)); CACFP (Section
12(d)(7) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, 42 U.S.C. §1760(b)(12)). SFMNP’s authorizing law does not
include a definition of Secretary; rather, it specifically directs the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out the program (Section 4402
of P.L. 111-203, 7 U.S.C. §3007).
Congressional Research Service
11
Administration’s stated objectives, such as coordinating cash assistance and near-cash assistance policies.
In general, these authorities might include:
Rulemaking and guidance. To the extent it is consistent with programs’ statutes, the
respective departments could consult each other in developing regulations and guidance,
and/or develop policies or reporting requirements that are in sync.
Waiver authorities. With limitations specified in law, the Secretary of Agriculture has
the authority to conduct demonstrations or pilot projects, testing new policies that differ
from the programs’ authorizing laws.29 USDA-FNS recently clarified its protocol for this
waiver authority in the child nutrition programs.30
Changes made by these actions may be time-limited or may be changed by subsequent Administrations,
so the administrative authorities may not carry the same weight as the proposed reorganization.
Uncertainties
SNAP Categorical Eligibility. The Administration’s proposal cites SNAP’s categorical eligibility with
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) benefits as an example of the need to co-locate the
programs. Depending on the desired change to this policy, it is not clear that a reorganization alone would
address this. Without more details, it is unclear whether changes to statutory or regulatory authority would
also be required.31
Commodity Foods in CACFP. Of the programs listed, CACFP is the only program that utilizes
commodity foods. It is unclear whether DHPW would assume responsibility for distributing commodity
foods to CACFP institutions or whether this responsibility would be shared with or retained by USDA. In
FY2017, CACFP institutions received $152.5 million in commodity assistance or cash-in-lieu of
commodities (4.3% of total program costs).32
Authorization of Retailers. Unique from the HHS-ACF programs, the USDA near-cash programs also
entail retailer policy. For instance, SNAP and WIC benefits are redeemable only at authorized retailers.
For SNAP, USDA-FNS sets policy and processes retailers’ applications, including on-site inspections.
Farmers’ markets and direct-to-consumer outlets redeem program benefits; these outlets may receive
funding and technical assistance from other USDA agencies. If the near-cash USDA programs were
moved to DHPW, it is not clear from the proposal if or how retailer policy would be maintained or
revised.
Role of the States. Under current law, states have considerable flexibilities in their administration of the
HHS ACF programs, including TANF and Child Care programs. There also is wide variation between
states’ WIC programs, and states vary in their adoption of SNAP state options. Often, these ACF and FNS
programs are not all administered by the same state agencies. It is not clear from the proposal whether the
proposal would also change state flexibilities, including states’ selection of administering agencies.
29 See, for example, Secretary of Agriculture’s pilot or experimental projects to test program changes in SNAP (Section 17(b) of
the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008,7 U.S.C. §2026(b)), and Secretary of Agriculture’s waiver authority regarding CACFP and
other child nutrition programs (Section 12(l) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (NSLA), 42 U.S.C. §1760(l)).
30 USDA-FNS, Child Nutrition Program Waiver Request Guidance and Protocol - Revised, May 24, 2018,
https://www.fns.usda.gov/child-nutrition-program-waiver-request-guidance-and-protocol-revised.
31 See CRS Report R42054, The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): Categorical Eligibility.
32 Food and Nutrition Service, “Data and Statistics: Nutrition Assistance Programs Keydata Release,” May 2018 (data through
March 2018), http://www.fns.usda.gov/data-and-statistics. Figure excludes bonus commodities.
Congressional Research Service
12
Observations
Moving SNAP (formerly Food Stamp Program) from USDA
Prior administrations have proposed reorganization and/or consolidation of food assistance programs with
welfare programs; these reorganizations were never completed. For example, in 1970, President Richard
Nixon announced plans to “Submit a reorganization plan ... to transfer the food stamp program from the
Department of Agriculture to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare” (HEW) as part of a
welfare reform extension proposal.33 In another example, in 1977, President Jimmy Carter proposed
“consolidating” the Food Stamp Program with the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) programs.34 The welfare reform proposal, called The Program for
Better Jobs and Income, would have abolished the three programs and created a “single cash assistance
program” (a negative income tax).35 The new program would have been administered by HEW and the
Department of Labor.36
FY2018, FY2019 President’s Budget Proposals
Legislative proposals for SNAP were included in both the FY2018 and FY2019 President’s budget
submissions.37 Neither budget proposed to move the program to HHS. Both budgets did include a
proposal to restrict categorical eligibility to households receiving TANF, an example cited in the
reorganization plan. They also both included proposals to restrict the link between the Low-Income Home
Energy Assistance Program (ACF-administered program) and SNAP.
Proposal #2(a): “Establish the Council on Public Assistance”38
Brief Proposal Summary
The President’s reorganization proposal would establish a permanent Council on Public Assistance within
the reorganized Department of Health and Public Welfare (DHPW). According to the proposal, the
council’s goal would be to ensure a “unified coordinated focus on cross-cutting welfare and workforce
issues.” It would be given statutory authority to approve state and local government service plans and
requests for “waivers” to operate “welfare-to-work” projects, design uniform work requirements to be
implemented across all welfare programs, resolve policy disputes among federal agencies, and design
cross-program standards for programmatic and operational changes at the federal, state, and local levels.
The council would be composed of agency heads or representatives from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Department of Education and Workforce, Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD), and others, and chaired by senior leadership in DHPW.
33 The American Presidency Project, “Richard Nixon: ‘Statement Announcing Extensions of Welfare Reform Proposals’ on June
10, 1970,” http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=2539. See also “Presidential Budget Message: Nixon’s Fiscal 1975 Budget:
A Record Breaking $304.4-Billion.” In CQ Almanac 1974, 30th ed. 2-A-7-A. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 1975.
34 The American Presidency Project, “Jimmy Carter: ‘Welfare Reform Message to the Congress’ on August 6, 1977,”
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=7942
35 Ibid.
36 Testimony of Assistant Secretary for Food and Consumer Affairs, Department of Agriculture Carol Tucker Foreman, in U.S.
Congress, Senate Committee on Finance, Subcommittee on Public Assistance, Welfare Reform Proposals, hearings, 95th Cong.,
2nd sess., February 7, 1978.
37 See FY2018 USDA Budget Congressional Justification (for FNS), pp. 32-91 to 32-94, FY2019 USDA Budget Congressional
Justification (for FNS), pp. 32-81 to 32-87. Documents available at https://www.obpa.usda.gov/explan_notes.html.
38 This section was prepared by Gene Falk, Specialist in Social Policy, gfalk@crs.loc.gov, 7-7344.
Congressional Research Service
13
Affected Departments, Agencies, or Programs
The proposal does not define “public assistance.” In general, public assistance programs provide cash,
food, housing, or medical assistance to needy families so that they can meet their basic needs. Programs
that meet this criterion are administered in the agencies mentioned for the council. For example, DHPW
would administer the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant, Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and Medicaid. HUD administers housing assistance programs. The
Social Security Administration, which administers the public assistance programs for the elderly, blind,
and disabled—Supplemental Security Income—is not mentioned, although the proposal allows for other
agencies to be included in the council as appropriate.
Statutes
The proposal mentioned that the council would be given statutory authority to accomplish its goals, but is
not specific about what that authority would include. Some programs (e.g., TANF and SNAP) have
existing, statutory provisions related to work and requiring work.39 There is also existing statutory
authority to “waive” federal requirements for programs authorized by the Social Security Act.40 However,
when President Obama sought to exercise that authority in TANF, the House passed legislation to prevent
the implementation of “waivers” that affected TANF work requirements.41 That legislation was not
enacted, but no waivers were granted. The Trump Administration rescinded the waiver initiative in
2017.42
Administrative Actions
As discussed above, some public assistance programs already have “waiver” authority for demonstration
projects. The Secretary of the department administering the program currently has the authority to
approve or disapprove these waivers.43 The proposal would give that authority to the council.
Uncertainties
The proposal does not define what is meant by “public assistance” programs, so the scope of the proposal
is unknown. It is unknown whether the council would have the authority to address policies in programs
that do not meet a colloquial definition of public assistance (e.g., benefits to meet basic needs), such as
education and social services programs that target low-income individuals and families. The proposal is
not specific about what it means to “design” uniform work requirements across programs, and whether
those requirements would be advisory or whether it is envisioned that the council would be given the
statutory authority to impose requirements different from those in specific programs’ statutes.
39 For example, TANF requirements related to work and participation are in Section 407 and section 408(b) of the Social Security
Act. The SNAP work rules are in Section 6(d)(1) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008.
40 The “waiver” authority is in Section 1115 of the Social Security Act. It gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services the
authority to waive compliance with certain federal requirements which in the judgment of the Secretary promotes the objective of
the program.
41 For a discussion of the waiver initiative and legislation that sought to prevent its implementation, see CRS Report R42627,
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF): Welfare Waivers.
42 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance,
Rescinding guidance concerning waiver and expenditures authority under section 1115 of the Social Security Act, TANF-ACFIM-2017-01, August 30, 2017.
43 As discussed above, for Social Security Act programs, this authority is provided in Section 1115 of the Social Security Act to
the Secretary of HHS.
Congressional Research Service
14
Observations
President Trump’s FY2018 budget proposed establishing “Welfare to Work Projects,” demonstrations that
would allow states to streamline funding from multiple public assistance programs, and redesign service
delivery so that it is tailored to their constituents’ specific needs. A requirement of these demonstrations is
that they be evaluated.
Proposals to provide consistent policymaking and address cross-program issues affecting low-income
families and individuals, such as “program integration,” have a long history.44 In 1987, President Reagan
proposed legislation to “authorize demonstration of innovative methods to simplify existing programs of
low-income assistance.”45 The proposed bill would have established a Low-Income Opportunity
Assistance Board, which would have had the responsibility to certify and evaluate those demonstrations.
While this legislation was never enacted, the Reagan Administration established an Interagency Low
Income Opportunity Board within the White House, which coordinated requests for waivers under
existing statutory authority.46
In 2002, the George W. Bush Administration's TANF reauthorization plan included a superwaiver
proposal. Under that proposal, states could seek "new waivers for integrating funding and program rules
across a broad range of public assistance and workforce development programs.” States that received
waivers would have been required to develop integrated performance objectives and outcomes, which
could have altered reporting and performance requirements in affected programs. An evaluation of the
demonstration would have been required. The superwaiver proposal passed the House three times: in
2002 (H.R. 4737, 107th Congress), 2003 (H.R. 4, 108th Congress) and 2005 (S. 1932, 109th Congress, as it
passed the House), but was never enacted.
Several related bills have been introduced in the 115th Congress. The proposed “HAND UP” Act (H.R.
2249, introduced by Representative Tom Reed) would establish authority for demonstration projects to
test program integration and coordination of services among selected programs, including TANF, SNAP,
Title I of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, and Medicaid. The proposed EMPOWERS Act
(S. 1427, Senator Ernst) would establish an Interagency Board for Empowering Low-Income Families
that would have the authority to approve four-year waivers of federal program requirements to
consolidate, replace or alter eligibility requirements in specified programs.
The House-passed Farm Bill (H.R. 2) would make changes to SNAP work requirements. A bill reported
from the House Ways and Means Committee (H.R. 5861) would alter the work rules that exist under the
current TANF program.
44 For an overview of this history, see CRS Report RL32859, The "Superwaiver" Proposal and Service Integration: A History of
Federal Initiatives.
45 U.S. Congress, House, Proposed Legislation--"Low Income Opportunity Improvement Act of 1987", Message from the
President of the United States Transmitting a Draft of Proposed Legislation to Encourage State-Sponsored and CommunityBased Demonstrations in Public Assistance Policy, 100th Cong., February 26, 1987, H.Doc. 100-39.
46 For a discussion of the initiation of the board, the research it fostered, and its eventual dissolution, see Judith M. Gueron and
Howard Rolston, “Chapter 7. Waiver Evaluations: How Random Assignment Evaluation Became the Standard for Approval,” in
Fighting for Reliable Evidence (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2013), pp. 217-261.
Congressional Research Service
15
Proposal #3: “Consolidate Mission Alignment of Army Corps of
Engineers Civil Works with Those of Other Federal Agencies”47
Brief Proposal Summary
The proposal is to move U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE or Corps) civil works activities from the
Department of Defense (DOD) to the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Department of the
Interior (DOI) “to consolidate and align” the USACE civil works missions with these agencies.
Affected Departments, Agencies, or Programs
USACE performs both military and civil works activities.48 Its civil works responsibilities are to support
coastal and inland commercial navigation, reduce riverine flood and coastal storm damage, and protect
and restore aquatic ecosystems in U.S. states and territories. In undertaking projects for these purposes,
USACE also may pursue additional project benefits related to water supply, hydropower, recreation, fish
and wildlife enhancement, and other purposes. USACE performs certain regulatory responsibilities that
Congress has assigned to the Secretary of the Army; these include issuing permits for private actions that
may affect navigation, wetlands, and other waters of the United States. Proposal #3 may affect the
following federal departments and agencies:
Department of Defense, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: removal of USACE civil works
activities from DOD.
U.S. Department of Transportation: transfer of USACE navigation activities to DOT.
U.S. Department of the Interior: transfer to DOI the remaining USACE civil works
activities (flood and storm damage reduction, aquatic ecosystem restoration, regulatory,
and all other activities).
Statutes
The legislative history of USACE civil works activities has evolved since the mid-1820s, when legislative
references to using the military corps of engineers for public surveys and improvements first appeared.
The agency has no principal piece of legislation or organic act establishing and defining its suite of civil
works responsibilities. Instead, a lengthy set of statutory provisions, which typically reference the
Secretary of the Army, authorize general or project-specific water resource activities. Depending on the
specific reorganization actions undertaken pursuant to this proposal, implementation could potentially fall
into the category of activities that would need to be accomplished through legislation.49 In 2010, GAO
identified selected statutes that have shaped USACE civil works missions.50 The Secretary of the Army
47 This section was coordinated by Nicole T. Carter, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy, ncarter@crs.loc.gov, 7-0854.
48 USACE’s military mission consists of providing engineering, construction, real estate, stability operations, and environmental
management products and services for the Army, Air Force, other assigned federal agencies, and foreign governments.
49 Implementation of the proposal may involve transferring responsibilities from DOD to DOT and DOI that Congress assigned
in statute to the Secretary of the Army. For example, Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. §403)
prohibits the obstruction of navigation unless recommend by the USACE Chief of Engineers and authorized by the Secretary of
War (now Secretary of the Army); Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §1344) provides that the Secretary of the
Army acting through the agency’s Chief of Engineers may issue permits for the discharge of dredged or fill material into
navigable waters; and Section 2 of the Flood Control Act of 1944, as amended (33 U.S.C. §701a-1) provides that “Federal
investigations and improvements of river and other waterways for flood control and allied purposes shall be under the jurisdiction
of and shall be prosecuted by the Department of the Army under the direction of the Secretary of the Army.”
50 GAO, Army Corps of Engineers: Organizational Realignment Could Enhance Effectiveness, but Several Challenges Would
Have to Be Overcome, GAO-1-819, October 2010, Appendix III, https://www.gao.gov/assets/320/310469.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
16
typically has delegated the civil works responsibilities to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil
Works, which is a position established in law (10 U.S.C. §3016).
Administrative Changes
Given that proposal #3 would shift responsibilities across departments, and given that most of the
responsibilities have been designated in statute for the Secretary of the Army, it is unclear how much of
the proposal could be accomplished administratively. Certain activities potentially could be transferred
without legislative action, although it is unclear whether these limited transfers would accomplish the
stated goals of consolidation and alignment, absent other statutory changes. For example, many
emergency response statutes provide authority to the President, rather than specifying the secretaries and
departments to undertake response actions. Thus, some of the emergency response functions assigned to
USACE under the National Response Framework, which guides the national response to all types of
disaster and emergencies by describing principal roles and responsibilities, might be assigned to an entity
other than USACE. Currently USACE is assigned the lead role for public works and engineering.51
Uncertainties
Splitting USACE Responsibilities and Their Administration. While splitting some
USACE responsibilities between DOI and DOT may be straightforward, splitting others
between two departments—such as responsibilities for multipurpose and navigationrelated environmental projects—may be more complex. Proposal #3 does not specify
whether the transferred USACE navigation assets and responsibilities would be managed
by an existing DOT entity (e.g., DOT’s Maritime Administration, which promotes
waterborne transportation) or as a separate DOT agency. Similarly, it does not specify
whether USACE responsibilities transferred to DOI would be combined with DOI’s
water resource agency—the Bureau of Reclamation, which delivers water in 17 western
states to irrigators and other users pursuant to contracts—or administered separately in a
single agency or across multiple agencies.52
Navigation Transfer to DOT. Congress has assigned the Secretary of the Army, through
USACE, responsibility for construction and operation of federally authorized coastal and
inland navigation improvements (e.g., channel dredging, locks and dams). The Trump
Administration plan calls for greater nonfederal involvement in planning and funding
navigation infrastructure, but does not provide details. At present, DOT primarily funds
transportation through grants and loans to states, local governments, and public-private
partnerships, and generally does not own and operate transportation infrastructure (with
an exception being Federal Aviation Administration’s ownership of air traffic facilities
51 In this role, USACE provides technical assistance and engineering, and construction management, as well as emergency
contracting and emergency power and repair for critical facilities. The agency also assists in monitoring, stabilizing, or
demolishing damaged structures and provides technical assistance in debris clearing, removal, and disposal and in establishing
ground and water routes into affected areas. In contrast to USACE roles under the National Response Framework, there are some
emergency authorities that are specifically assigned to the Secretary of the Army. USACE performs emergency floodfighting
activities that are recommended by the agency’s Chief of Engineers pursuant to an authority that allows the Secretary of the
Army to use existing appropriations for emergency activities (33 U.S.C. §701n(a)), and the Secretary of the Army may provide
emergency water supplies in certain circumstances (33 U.S.C. §701n(b)).
52 A mid-1980s proposal by the Office of Management and Budget to merge Reclamation and USACE was not supported by the
Secretaries of the Interior and Defense reportedly because the two agencies’ programs had little overlap and sufficient savings
from merging them could not be realized (e.g., see U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on
Energy and Water Development, Energy and Water Development Appropriations for 1986, 99th Cong., 1st sess., February 20,
1985, pp. 136-137). For more on this proposal and other attempts at reorganization of federal water agencies and responsibilities,
see D. McCool, Command of the Water: Iron Triangles, Federal Water Development, and Indian Water (Tucson, AZ: Univ. of
Arizona Press, 1994), p. 199.
Congressional Research Service
and equipment). Proposal #3 raises uncertainties about what entities may be responsible
in the future for maintaining existing navigation infrastructure and managing new
investments, especially for waterways that traverse multiple states. Proposal #3 does not
reference how the Inland Waterways Trust Fund and the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund
(which fund many USACE inland and coastal navigation activities through authorized
user fees and taxes) would be managed.
Observations
Effect of Transfer of USACE Civil Works. Proposal #3 and past proposals to transfer
USACE civil works have focused on the potential efficiencies of having USACE water
resource activities within the same organization as other water, natural resource,
transportation, or land management activities. Part of the opposition to past proposals,
especially in the late 1940s, included arguments that the agency’s water resource projects
and floodfighting and disaster response activities functioned as peacetime training and
work for military engineers. Most USACE offices currently support both military and
civil works activities; these dual-use offices include a number of USACE districts,
research and development facilities, and geospatial information and analysis offices.
Consolidation of Agencies Involved in Natural Resource Regulatory Activities.
USACE regulatory activities are receiving significant attention in the context of Trump
Administration efforts to expedite and facilitate federal approvals for infrastructure
investments and private actions. Proposal #3 (along with proposal #6, related to a merger
of Department of Commerce’s National Marine Fisheries Service within DOI’s Fish and
Wildlife Service) would consolidate federal decision-making related to certain federal
natural resource-related permits and approvals within the DOI. Thus, these proposals may
in some ways be related.
Emergency Response. Proposal #3 indicated that all USACE civil works activities other
than navigation would be transferred to DOI. USACE’s assignment to perform initial
electric power repairs in Puerto Rico following Hurricane Maria in 2017 is an illustration
of how the agency at times has been tasked with significant engineering assignments as
part of federal emergency response activities. These responses at times have called upon
both USACE military (e.g., 249th power battalion and military contracting authorities)
and civil works authorities, personnel, and expertise.
Transfer to DOI. DOI’s current water resource responsibilities are in many ways
different from USACE’s civil works responsibilities, and separate House and Senate
authorizing committees have jurisdiction over USACE civil works and DOI water
resource development activities managed by the Bureau of Reclamation. The proposed
transfer of USACE activities could alter DOI from being primarily a land and mineral
resource management department to becoming a department with extensive water
resource assets across the country, multiple water-related regulatory authorities, and a
significant emergency response role.
Navigation Transfer to DOT. When DOT was created in the mid-1960’s, the Lyndon B.
Johnson Administration specifically chose not to propose moving USACE navigation
functions to DOT because of the multipurpose nature of water resource projects.53 A 2012
GAO study that examined the roles of USACE and DOT for port-related infrastructure
53 Message from the President, A Proposal For A Cabinet-Level Department of Transportation Consolidating Various Existing
Transportation Agencies, H.Doc. No. 399, 89th Congress, 2nd Sess., March 2, 1966.
17
Congressional Research Service
18
found limited coordination, and concluded that national freight and maritime systemwide investments would benefit from greater USACE involvement.54
Proposal #4: “Reorganize Primary Federal Food Safety Functions into a
Single Agency, the Federal Food Safety Agency”55
Brief Proposal Summary
The Administration’s reorganization proposal would combine the food safety functions of the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) into a single Federal
Food Safety Agency. The new agency would be located in USDA.
Affected Departments, Agencies, or Programs
The Administration’s reorganization proposal would affect FDA and FSIS—the primary agencies
responsible for the safety of the U.S. food supply. Both agencies ensure that U.S. domestic and imported
foods are unadulterated, wholesome, and accurately labeled. FDA has primary responsibility for most
foods, except that FSIS is responsible for meat, poultry, processed egg products, and catfish.56
FDA regulates the safety of foods (including dietary supplements), cosmetics, and radiation-emitting
products; the safety and effectiveness of drugs, biologics, and medical devices; and public health aspects
of tobacco products. The Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) within FDA oversees
the safety of food (including dietary supplements) and cosmetic products, while the FDA’s Center for
Veterinary Medicine (CVM) is responsible for ensuring that all animal drugs, feeds (including pet foods),
and veterinary devices are safe for animals, are properly labeled, and produce no human health hazards
when used in food-producing animals. CSFAN’s primary responsibilities include: the safety of substances
added to food (e.g., food additives); safety of foods and ingredients developed through biotechnology;
programs addressing health risks associated with foodborne, chemical, and biological contaminants; food
and nutrition labeling, including restaurant menu and allergen labeling; the safety of dietary supplements,
infant formulas, and medical foods; as well as industry outreach and consumer education. FDA’s Office
of Regulatory Affairs (ORA) conducts field activities such as inspections, in collaboration with CFSAN.
The FSIS conducts continuous (all hours of operation) inspection at facilities that slaughter meat and
poultry; and FSIS inspectors visit meat, poultry, and egg processing facilities during each shift. FSIS
ensures that state meat and poultry inspection program standards are at least equivalent to federal
standards, and that meat and poultry products imported into the United States are produced under
standards equivalent to U.S. inspection standards. FSIS operates on a science-based inspection system,
known as the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) system, which places emphasis on the
identification, prevention, and control of foodborne hazards.
54 GAO, Maritime Infrastructure: Opportunities Exist to Improve the Effectiveness of Federal Efforts to Support the Marine
Transportation System, GAO-13-80, November 13, 2012.
55 This section was prepared by Joel L. Greene, Analyst in Agricultural Policy, jgreene@crs.loc.gov, 7-9877, Agata Dabrowska,
Analyst in Health Policy, adabrowska@crs.loc.gov, 7-9455, and Sahar Angadjivand, Analyst in Agricultural Policy,
sangadjivand@crs.loc.gov, 7-1286.
56 Catfish inspection was transferred from FDA to FSIS through provisions in the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246) and the 2014
farm bill (P.L. 114-79). The final rule implementing the transfer was issued December 2015; implemented March 2016.
Congressional Research Service
19
Statutes
FDA primarily conducts its food safety mission under the authority of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act, as amended (FFDCA; 21 U.S.C. §§341 et seq.). The Food Safety Modernization Act
(FSMA; 21 U.S.C. §§2201 et seq.) significantly expanded FDA’s authorities over food safety, excluding
meat and poultry products regulated by USDA. The Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (15 U.S.C. §1454)
vested within FDA the authority to promulgate regulations for certain labeling of food (and other
consumer commodities), and the Public Health Service Act (PHSA; 42 U.S.C. §§201 et seq.) authorizes
FDA to award food safety grants. Other sources of FDA authority include the Federal Import Milk Act
(21 U.S.C. §§141-149), the Federal Anti-Tampering Act (18 U.S.C. §1365), and the Pesticide Monitoring
Improvements Act of 1988 (21 U.S.C. §1401). The FSIS meat, poultry, and egg products inspection
activities are conducted under the authorities of the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA; 21 U.S.C. §§601
et seq.), the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA; 21 U.S.C. §§451 et seq.), and the Egg Products
Inspection Act (EPIA; 21 U.S.C. §§1031 et seq.). FSIS may also conduct voluntary inspection under the
Agriculture Marketing Act (AMA; 7 U.S.C. §§1621 et seq.).
To the extent a reorganization would transfer an agency or entity vested by law in a particular department
to a different department, additional legislation might be needed. These food safety laws specifically
delegate authority to HHS in the case of FFDCA and FSMA, and USDA in the case of the FMIA, PPIA,
EPIA (FDA shares authority under EPIA for shell eggs).
Administrative Actions
GAO has issued numerous reports and made recommendations on reorganizing the U.S. food safety
oversight. Many of the recommendations suggest changes that agencies could make internally that would
improve efficiency and strengthen coordination across agencies, and implementation of some of these
might be possible through administrative action.57
If the Administration’s proposed reorganization were to take place and CFSAN was no longer responsible
for food safety activities, the FDA Commissioner would likely need to rename that office and reorganize
its remaining functions (e.g., dietary supplements and cosmetics). Currently, FSIS applies FDA food
additives requirements and “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) determinations to FSIS regulated
products. Assuming this expertise remains in FDA, the FDA Commissioner and USDA Secretary might
need to revisit certain existing interagency agreements and memoranda of understanding (MOU) to
facilitate the exchange of information related to food safety. Currently, FDA and FSIS have several
MOUs with each other,58 as well as with other federal agencies and foreign food safety authorities.
The Under Secretary of Agriculture for Food Safety59 oversees the USDA food safety activities through
the FSIS administrator. If a future statutory change directs that a new food safety agency be created within
USDA, the Secretary of Agriculture may need to be granted authorities to organize the FDA functions and
the FSIS meat and poultry inspection functions in a single agency.
Uncertainties
The proposal states that the FDA would be renamed the “Federal Drug Administration” and would focus
on drugs, devices, biologics, tobacco, dietary supplements, and cosmetics. However, it is not clear what
57 See GAO reports: Food Safety and Nutrition: FDA Can Build on Existing Efforts to Measure Progress and Implement Key
Activities, GAO-18-174, January 31, 2018; and Food Safety: A National Strategy is Needed to Address Fragmentation in Federal
Oversight, January 13, 2017, GAO-17-74.
58 For example, MOU 225-99-2001 facilitates the exchange of information between FDA and FSIS about establishments and
operations that are subject to the jurisdiction of both agencies.
59 USDA has not had a permanent Under Secretary of Agriculture for Food Safety in place since December 2013.
Congressional Research Service
20
would happen to CFSAN and its other responsibilities. The Administration’s proposal would keep
cosmetics and dietary supplements within FDA’s jurisdiction, but it does not address whether FDA would
continue to have authority over food and nutrition labeling, food additives, infant formula, or medical
foods. Additionally, the proposal does not address CVM’s role in protecting the safety of animal feeds and
whether those responsibilities would be delegated to the proposed Federal Food Safety Agency.
FDA’s and FSIS’s approaches to food safety vary greatly. FDA periodically inspects food facilities, and
issues guidance and good manufacturing practices for the food industry to follow. FSIS inspects meat and
poultry facilities whenever they operate to ensure they are following inspection regulations. The
Administration’s plan raises questions about whether or not there will be an effort to align the FSIS and
FDA food safety systems. For example:
FDA regulates foods on the basis of risk; FSIS uses HAACP. Would food safety
regulations need to be adjusted for these two approaches?
FDA has mandatory recall authority; FSIS does not. Would there need to be a
reconciliation of the approaches?
FDA CFSAN has expertise in food additives and GRAS. Does the current relationship
between FDA and FSIS remain in place?
The import inspection systems are different between the two agencies, with many arguing
that the FSIS equivalency process is more rigorous than the FDA process. Would the
import processes remain the same, or move in one direction or the other?
Observations
Proposals to reorganize the oversight of the U.S. food safety system are not new. This issue has been
debated ever since FDA was removed from USDA in the 1940s. Since then, a number of congressional
and Administration initiatives have debated creating a single federal food safety agency.60 Some Members
of Congress have advocated for reforms to the nation’s food safety system, particularly with respect to
coordination and organization among federal agencies. Efforts to establish a single food safety agency
were active from the 103rd Congress through the 114th Congress.61 The Obama Administration also
proposed to establish a single federal food agency, as part of its FY2016 budget request, which would
have transferred existing food safety functions into a new agency within HHS.62
Establishing a single federal food agency has the support of GAO and the National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM),63 among others within academia,64 as documented in
various studies and reports. However, the idea also has its detractors. While some view consolidation as
60 For a full summary of these previous efforts, see CRS Report 98-400, Food Safety: Recommendations for Changes in the
Organization of Federal Food Safety Responsibilities, 1949-1997 (available upon request from CRS).
61 H.R. 3751/S. 2350 and S. 1349 (103rd Congress); H.R. 2801/S. 1465 (105th Congress); H.R. 2345/S. 1281 (106th Congress);
H.R. 1671/S. 1501 (107th Congress); H.R. 5259/S. 2910 (108th Congress); H.R. 1507/S. 729 (109th Congress); H.R. 1148/S. 654
(110th Congress); H.R. 6552 (111th Congress); and H.R. 609/S. 287 (114th Congress).
62 OMB, Fiscal Year 2016 Budget of the U.S. Government, February 2, 2015, https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-2016BUD/pdf/BUDGET-2016-BUD.pdf.
63 See, for example, National Research Council (NRC) and the Institute of Medicine (IOM), Enhancing Food Safety: The Role of
the Food and Drug Administration, 2010.
64 See, for example, Center for Agriculture and Food Systems at the Vermont Law School and the Harvard Law School Food
Law and Policy Clinic, Blueprint for a National Food Strategy, February 2017.
Congressional Research Service
21
an opportunity for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of food safety regulation, others worry that
it could unnecessarily compromise day-to-day food safety efforts.65
Proposal #5: “Move Select USDA Housing Programs to HUD”66
Brief Proposal Summary
The plan proposes to move the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) rural housing loan guarantee and
rental assistance programs to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).67 HUD
currently also administers housing loan guarantee and rental assistance programs that can be used in rural
areas, but are not limited to use in rural areas. The Administration’s plan contends this proposal would
allow both agencies to focus on their core missions and, over time, further align the federal government’s
role in housing policy and lead to administrative efficiencies.
The plan proposes to move the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) rural housing loan guarantee and
rental assistance programs to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). HUD currently
also administers housing loan guarantee and rental assistance programs that can be used in rural areas, but
are not limited to use in rural areas. The Administration’s plan contends this proposal would allow both
agencies to focus on their core missions and, over time, further align the federal government’s role in
housing policy and lead to administrative efficiencies.
Affected Departments, Agencies, or Programs
HUD. HUD would be tasked with administering the rural housing programs transferred
from USDA.
USDA, Office of Rural Development, Rural Housing Service (RHS). The Rural Housing
Service currently administers a variety of single family and multifamily housing
programs, as well as rural community facilities programs. The language in the proposal
references transferring single family and multifamily loan guarantee and rental assistance
programs to HUD. Programs administered by USDA that fit that description include:
Section 502 Single Family Housing Guaranteed Loan Program;
Section 538 Multifamily Housing Loan Guarantees program; and
Section 521 Multifamily Housing Rental Assistance.
Statutes
Title V of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended (42 U.S.C. Subchapter III-Farm
Housing). The rural housing programs currently administered by USDA are all authorized
under Title V of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended. Title V explicitly authorizes the
Secretary of Agriculture to undertake the programs authorized under the Act. Thus,
references to the Secretary of Agriculture may need to be amended in order to authorize
the Secretary of HUD to undertake the program activities. Specifically:
The Section 502 Single Family Housing Loan Guarantee Program (42 U.S.C.
§1472(h));
65 Danny Vinik, “Who's watching the chickens?” Politico, March 17, 2016, https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/03/
federal-agency-food-safety-regulation-000068.
66 This section was prepared by Maggie McCarty, Specialist in Housing Policy, mmccarty@crs.loc.gov, 7-2163.
67 OMB, Delivering Government Solutions in the 21 st Century: Reform Plan and Reorganization Recommendations, [June 21,
2018], pp. 35-36.
Congressional Research Service
22
The Section 538 Multifamily Housing Loan Guarantees Program (42 U.S.C. §1485);
and
The Section 521 Rural Rental Assistance Program (42 U.S.C. §1490).
Additional relevant statutes may include:
Section 562 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1987 (42 U.S.C.
3608a), related to requiring the Secretary of Agriculture to report on the racial and ethnic
characteristics of participants in rural and community development programs. It may
need to be amended to refer to the HUD Secretary.
Section 632 of the Rural Development, Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 1479 note), related to square foot area exceptions in the Section
502 program. It may need to be amended to allow the HUD Secretary to establish those
exceptions for the portion of the Section 502 program transferred to HUD.
Section 925(b) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C.
1471 note), related to authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture to establish performance
goals for the major housing programs of the Farmers Home Administration. It may need
to be amended to allow the HUD Secretary to set performance goals for the programs
transferred to HUD.
USDA rural housing programs and HUD housing programs are generally under the jurisdiction of the
same authorizing committees;68 the programs’ funding is generally under the jurisdiction of separate
appropriations subcommittees.69
Administrative Actions
It is possible that HUD and USDA could make administrative changes to better align their programs. For
example, the Obama Administration convened a Rental Policy Working Group in 2010 with the aim of
improving the HUD and USDA rental programs both in terms of administrative efficiency as well as
tenant outcomes. The group came up with a set of ten areas in which administrative streamlining could
take place, and some administrative alignment actions were undertaken as a result.70
Uncertainties
Given that the proposal does not explicitly list the programs it intends to transfer, CRS assumed for
purposes of this memorandum that the proposal only intends to transfer programs that could be
categorized as rental assistance and loan guarantee programs, consistent with the language used in the
proposal. It is possible the intent of the proposal is to encompass a broader set of rural housing programs.
For example, USDA also administers certain direct loan programs and grant programs related to housing.
68 The Financial Services Committee in the House and the Banking Committee in the Senate.
69 USDA RHS programs are generally funded in the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and
Related Agencies subcommittee; HUD programs are generally funded in the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development,
and Related Agencies subcommittee of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees.
70 For more information about the initiative, including some of the policy changes resulting from the initiative, see
https://www.huduser.gov/portal/aff_rental/home.html.
Congressional Research Service
23
Observations
The Administration’s plan states that the proposed reorganization could be modeled after the draft FHARural Regulatory Improvement Act of 2011.71 The transfer proposed by Section 13 of that bill was
broader in scope than the Trump Administration proposal appears to be, in that it would have transferred
all rural housing programs (not just loan guarantees and rental assistance) from USDA to HUD. Further, it
included the creation of a Deputy Assistant Secretary for Rural Housing at HUD to administer the
transferred programs.72
The proposal also notes that GAO has issued various reports identifying fragmentation, overlap and
duplication among USDA and HUD housing programs. Those reports have not directly recommended that
USDA programs be transferred to HUD, but they have recommended that federal agencies “evaluate and
report on the specific opportunities for consolidating similar housing programs, including those that
would require statutory changes.”73 According to GAO testimony in 2015, “RHS and other federal
housing agencies have not yet taken other recommended steps to build on interagency efforts—for
example, by evaluating specific opportunities for consolidating similar housing programs, including those
that would require statutory changes.”74
Proposal #6: “Merge the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)”75
Brief Proposal Summary
This proposal would merge the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), also known as NOAA Fisheries, within the Department of Commerce
with the Department of the Interior’s (DOI) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). The proposed merger
would consolidate the administration of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Marine Mammal
Protection Act (MMPA) in one agency and combine the Services’ science and management capacity
among other potential effects.
Affected Departments, Agencies, or Programs
The proposal includes:
National Marine Fisheries Service – located in the Department of Commerce’s National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – located in the Department of the Interior
71 The draft bill, which is available on the website of the House Financial Services Committee
(financialservices.house.gov/UploadedFiles/fha_rural.pdf), was the focus of a two-part committee hearing entitled “Legislative
Proposals to Determine the Future Role of FHA, RHS, and GNMA” on May 25, 2011, and September 8, 2011.
72 Note that while that draft bill has been the only bill to propose a full transfer of USDA rural housing programs to HUD that
CRS identified in research for this memorandum, other legislative housing finance reform proposals have contemplated changes
to the governance and structure of mortgage insurance programs that could affect the structure and governance of USDA rural
housing programs.
73 GAO, Housing Assistance: Opportunities Exist to Increase Collaboration and Consider Consolidation, GAO-12-554, August
2012, https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-554.
74 GAO, Rural Housing Service: Progress on GAO Recommendations and Preliminary Observations on Loan Guarantee Risk
Management, GAO-15-625T, May 19, 2015, https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-625T.
75 This section was prepared by Harold F. Upton, Analyst in Natural Resources Policy, hupton@crs.loc.gov, 7-2264, and R. Eliot
Crafton, Analyst in Natural Resources Policy, rcrafton@crs.loc.gov, 7-7229.
Congressional Research Service
24
The proposal highlights consolidation of activities under the Endangered Species Act (ESA; 16 U.S.C.
§§1531-1543) and Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. §§1361 et seq.), which are
currently split between the two agencies based primarily on habitat. Other NOAA activities that may
require integration into FWS programs could include habitat conservation, law enforcement, scientific
research, international affairs, and aquaculture.
While the proposal highlights potential streamlining for ESA and MMPA implementation, each agency
has other responsibilities that generally do not overlap. For example, NMFS has jurisdictional
responsibility over marine fisheries and the NOAA seafood inspection program, while FWS has
jurisdiction over the National Wildlife Refuge System and enforcement over several other environmental
statutes. While these programs may not be impacted as directly, it is unclear how the merger may affect
these programs.
In FY2017, there were 2,723 full time equivalents (FTEs) in NMFS of which 727 FTEs worked in the
Office of Protected Resources (OPR). OPR accounted for $183.3 million of NMFS’s total discretionary
and mandatory appropriations of $987.7 million. In FY2017, FWS had 8,809 FTEs of which 1,490
worked in the Ecological Services activity, which includes many, though not all, of FWS’s responsibilities
related to protected species. Ecological Services received $240.0 million of FWS’s total $2.935 billion in
discretionary ($1.520 billion) and mandatory ($1.415 billion) appropriations.
Statutes
Statutory changes may be required to relocate NMFS into the FWS and to change responsibilities from
the Secretary of Commerce to the Secretary of the Interior.76 Changes may also be required where specific
responsibilities are delineated in statute. For example, the MMPA identifies specific species that are under
the authority of each of the agencies.
According to MMPA definitions (16 U.S.C. §1362)
12(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the term “Secretary” means 1. (i) the Secretary of the department in which the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration is operating, as to all responsibility, authority, funding, and duties under this
chapter with respect to members of the order Cetacea and members other than walruses, of the
order Pinnipedia, and
2. (ii) the Secretary of the Interior as to all responsibility, authority, finding, and duties under this
chapter with respect to all other marine mammals covered by this chapter.
For ESA listed species, the delineation of responsibilities is not always as explicit, and jurisdiction is
premised on the provisions included within Reorganization Plan Number 4 of 1970, which created NOAA
within the DOC and transferred certain responsibilities from FWS and other departments to NOAA.
NMFS has jurisdiction under ESA for most predominately marine species, including marine fish,
anadromous fish, sea turtles, and invertebrates; FWS has jurisdiction over most freshwater and terrestrial
species.77
NMFS implements a number of statutes based on authorities vested in the Secretary of Commerce. These
include domestic fisheries programs (e.g., the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act, 16
USC §§5101 et. seq.) and implementing legislation for various international agreements (e.g., the Atlantic
Tunas Convention Act of 1975, 89 Stat. 385).
76 For example, the Secretary of Commerce has the authority to approve, disapprove, or partially approve fishery management
plans or amendments that have been developed by fishery management councils under the Magnuson Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. §1854(a)(3)).
77 Anadromous species are born in freshwater, migrate to the ocean to mature, and return to the place of their birth to spawn.
Congressional Research Service
25
Administrative Actions
Administrative changes may be necessary to adjust responsibilities of current NMFS programs when they
are integrated within FWS. However, the nature of these changes is difficult to determine without specific
information such as the administrative structure of the new responsible entity. It is likely that the
administrative structure of FWS may need to be modified to incorporate some NMFS programs while in
other cases existing programs may be transferred but largely continue in their current form. Both agencies
execute a number of grant programs and the transition may need to address ongoing, multi-year awards.
Uncertainties
As mentioned above, the proposal does not provide a detailed analysis that describes how the
organizational framework of FWS might be modified. For example, it is likely that some NMFS programs
may be integrated into FWS programs to differing degrees. The proposal also lacks details regarding the
timing of changes such as short-term and long-term goals. The long-term cost savings, potential benefits,
potential challenges, or the costs of the initial transition period associated with the merger are uncertain
given the level of detail in the current plan.
Observations
As noted by GAO, the missions of these agencies have some broad similarities.78 In addition to the ESA
and MMPA, they implement programs with similar objectives in areas such as international activities,
habitat conservation, scientific research, law enforcement, and aquaculture. However, the integration of
these activities may be challenging because as in the case of ESA and MMPA, programs often differ with
regard to geographic coverage, species and ecology, stakeholders, and other characteristics.
One potential challenge is the current relationship of NMFS and other line offices that would remain in
NOAA. The Office of Marine and Aviation Operations (OMAO) supports ships and aircraft that provide a
variety of services including the collection of fishery independent data. These data are used in developing
NMFS stock assessments, which are essential for conservation and management of marine fisheries.
Other programs in the National Ocean Service and Oceanic and Atmospheric Research line offices also
overlap to varying degrees with NMFS activities including fisheries extension work, aquaculture, coral
reefs, habitat conservation, and ocean and coastal research carried out by NOAA and through NOAA’s
Cooperative Institutes. It is difficult to anticipate what effects shifting NMFS to DOI may lead to with
regard to future needs for transitioning capabilities or for interdepartmental collaboration.
Proposal #7: “Consolidation of Environmental Cleanup Programs”79
Brief Proposal Summary
The proposal would consolidate the environmental “cleanup” (i.e., remediation) of “abandoned mine
sites” under the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) Central Hazardous Materials Program and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) Hazardous Materials Management Program into the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Superfund program. The proposal would apply to site
remediation performed pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
78 GAO, Government Reorganization Potential Benefits and Drawbacks of Merging the National Marine Fisheries Service into
the Fish and Wildlife Service, GAO-13-248, February 2013, https://www.gao.gov/assets/660/652207.pdf.
79 This section was prepared by David M. Bearden, Specialist in Environmental Policy, dbearden@crs.loc.gov, 7-2390.
Congressional Research Service
26
Liability Act (CERCLA).80 The proposal would appear to focus on abandoned hardrock81 mining sites
subject to this statute. The proposal does not include consolidation of the DOI Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement that administers the reclamation of abandoned coal mining sites on federal
and non-federal lands under Title IV of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA).82
Affected Departments, Agencies, or Programs
DOI Central Hazardous Materials Program. The Bureau of Land Management and
National Park Service within DOI administer the remediation of abandoned hardrock
mining sites on lands within their respective jurisdictions.
USDA Hazardous Materials Management Program. The U.S. Forest Service within
USDA administers the remediation of abandoned hardrock mining sites on its lands.
EPA Superfund Program. EPA administers sites on non-federal lands that it has
designated on the National Priorities List (NPL) to evaluate whether remediation may be
warranted, in coordination with the states. EPA oversees the remediation of NPL sites on
DOI and USDA lands, but EPA does not perform the remediation. The states are the lead
in overseeing the remediation of non-NPL sites on DOI, USDA, and other federal lands.
Statutes
CERCLA applies to the release, or the substantial threat of a release, of a hazardous substance into the
environment, and establishes liability for response costs (i.e., cleanup costs) to protect human health and
the environment and for natural resource damages.83 Pursuant to Section 107 of CERCLA, parties subject
to this liability include current and former site owners and operators; persons who arranged for the
disposal, treatment, or transport of hazardous substances released at a site; and persons who transported
hazardous substances to a site for disposal or treatment and selected the site.84
The proposal would transfer federal responsibility under CERCLA to respond to releases of hazardous
substances at abandoned hardrock mining sites on federal lands administered by DOI and USDA from
these departments to EPA. Although the federal response authorities of Section 104(a) of CERCLA85 are
presidential authorities that generally may be delegated, Section 120 of CERCLA assigns responsibility
for performance of the remediation of sites on federal lands to the department or agency with
administrative jurisdiction of the lands.86 Section 120 assigns EPA the responsibility to oversee the
remediation of sites on federal lands performed by the department or agency with administrative
jurisdiction of the lands, but not the performance of the remediation.
Principal provisions of Section 120 of CERCLA, and other related provisions, that establish the statutory
framework for the remediation of sites located on federal lands are outlined briefly below.
80 42 U.S.C. §§9601-9675. For a broader discussion of CERCLA than presented in this memorandum, see CRS Report R41039,
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act: A Summary of Superfund Cleanup Authorities and
Related Provisions of the Act, by David M. Bearden.
81 “Hardrock” minerals is a mining term that generally refers to gold, silver, copper, nickel, other metals, and other minerals
found in igneous or metamorphic rock, in contrast to coal and other minerals found in softer sedimentary deposits.
82 30 U.S.C. §§1231-1244.
83 CERCLA also applies to releases of other pollutants or contaminants that present an imminent and substantial danger to public
health or welfare, but does not establish liability for such releases.
84 42 U.S.C. §9607.
85 42 U.S.C. §9604(a).
86 42 U.S.C. §9620.
Congressional Research Service
27
Section 120(a) applies the requirements of the statute to federal departments and agencies
to the same extent as non-federal entities, including liability under Section 107.87 Under
the framework of this provision, the department or agency with administrative
jurisdiction of a site on federal lands funds and performs the remediation acting as the
site owner to fulfill the liability of the United States government, similar to owners of
sites on non-federal lands that fund and perform the remediation to fulfill their liability.
Under the proposal, EPA would fund and perform the remediation of abandoned hardrock
mining sites on federal lands under the administrative jurisdiction of DOI and USDA,
relieving these departments from acting as the site owners for this purpose.
Section 120(e) requires federal departments and agencies with NPL sites on their lands to
perform the remediation under an interagency agreement with EPA.88 These agreements
are the mechanism through which EPA oversees the remediation to determine whether the
department or agency has satisfied applicable requirements of CERCLA. States may be
parties to these agreements. Under the proposal, DOI and USDA would be relieved of the
responsibility to perform the remediation of abandoned hardrock mining sites on their
lands that are designated on the NPL, giving EPA the dual responsibility of performing
the remediation of these sites and overseeing its own work.
Section 120(a)(4) allows states to apply their own remediation laws to non-NPL sites on
federal lands to compel the department or agency with administrative jurisdiction of the
lands to comply with state requirements. Under the proposal, EPA would be responsible
for performing the remediation of abandoned hardrock mining sites on DOI and USDA
lands, potentially making EPA subject to state requirements in remediating these sites.
Section 111(e)(3) generally prohibits the use of EPA Superfund appropriations to pay for
remedial actions at sites on federal lands.89 Congress has annually appropriated funding
separately for the remediation of sites on federal lands to the department or agency that
has administrative jurisdiction of the lands. The proposal would involve shifting funding
from DOI and USDA to EPA for the remediation of abandoned hardrock mining sites on
DOI and USDA lands. The proposal does not address how funding would be transferred
among statutory appropriations accounts.
Administrative Actions
A series of executive orders have delegated the presidential authorities of CERCLA to departments and
agencies at sites on federal lands to carry out the statutory framework of responsibility in accordance with
Section 120 of CERCLA and various other provisions of the statute. If Congress were to amend CERCLA
to transfer responsibility for the remediation of abandoned hardrock mining sites on DOI and USDA lands
to EPA, revisions to the following executive orders would be necessary to delegate the presidential
response authorities, if consistency with such amendments to CERCLA were desired.
E.O. 12580.90
E.O. 13016.91
E.O. 13308.92
87 42 U.S.C. §9620(a).
88 42 U.S.C. §9620(e).
89 42 U.S.C. §9611(e)(3).
90 E.O. 12580, Superfund Implementation, January 23, 1987.
91 E.O. 13016, Amendment to Executive Order No. 12580, August 28, 1996.
92 E.O. 13308, Further Amendment to Executive Order 12580, as Amended, Superfund Implementation, June 20, 2003.
Congressional Research Service
28
Uncertainties
Various aspects of how the proposed consolidation would be implemented are not specified. For example,
the negotiation of a memorandum of agreement between EPA and each department may be necessary to
govern EPA access to lands outside its administrative jurisdiction to perform site remediation. Existing
interagency agreements for NPL sites also may be subject to revision to implement changes in agency site
responsibility. Existing oversight agreements with states at non-NPL sites also may be subject to revision
to reassign responsibility to EPA. Although the proposal would shift program staff and funding from DOI
and USDA to provide resources for EPA to assume responsibility for site remediation, this shift would be
subject to annual appropriations by Congress. The capacity of EPA to assume this responsibility without
placing competing demands among existing Superfund sites also would depend on the amount of funding.
Observations
The Trump Administration stated that its proposal “would reduce inefficiencies, oversight costs, and
indirect costs by consolidating the environmental assessment and cleanup activities under the agency with
the most significant expertise.” The proposal states that DOI and USDA “inherited” abandoning mining
sites over which these departments had no regulatory control prior to the mid-1970s, before mining
reclamation requirements were in place. However, liability under CERCLA applies not only to site
operators, but also to site owners. Congress added Section 120 to CERCLA in the 1986 amendments to
the statute93 to establish the statutory framework under which departments and agencies would act as the
site owners or operators responsible for performing the remediation of sites on federal lands within their
respective jurisdictions. President Reagan issued E.O. 12580 to delegate the presidential response
authorities of CERCLA in accordance with these amendments. Since the enactment of the 1986
amendments and the issuance of E.O. 12580, EPA’s role on federal lands under the Superfund program
has focused on oversight of the remediation. The proposed consolidation would have the effect of shifting
owner liability of the United States government from DOI and USDA to EPA at abandoned hardrock
mining sites on federal lands.
Proposal #8: “Optimization of Humanitarian Assistance”94
Brief Proposal Summary
This proposal does not prescribe specific actions, but rather a goal to “optimize Department of State
(State) and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) humanitarian assistance to eliminate
duplication of efforts and fragmentation of decision making.” It states that a more specific reorganization
proposal will be submitted by State and USAID as part of their FY2020 budget requests.
Affected Departments, Agencies, or Programs
The bulk of U.S. humanitarian assistance is currently provided by three U.S. government offices:
The Bureau for Population, Refugees and Migration (PRM) at the State Department leads
the U.S. response to refugee crises.
The Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) at USAID coordinates
humanitarian assistance to internally displaced people.
93 P.L. 99-499, Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986.
94 This section was prepared by Marian Lawson, Specialist in Foreign Assistance Policy, mlawson @crs.loc.gov, 7-4475.
Congressional Research Service
29
The Office of Food for Peace (FFP) at USAID provides food aid to both refugees and
internally displaced people.
The Administration’s proposal asserts that the current cross-agency structure results in gaps and
incoherence in humanitarian response, inefficiency and duplication in providing aid, and reduced U.S.
leverage within the international humanitarian system.
Statutes
The bureaus and offices identified above as likely to be impacted by this proposal were not established by
law. Though lack of detail in the proposed reforms makes it difficult to determine what statutory changes
may be necessary for implementation, the Administration has broad authority to reorganize both the State
Department and USAID. The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (FAA; P.L. 87-195) gives the President
authority to carry out foreign assistance programs authorized by the Act (FAA Section 621). The President
has delegated this authority to the Secretary of State in Executive Order 12163, and the Secretary of State
delegated to the USAID Administrator authority for USAID programs in Department of State Delegation
of Authority No. 293, as amended December 20, 2006.
Administrative Actions
The Administration has not provided details on how it may reorganize humanitarian aid entities. In the
past, Administrations have implemented restructuring through administrative actions such as executive
orders, transfers of authority, and/or the reorganization processes described in USAID’S Automated
Directives System (ADS) Chapter 102 or the State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual (1 FAM 014).
To the degree that the more specific humanitarian assistance reforms that the Administration intends to
propose next year are similar to past reorganizations, the Administration might seek to implement such
reforms administratively as well.
Uncertainties
The proposal does not include a plan of action, but states that State and USAID will submit a more
specific reorganization proposal in their FY2020 budget. This leaves significant uncertainty in the near
term about how the Administration may choose to implement such a reorganization.
Observations
The FY2019 congressional budget justification stated the Administration’s intent to consolidate OFDA
and FFP within USAID, and the “Delivering Government Solutions in the 21st century” proposal includes
such a consolidation as part of Proposal #10 (below), suggesting that this will likely be a key aspect of
any reorganization of humanitarian assistance. Neither document says anything about the relationship
between these USAID entities and the PRM Bureau at State.
For both FY2018 and FY2019 the Administration also proposed to eliminate the food aid program
authorized through Title II of the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 (commonly
referred to as “P.L. 480, Title II”) implemented by FFP. The elimination of the food aid program, which
constitutes the majority of FFP’s work, could bolster the justification to eliminate this office and transfer
remaining FFP activities into OFDA. But that proposal was not supported by Congress in FY2018 and is
not supported in pending appropriations legislation for FY2019.
While a reorganization of humanitarian assistance programs may not require statutory changes, it appears
that most such efforts would require congressional consultation. Section 7081 of Division K (StateForeign Operations) of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-141) requires the State
Department, USAID, and other agencies funded through the legislation to consult with the appropriate
Congressional Research Service
30
committees of Congress prior to implementing a reorganization or redesign that would “expand,
eliminate, consolidate, or downsize covered departments, agencies, or organizations, including bureaus
and offices within or between such departments, agencies, or organizations, including the transfer to other
agencies of the authorities and responsibilities of such bureaus and offices.”
Proposal #9: “Development Finance Institution”95
Brief Proposal Summary
The Administration proposes consolidating the U.S. government’s existing development finance tools,
such as those of OPIC and the DCA component of USAID, into a new Development Finance Institution
(DFI). In doing so, it aims to update and streamline these tools to address what the Administration views
as current limitations. The Administration proposes that the new DFI be “reformed and modernized” to
enable more effective cooperation with DFI partners; mitigate risks to U.S. taxpayers; and supplement,
not compete with, the private sector. In addition to the existing tools of OPIC and DCA, the new DFI also
would support development finance-related feasibility studies, project-specific grants, and equity
investments. With the proposed new DFI, the Administration aims to leverage more private sector
investment, offer strong alternatives to state-led models (such as those of China), create more innovative
vehicles to open and expand markets for U.S. firms, and enhance U.S. taxpayer protections.
Affected Departments, Agencies, or Programs
This proposal would be targeted towards the U.S. government’s development finance tools. It does not
include an exhaustive list of affected departments, agencies, or programs, but provides two examples:
Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC): Often characterized as the official U.S.
development finance institution, OPIC seeks to promote economic growth in developing
economies by providing, on a demand-driven basis, project and other investment
financing for overseas investments and insuring against the political risks of investing
abroad, such as currency inconvertibility, expropriation, and political violence. OPIC
provides loans, guarantees, and political risk insurance for qualifying investments by the
U.S. private sector. The proposal appears to incorporate OPIC’s functions wholesale into
the new DFI.
Development Credit Authority (DCA): DCA is a component of USAID, which is the
leading international humanitarian and development arm of the U.S. government. DCA
supports bank lending for specific development purposes by employing the promise of
U.S. government repayment typically of up to half of each loan in case of default. By
lessening the liability to the lending bank, these partial loan guarantees aim to encourage
banks to make loans for purposes and clients that they may have previously avoided as
commercially unviable or too risky. Given USAID’s breadth of development work, it is
possible that other parts of USAID may be brought into the proposed new DFI.
Inasmuch as the proposed DFI includes, but is not necessarily limited to, OPIC and DCA, other
governmental entities might be folded into the new organization and, consequently, other departments or
agencies might be affected by the implementation of this proposal.
The proposal may affect other agencies through interagency coordination. It calls for the new DFI to have
“strong institutional linkages” to the Department of State and USAID to ensure that the DFI prioritizes
95 This section was prepared by Shayerah Ilias Akhtar, Specialist in International Trade and Finance, siliasakhtar@crs.loc.gov, 7-
9253.
Congressional Research Service
31
projects that are critical to national security and development goals. Development goals are a core part of
the calculus for OPIC and DCA, and viewed as a way to advance U.S. foreign policy and national
security.
Statutes
The statutes discussed below generally are cited as those authorizing the organizations and programs that
appear to be involved in this proposal. In some cases the statutes vest in the President the authority to
carry out certain functions. To the degree that some provisions might vest the authority to carry out
certain functions in other specific officials or organizations and such functions are proposed to be
transferred elsewhere, such statutes might need to be amended to implement the Administration’s
development finance consolidation proposal.
OPIC authorities: OPIC is enabled under the Foreign Assistance Act (FAA) of 1961, as
amended (P.L. 87-195; 22 U.S.C. §§2191 et seq.). It vests some powers in OPIC as a
whole and some others in its leadership, as well as prescribes certain limitations on that
power.
DCA authorities: The appropriators cite FAA Section 635 (22 U.S.C. §2395) and Section
256 (22 U.S.C. §2212), dealing with microenterprise development credit, as the authority
for DCA. In terms of USAID overall, the FY1999 appropriations act (P.L. 105-277,
Section 1413) established USAID as an independent agency in 1998. Originally, USAID
was established by the Secretary of State under State Department Delegation of Authority
no. 104 as a consequence of Executive Order 10973, both issued on November 3, 1961,
and both pursuant to the FAA of 1961. USAID was delegated responsibility for
implementing multiple sections of the FAA, including broad authority to administer
development assistance programs.
To the degree that additional agencies or agency components not specified in the reform
plan might be affected by the implementation of this proposal, additional related statutes
might need to be amended, repealed, or otherwise modified.
Administrative Actions
The consolidation of the U.S. government’s development finance functions into a new DFI, particularly if
including OPIC, likely could not be created through administrative action alone. However, some aspects
of the proposal might be accomplished through administrative actions.
DCA: The President has wide latitude with regard to the implementing structure for
foreign assistance. Section 635 of the FAA of 1961 (22 U.S.C. §2395), one of the
authorities for DCA noted above, allows the President to make loans, advances, and
grants within the parameters of the legislation. It is possible that some changes to the
DCA’s organizational structure could be implemented through administrative action. This
contrasts with USAID’s microenterprise development functions, as there is a statutory
requirement for an office of microenterprise development within USAID (22 U.S.C.
§2211a(b)). Consolidation of this office into the new DFI (a change proposed in current
bills on development finance consolidation, see below), likely could not be accomplished
through administrative action alone.
DFI features: Many of the features of the proposed DFI are similar to OPIC. For instance,
the Administration envisions the new DFI as abiding by key principles of mitigating
taxpayer risk and not displacing private sector resources. OPIC, by statute, already has
risk mitigation requirements, and, by policy, aims for its activities to complement, rather
Congressional Research Service
32
than compete with, the private sector. Other features, such as the ability to conduct
feasibility studies, are similar to U.S. Trade and Development Agency (TDA) functions.
Uncertainties
The Administration appears to view the Better Utilization of Investments Leading to Development
(BUILD) Act of 2018 (H.R. 5105/S.2463), which was introduced on a bicameral and bipartisan basis in
February 2018, as the primary vehicle for implementing its development finance consolidation proposal.
The bills are nearly identical in many respects, but have some substantive differences that would need to
be reconciled, chief among them being that H.R. 5105 would authorize the new DFI for seven years,
while S. 2463 would authorize it until September 30, 2038. If Congress approves the BUILD Act, then an
open question is whether the potential final version of the bill remains aligned with the President’s goals
(see below), as well as whether it sufficiently addresses the concerns he has raised about the bills’ current
treatment of interagency coordination and risk management.
Observations
The BUILD Act would create a new U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (IDFC). Like
the Administration’s proposal, the legislation would consolidate OPIC’s functions and the DCA. In
addition, it would consolidate USAID’s enterprise funds and development finance technical support
functions into the new DFI. The Administration’s reorganization plan expressed “strong support” for the
BUILD Act, characterized it as “broadly consistent” with its proposal, and said it was working with
Congress to make adjustments to the legislation through the legislative process.
The President’s FY2019 budget proposed consolidating OPIC and other agency development finance
functions, specifically noting DCA, into a new U.S. development finance agency to advance a number of
U.S. policy objectives. In the budget, the President expressed overall support for the BUILD Act, but
called for some modifications to enhance the proposed DFI’s alignment with national interests and
institutional linkages, as well as to address risk management and other concerns. The budget requests $56
million in Economic Support and Development Fund (ESDF) money for development finance-related
programming and authorizes “additional transfers” of funds from USAID.96 OPIC leadership points to the
ESDF as a possible way to fund grants by the new DFI.97 This stands in contrast to the President’s
FY2018 budget, which requested $60.8 million to manage OPIC’s existing portfolio and start “orderly
wind-down activities” of OPIC. Congress instead has continued to provide annual appropriations for
OPIC, as well as a renewal of authority in appropriations legislation.
Development finance reorganization has been a longstanding theme in the development community,
increasingly viewed as a way to enhance OPIC’s impact and to make it more competitive with DFIs of
other countries. The Administration notes that its proposal is similar to proposals in recent years by a
range of think tanks, such as the Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network (MFAN) and Center for
Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Other groups, not cited in the proposal, such as Center for
Global Development (CGD), have also advocated for development finance reorganization.
96 ESDF is a proposed account that would encompass the presently existing Economic Support Fund, Development Assistance,
Democracy Fund, and Assistance for Europe and Eurasia accounts.
97 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Financing Overseas Development: The Administration's Proposal,
Testimony of Ray W. Washburne, President & CEO, OPIC, 115th Cong., 1st sess., April 11, 2018.
Congressional Research Service
33
Proposal #10: “Structural Transformation of Central Washington-Based
Bureaus at the U.S. Agency for International Development”98
Brief Proposal Summary
This proposal calls for “an extensive, agency-driven structural reorganization of headquarters Bureaus
and Independent Offices at USAID” as a means of promoting partner country self-reliance, U.S. national
security, and effective and efficient use of U.S. foreign assistance.
Affected Departments, Agencies, or Programs
The proposal calls for the following changes to USAID’s current organizational structure:
A new position of Associate Administrator for Relief, Response and Resilience to manage
humanitarian assistance, food security and resilience activities, and conflict and crisis
prevention and response.
A new Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance to consolidate FFP and OFDA. The Bureau
would report to the new Associate Administrator for Relief, Response and Resilience.
A new Bureau for Resilience and Food Security that would combine the existing Bureau
for Food Security, the Office of Water, and the Climate Adaptation team to support four
“centers” providing expertise to missions on agriculture, resilience, water and nutrition.
This Bureau would also report to the new Associate Administrator for Relief, Response
and Resilience.
A new Bureau for Conflict Prevention and Stabilization to house the current Offices of
Transition Initiatives, Civilian-Military Cooperation, Conflict Management and
Mitigation Program, and Program and Policy Management, as well as staff focused on
Countering Violent Extremism. The Bureau would report to the new Associate
Administrator for Relief, Response and Resilience.
A new Bureau for Development, Democracy and Innovation, which would incorporate
the current Bureau for Economic Growth, Education and the Environment (E3), the
Center for Democracy, Human Rights and Governance, the Global Development Lab,
and the regional bureaus, among other components.
A new position of Associate Administrator for Strategy and Operations to be accountable
for all day-to-day management functions, reducing the number of people reporting to the
Administrator and Deputy Administrator.
A new Bureau for Policy, Resources and Performance to consolidate staff from the
current budget and management offices. The Bureau would report to the Associate
Administrator for Strategy and Operations.
A merger of the current Bureau for Human Capital and Talent Management and the
Office of Security into the Bureau for Management to simplify the operational structure.
The Bureau would report to the Associate Administrator for Strategy and Operations.
Reintegration of the Office of Afghanistan and Pakistan Affairs into the Bureau for Asia.
98 This section was prepared by Marian Lawson, Specialist in Foreign Assistance Policy, mlawson @crs.loc.gov, 7-4475.
Congressional Research Service
34
Statutes
In the past, most USAID reorganizations have been implemented administratively. To the degree that the
proposed reorganization is of a similar nature, the Administration might seek to implement this proposal
administratively as well. The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended (FAA; P.L. 87-195), authorizes
most foreign assistance programs and gives the President discretion to implement these programs through
the agency or office of his choice (FAA Section 621). The FAA does specify that the President may
appoint 12 officers with primary responsibility for implementing part 1 of the FAA (which encompasses
most USAID activities), but the proposed changes would not appear to conflict with that provision (FAA
Section 624).
Administrative Actions
To date, it appears that the Administration has not implemented any of these proposed structural changes
within USAID.
Uncertainties
While the restructuring plan is detailed with respect to the organization of bureaus, uncertainty remains
about the impact on certain smaller components. For example, the proposal notes that the “technical
expertise” of the Global Development Lab would be brought under the new Bureau for Development,
Democracy and Innovation, but also states that the proposed Bureau for Policy, Resources and
Performance will consolidate staff from a number of current offices, including the Global Development
Lab.
Observations
Although the proposed restructuring does not appear to require congressional action, it appears that most
such efforts would require congressional consultation. Section 7081 of Division K (State-Foreign
Operations) of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-141) requires the State Department,
USAID, and other agencies funded through the legislation to consult with the appropriate committees of
Congress prior to implementing a reorganization or redesign that would “expand, eliminate, consolidate,
or downsize covered departments, agencies, or organizations, including bureaus and offices within or
between such departments, agencies, or organizations, including the transfer to other agencies of the
authorities and responsibilities of such bureaus and offices.”
Proposal #11: “Reorganizing the U.S. Office of Personnel Management”99
Brief Proposal Summary
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is an “independent establishment100 in the executive
branch” with a director who is “appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the
99 This section was prepared by Barbara L. Schwemle, Analyst in American National Government, bschwemle@crs.loc.gov, 7-
8655 (coordinator and Employee Services proposal); Katelin P. Isaacs, Specialist in Income Security, kisaacs@crs.loc.gov, 77355 (Retirement Services proposal); and Kathryn A. Francis, Analyst in Government Organization and Management,
kfrancis@crs.loc.gov, 7-2351 (Human Resources Solutions proposal).
100 5 U.S.C. §104 provides that, for the purpose of Title 5 of the U.S. Code, “independent establishment” means “an
establishment in the executive branch (other than the United States Postal Service or the Postal Regulatory Commission) which is
not an Executive department, military department, Government corporation, or part thereof, or part of an independent
establishment.”
Congressional Research Service
35
Senate.”101 It is not a Cabinet agency. As a central personnel agency, OPM carries out numerous functions
related to human resources (HR) management for much of the executive branch. The Trump
Administration’s plan proposes to realign these OPM functions: Employee Services (ES), which performs
HR policy functions, would be placed under the Executive Office of the President (EOP); the Retirement
Services (RS) program office would be moved over to the renamed “Government Services
Administration” (GSA, formerly the “General Services Administration”); and Human Resources
Solutions (HRS), which provides HR products and services to agencies on a reimbursable basis through
individual program offices and user-centric IT systems that automate agency core HR functions, also
would be transferred to the renamed GSA.102 In suggesting the possible realignment of ES, the proposal
seeks to “centralize policy decisions”103 and “drive strategic management of the workforce” characterized
by and “committed to: A holistic view of the Federal workforce; Assessment of innovations and
contextual changes that drive the future of work; Data-driven policy development; Data analytics and
strategic workforce management; Agency policy advice and change management assistance; and
Identification and advancement of leading practice throughout the Federal Government.”104 In general,
the RS and HRS proposals: “would yield an organization with a focus on providing Government-wide
services and solutions associated with the full Federal employee lifecycle.”105
Affected Departments, Agencies, or Programs
OPM/ES: Includes Recruitment and Hiring, Pay and Leave, Senior Executive Service
(SES) and Performance Management, Partnership and Labor Relations, Veterans
Services, Chief Learning Officer, OPM Human Resources, Strategic Workforce Planning,
and Talent Management.
OPM/RS: This proposal would affect the two programs administered by RS: the Civil
Service Retirement System (CSRS) and the Federal Employees’ Retirement System
(FERS). Currently, CSRS and FERS benefits are mandatory entitlements authorized in
statute: Chapter 83 (CSRS) and Chapter 84 (FERS) of Title 5 of the U.S. Code. This
office determines eligibility and administers benefits for almost 2.6 million federal
retirees and their survivors under CSRS and FERS; these pension systems cover the
majority of the civilian federal workforce.106 Both CSRS and FERS include retirement,
disability, and survivor components. CSRS and FERS benefits are financed through a
dedicated federal trust fund, the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund
(CSRDF).107
101 5 U.S.C. §1101 and 5 U.S.C. §1102.
102 The plan also proposes to transfer Healthcare and Insurance to the renamed GSA. This issue is outside the purview of this
memorandum.
103 OMB, Delivering Government Solutions in the 21 st Century: Reform Plan and Reorganization Recommendations, [June 21,
2018], https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Government-Reform-and-Reorg-Plan.pdf, p. 53.
104 Ibid, p. 52.
105 Ibid, p. 53.
106 For additional information on RS, see Office of Personnel Management, Congressional Budget Justification and Annual
Performance Plan, Fiscal Year 2019, February 2018, https://www.opm.gov/about-us/budget-performance/budgets/congressionalbudget-justification-fy2019.pdf, p. 32. (Hereinafter referred to as OPM Congressional Budget Justification.)
107 In general, CSRS covers most civilian federal employees first hired before 1984; FERS covers most civilian federal
employees first hired in 1984 or later. For additional information on CSRS and FERS, see CRS Report 98-810, Federal
Employees’ Retirement System: Benefits and Financing. For additional information on the CSRDF, see CRS Report RL30023,
Federal Employees’ Retirement System: Budget and Trust Fund Issues.
Congressional Research Service
36
OPM/HRS: Realignment of HRS to GSA could include the transfer of (1) five separate
program areas that encompass multiple institutions and programs, and (2) six separate IT
systems.108
Statutes
OPM’s statutory authority is codified in Chapter 11 of Title 5 of the U.S. Code and
establishes OPM as an “independent establishment in the executive branch” (5 U.S.C.
§1101); provides for a Director, Deputy Director, and Associate Directors (5 U.S.C.
§1102); vests the Director with specific functions and responsibilities (5 U.S.C. §1103);
and provides for delegation of authority for personnel management (5 U.S.C. §1104). To
the degree that implementation of the proposal entails the transfer of functions currently
vested by statute in OPM or its Director to another agency, OPM’s organic act might
need to be amended.
Other statutes reference OPM and its director. For example, 5 U.S.C. §8461 specifically
sets out the “Authority of the Office of Personnel Management.” Therefore, it seems
likely that the retirement proposal would require statutory amendments throughout
Chapters 83 and 84 of Title 5 in order to remove/edit references to OPM and the OPM
Director (and potentially replace them with references to the new GSA).
Administrative Actions
Under OPM’s current statutory authority, the director generally has administrative discretion to organize
the agency to carry out its functions. For example, in October 2017, the agency established new and
restructured existing internal units. Changes included creating the new Office of Strategy and Innovation,
establishing a new Employee Services/Outreach, Diversity, and Inclusion center, establishing the
agency’s internal Human Resources office as a stand-alone staff office, and realigning the USAJOBS
program office from the Office of the Chief Information Officer to HRS and the Office of Actuaries to
Healthcare and Insurance.109
Uncertainties
The proposal stated that the placement of other OPM offices and functions would be determined later.
These other offices and functions may include some 16 remaining agency functions (including Merit
System Accountability and Compliance) that are included on OPM’s current organizational chart.110 In the
absence of further details on this reorganization proposal, it is unclear whether there would be any
additional changes to the composition and staffing levels of the current ES, RS, and HRS workforces.
108 The program areas are Federal Staffing Group, HR Strategy and Evaluation Solutions, Center for Leadership Development,
Training and Management Assistance Program, and Administrative Law Judges Program. The IT systems are USA Staffing,
USA Hire, USA Performance, USA Survey, USALearning, and USAJOBS. OPM, “Human Resources Solutions, Program
Divisions,” at https://www.opm.gov/about-us/our-people-organization/program-divisions/human-resources-solutions/; OPM,
“Technology Systems,” at https://www.opm.gov/services-for-agencies/technology-systems/.
109 OPM Congressional Budget Justification, p. 27.
110 These functions may include: Office of the Director; Office of Communications; Merit System Accountability and
Compliance; General Counsel; Office of Strategy and Innovation; Facilities, Security, and Emergency Management; Chief
Information Officer; Chief Financial Officer; Congressional, Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs; Equal Employment
Opportunity; Human Resources; Office of Procurement Operations; Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization;
Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee; Suitability Executive Agent; and Office of Inspector General. See
https://www.opm.gov/about-us/our-people-organization/organizational-chart/. Proposal #31 in the Trump Administration Reform
Plan would transfer the National Background Investigations Bureau from OPM to the Department of Defense.
Congressional Research Service
37
The proposal does not discuss the magnitude or integration of the possible realignment of HRS functions
to GSA. Regarding magnitude, realignment could involve transferring all, or only some, of HRS program
areas and IT systems (and related functions, staff, and funding) to GSA. Regarding integration, HRS
program areas could be maintained as separate units within GSA, merged into a single GSA unit, or
divided among multiple GSA units. Further, the proposal does not discuss potential impacts of the
proposed realignment on HRS’s funding structure. HRS is primarily financed through OPM’s revolving
fund, which can only be used for specific types of activities.111 Consequently, the following remains
unclear: (1) whether GSA possesses the statutory authority to use its existing revolving funds to finance
HRS functions, and any statutory changes required to provide that authority; (2) how, and what portion of,
OPM’s revolving fund might be transferred to GSA to finance HRS functions; and (3) additional
appropriations, if any, needed to finance HRS staffing and activities upon transfer to GSA.
Observations
It does not appear that this reorganization proposal would make any changes to CSRS or FERS programs
or benefits themselves. Rather, there would be a shift in the federal entity that administers these benefits
from OPM to the newly reconstituted GSA. It is unclear whether there would be additional impacts,
including unintended ones (i.e., beyond the intended administrative shift), on CSRS and FERS. Although
OPM has administered FERS since its creation in 1986 under the Federal Employees’ Retirement System
Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-335), the initial creation of CSRS under the Civil Service Retirement Act of 1920
(P.L. 66-215) predated the existence of OPM. Prior to the creation of OPM under the Civil Service
Reform Act (CSRA) of 1978 (P.L. 95-454), the Civil Service Commission administered the CSRS
program.
OPM’s budget request for FY2019 did not include the proposals that are suggested in the
Administration’s plan. The agency’s funding is provided in the annual Financial Services and General
Government (FSGG) Appropriations Act. Congress could include any directives for the agency in the
FSGG bill.
Protection of the merit system has been a bedrock principle underlying the Civil Service and OPM’s
administration of HRM functions since the agency’s creation.112 The potential impact of the
Administration’s plan on the capacity of OPM to protect the merit system has been mentioned. For
example, a former OPM Director expressed the views that “a central personnel agency” creates a
“firewall between the agency and the political personnel at the White House as it relates to personnel
practices, particularly hiring and other actions, to be sure the oversight for compliance for merit systems
111 5 U.S.C. §1304(e)(1). The law authorizes use of the revolving fund for, among other things, functions performed “on a
reimbursable basis, including personnel management services performed at the request of individual agencies (which would
otherwise be the responsibility of such agencies).” More detailed information on HRS funding’s structure is available at OPM
Congressional Budget Justification, pp. 15, 117, and 129.
112
Section 3 of P.L. 95-454, Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, enacted on October 13, 1978, provides, in part: “(1) in order to
provide the people of the United States with a competent, honest, and productive Federal work force reflective of the Nation’s
diversity, and to improve the quality of public service, Federal personnel management should be implemented consistent with
merit system principles and free from prohibited personnel practices.” (92 Stat. 1112) The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board
(MSPB) and the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA), among others, have reiterated that protection of the merit
system must continue to underlie federal workforce management. MSPB, “The Merit System Principles Keys to Managing the
Federal Workforce,” January 2017,
https://www.mspb.gov/mspbsearch/viewdocs.aspx?docnumber=1371890&version=1377261&application=ACROBAT; and
NAPA, “No Time to Wait: Building a Public Service for the 21 st Century,” July 1, 2017,
https://www.napawash.org/studies/academy-studies/no-time-to-wait-building-a-public-service-for-the-21st-century.
Congressional Research Service
38
principles is handled independently” and that the plan “at a minimum creates a perception that [the]
firewall is gone.”113
The final staff report of the 1977 President’s Reorganization Project stated that: “Serious consideration
was given to recommending that the new central personnel agency be placed in the Executive Office of
the President, particularly in view of the close cooperation needed between the central personnel agency
and the Office of Management and Budget. This was rejected, however, in accordance with the desire of
the President to keep the Executive Office of the President as small as possible.” The staff report
recommended an “independent administrative agency” with a director appointed by the President with
Senate confirmation, and “Cabinet rank status.”114
Proposal #12: “Consolidation of Veterans Cemeteries”115
Brief Proposal Summary
Under this proposal, 11 specific cemeteries currently administered by the Department of the Army would
be transferred to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), National Cemetery Administration (NCA) for
inclusion in the national cemetery system. Of these 11 Army cemeteries, 10 are located at inactive Army
facilities, and 1 is located at Fort Devens, which has been repurposed from an active facility to an Army
Reserve Forces Training Area. These 11 transferred cemeteries would add to the 135 national cemeteries
currently administered by the NCA. Other cemeteries administered by the Army and the other military
departments, as well as the two national cemeteries administered by the Army—Arlington National
Cemetery and Soldiers’ and Airmen’s Home National Cemetery—would not be affected by the proposal.
Affected Departments, Agencies, or Programs
Department of Defense (DOD), Department of the Army: would have 11 of its cemeteries
transferred from its administration.
VA, NCA: would receive 11 cemeteries transferred to its administration from the Army.
Department of the Interior (DOI): may have existing authority to transfer land for the 11
cemeteries from the Army to the NCA.
Statutes
The extent to which statutory changes may be needed is unclear; all potentially relevant statutory
authorities have not been fully examined.116 The National Cemeteries Act of 1973 established the NCA
and the current NCA national cemetery system.117 Section 6 of the act transferred to the NCA all national
113 Linda M. Springer quoted in Eric Katz and Erich Wagner, “Proposed OPM Reorganization Draws Widespread Criticism,”
Government Executive, June 22, 2018, https://www.govexec.com/management/2018/06/proposed-opm-reorganization-drawswide-criticism/149225/. Springer was OPM Director during the second term of the presidency of George W. Bush.
114 The President’s Reorganization Project, Personnel Management Project, Volume 1, Final Staff Report, December 1977, pp.
233-234, and Volume 2, Appendices to the Final Staff Report, Appendix VIII, p. 4. Title II, Sec. 201 (a) of P.L. 95-454 provided
for an “independent establishment in the executive branch” and a director “appointed by the President, by and with the advice
and consent of the Senate.” (92 Stat. 1119) The law did not place the position of director in the Cabinet.
115 This section was prepared by Scott Szymendera, Analyst in Disability Policy, sszymendera@crs.loc.gov, 7-0014, and Carol
Hardy Vincent, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy, chvincent@crs.loc.gov, 7-8651.
116 For example, CRS has not examined laws that specifically apply to the transfer or disposal of land owned or administered by
the Department of Defense or military departments.
117 P.L. 93-43; 38 U.S.C. §§2400-2414.
Congressional Research Service
39
cemeteries administered at that time by the Army, with the exception of Arlington National Cemetery and
Soldiers’ and Airmens’ Home National Cemetery. Section 6 also transferred any other cemeteries
administered by the Army, Navy, or Air Force, “which the President determines would be appropriate in
carrying out the purposes of this Act,” except for the cemeteries at the service academies and the United
States Naval Home Cemetery in Philadelphia. The act authorizes the NCA to accept lands for additional
national cemeteries by purchase, gift, exchange, or transfer from other federal agencies118 and gives the
NCA the authority over “any other cemetery, memorial, or monument transferred to the Veterans’
Administration by the National Cemeteries Act of 1973, or later acquired or developed by the
Secretary.”119
The act provides that all cemeteries administered by the NCA “shall be considered national shrines as a
tribute to our gallant dead.”120 As this requirement to maintain cemeteries as “national shrines” does not
apply to cemeteries administered by the military departments, the transfer of 11 cemeteries from the Army
to the NCA may require the NCA to make capital or aesthetic improvements to these cemeteries to bring
them up to the level of national shrines.
Administrative Actions
The Secretary of the Interior may transfer jurisdiction over federal land from one agency to another in
certain circumstances under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA).121 The extent to
which the Secretary’s authority in FLPMA could be used for the 11 cemetery parcels at issue or other
administrative authorities might be applicable to these parcels has not been fully analyzed.
Provisions of FLPMA provide authority to the Secretary of the Interior to withdraw federal lands in order
to set aside, withhold, or reserve these lands for specific public purposes.122 The Secretary also can
withdraw lands for the purpose of “transferring jurisdiction over an area of Federal land . . . from one
department, bureau or agency to another department, bureau or agency.”123 In the case of lands
administered by departments or agencies other than DOI, the Secretary of the Interior can make
withdrawals only with the consent of the head of the department or agency concerned.124
Withdrawals under FLPMA are subject to various procedural requirements set out in the law and related
regulations.125 For instance, when the Secretary proposes a withdrawal, or an application is made by
another agency or department head, the Secretary must publish a notice in the Federal Register and
segregate the lands from the operation of the public land laws to the extent specified in the notice. This
segregation lasts up to two years while the Secretary decides whether to make the withdrawal, a process
that typically includes public comment.126 Additionally, withdrawals are generally limited by certain
temporal constraints regarding their maximum length of time, with factors including the size of the
parcels and their intended use. Further, withdrawals exceeding 5,000 acres are subject to congressional
approval procedures.127
118 38 U.S.C. §2406.
119 38 U.S.C. §2400(b)(3). The Veterans’ Administration became the Department of Veterans Affairs in 1989.
120 38 U.S.C. §2403(c).
121 43 U.S.C. §§1701 et seq.
122 43 U.S.C. §1714.
123 43 U.S.C. §1702(j).
124 43 U.S.C. §1714(i). This provision does not apply to emergency withdrawals.
125 The regulations are contained in 43 CFR Subpart 2300 and Subpart 2310.
126 These provisions do not apply to emergency withdrawals under 43 U.S.C. §1714(e).
127 43 U.S.C. §1714(d) pertains to withdrawals of less than 5,000 acres. 43 U.S.C. §1714(c) applies to withdrawals of 5,000 acres
Congressional Research Service
40
Since the enactment of the National Cemeteries Act of 1973, the NCA has once received a transfer of a
cemetery from a military department. This involved the transfer of the cemetery at Fort Richardson in
Alaska from the Army in 1984. This transfer was made by DOI (through the Bureau of Land
Management) by a Public Land Order pursuant to FLPMA.128 While administrative action under FLPMA
was used in the 1984 cemetery transfer, CRS has not fully analyzed the extent to which the Secretary’s
authority in FLPMA to transfer administrative jurisdiction over federal land is specifically applicable to
the 11 cemetery parcels in this proposal. Such analysis would require an examination of the size, location,
and current management of the parcels and other authorities (e.g., laws and executive orders if any)
governing the lands, among other variables. Further, CRS has not fully explored the extent to which other
administrative authorities if any are applicable to the specific lands in question.
Uncertainties
This proposal is specific and limited to the 11 named cemeteries. Thus, there are no additional
uncertainties to discuss in this memorandum.
Observations
This proposal was not included in the President’s FY2018 or FY2019 budget submissions.
Proposal #13: “Reorganizing Economic Statistical Agencies”129
Brief Proposal Summary
The proposal calls for the reorganization of the U.S. Census Bureau (Census), the Bureau of Economic
Analysis (BEA), and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), under the Department of Commerce’s Under
Secretary for Economic Affairs. Census and BEA are currently housed under the Under Secretary for
Economic Affairs, while BLS is currently housed within the Department of Labor. The proposal suggests
that reorganizing these three agencies under the Department of Commerce would achieve increases in
operational efficiencies; reductions in respondent burden; enhancements in privacy protections; and
improvements in data quality and availability.
Affected Departments, Agencies, or Programs
Department of Commerce: Census130 and BEA131
or more. The procedure in 43 U.S.C. §1714(c) for Congress to terminate a withdrawal by concurrent resolution is legally
questionable under Immigration & Naturalization Serv. v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983).
128 Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, "Alaska; Modification of Executive Order No. 8102, as Amended;
Transfer of Administrative Jurisdiction from the Department of the Army to the Veterans Administration," 49 Federal Register
20815, May 17, 1984. The public land order also specified that the transfer of administrative jurisdiction was done in accordance
with certain Alaska specific authorities.
129 This section was prepared by Jeffrey Stupak, Analyst in Macroeconomics, jstupak@crs.loc.gov, 7-2344; Jennifer D. Williams,
Specialist in American National Government, jwilliams@crs.loc.gov, 7-8640; and Benjamin Collins, Analyst in Labor Policy,
bcollins@crs.loc.gov, 7-7382.
130 Census is one of the federal government’s principal statistical agencies. It produces numerous statistical products including:
the decennial population census for apportioning U.S. House of Representatives seats and generating data used to redraw withinstate legislative boundaries; the quinquennial economic census and census of governments; numerous recurring surveys, some for
other federal agencies on a reimbursable basis; and population estimates and projections. Census data are used by the
government, businesses, nonprofits, and researchers, and in numerous government formulas to allocate funding.
131 BEA is one of the federal government’s principal statistical agencies, and produces macroeconomic and industry statistics,
Congressional Research Service
41
Department of Labor: BLS132
Statutes
Depending on the overall breadth of a final, more specific proposal, the required statutory changes could
vary considerably. If the Administration wants only to transfer BLS to the Under Secretary for Economic
Affairs, to join Census and BEA, the statutory changes could be more limited. Alternatively, if the
administration wants to more fundamentally reorganize Census, BEA, and BLS, into a new singular
agency under the Under Secretary for Economic Affairs, for example, the required statutory changes
could be more extensive.
13 U.S.C. §§1-402: This portion of the U.S. Code establishes Census as part of the
Department of Commerce and specifies its mission and major functions. The proposed
reorganization would keep Census in the Department of Commerce, so no additional
statutory changes might be required for Census. However, any reorganization that could
affect the way Census meets its statutory responsibilities could possibly require statutory
changes to the corresponding portions of 13 U.S.C. §§1-402.133
15 U.S.C. §§172-196: This portion of the U.S. Code establishes BEA as part of the
Department of Commerce and specifies its major functions. The proposed reorganization
would keep BEA in the Commerce Department, so no additional statutory changes might
be required for BEA. However, any reorganization that could affect the way BEA meets
its statutory responsibilities could possibly require statutory changes to the corresponding
portions of 15 U.S.C. §§172-196.
29 U.S.C. §§1-9b: This portion of the U.S. Code establishes BLS as part of the
Department of Labor and lays out its major functions, including the responsibility to
“acquire and diffuse among the people of the United States useful information on subjects
connected with labor” as well as “collect, collate, report, and publish at least once each
month full and complete statistics of the volume of and changes in employment.” With
certain limited exceptions, Reorganization Plan No. 6 of 1950 “transferred to the
Secretary of Labor all functions of all other officers of the Department of Labor and all
functions of all agencies and employees of such Department.”134 In order to reorganize
BLS as part of the Department of Commerce, it appears that certain BLS-related
functions might need to be statutorily transferred from the Department of Labor to the
Department of Commerce.
including Gross Domestic Product. Numerous parties rely on data produced by BEA, including federal agencies, Congress,
private industry, and researchers.
132 BLS is one of the federal government’s principal statistical agencies, and produces labor economics research and statistics,
including employment, compensation, and inflation data. Numerous parties rely on data produced by BLS, and its data are
incorporated into formulas to determine federal funding for numerous federal programs.
133 For example, Title 13, Section 131, provides for the quinquennial economic census; Section 141, for the decennial census of
population; Section 161, for the quinquennial census of governments; and Section 181, for Census to produce population
estimates in the years between decennial censuses.
134 5 U.S.C. Appx., Reorganization Plan No. 6 of 1950. Between 1932 and 1981, Congress periodically delegated authority to the
President that allowed him to develop plans for reorganization of portions of the federal government and to present those plans to
Congress under special expedited procedures. Presidents used this presidential reorganization authority regularly, submitting
more than 100 plans between 1932 and 1984.
Congressional Research Service
42
Administrative Actions
The Secretary of Commerce has statutorily specified authority to reorganize and consolidate the statistical
offices and bureaus within the Department of Commerce, which it appears currently would extend to both
Census and BEA.
15 U.S.C. §1516: This portion of the U.S. Code grants the Secretary of Commerce
control over the work of gathering and distributing statistical information relating to
subjects confided to the Department of Commerce, and the ability to rearrange and/or
consolidate any of the statistical bureaus within the Department of Commerce. As such,
the Secretary of Commerce could reorganize and/or consolidate aspects of Census and
BEA administratively, so long as those changes are not explicitly restricted by statute
elsewhere.
Uncertainties
The proposal suggests eliminating data products that may be considered duplicative and developing new
data products using combined sources. It is unclear how data from a reorganized agency may be
comparable to previous data. For example, many BLS data series have been developed and maintained as
time series in which data from different periods can be compared, often going back decades. If the
reorganized agency makes changes to data collection processes and estimation methodology, new data
may not be comparable to prior estimates, though it may be possible to reconstruct prior data to be
comparable to the new data.135
Additionally, many agencies are statutorily required to use certain statistical products from Census, BEA,
and BLS to adjust funding allocations or other aspects of federal programs.136 If, in an effort to
consolidate statistical efforts, some of these products are retired or changed as part of the reorganization,
additional statutory changes could likely be needed to update statutory references to these alternative
statistical products.
Observations
Census, BEA, and BLS are already statutorily directed to identify opportunities to eliminate duplicative
work among the agencies, enter into joint statistical projects to improve data quality and reduce the cost
of statistical programs, and share data between designated statistical agencies as part of the Confidential
Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002.137
In checking the Administration’s budget submissions for FY2018 and FY2019, CRS found no proposals
comparable to this one. Nevertheless, it is the latest, not the first, proposal concerning the reorganization
of Census, BEA, and BLS, as the following bills from the 104th Congress illustrate. None of these bills
became law.
135 For example, the Current Employment Statistics (CES) program at BLS changed industry classification systems in 2003.
Some data were reconstructed going back to 1939 and all national data series were reconstructed going back to at least 1990. For
more information, see Lyda Ghanbari and Michael D. McCall, “Current Employment Statistics survey: 100 years of employment,
hours, and earnings,” Monthly Labor Review, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, August 2016,
https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2016/article/current-employment-statistics-survey-100-years-of-employment-hours-andearnings.htm.
136 For example, 7 U.S.C. §2036a specifies that funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is adjusted annually
based on growth of the Consumer Price Index produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
137 P.L. 107-347.
Congressional Research Service
43
H.R. 2521 would have consolidated the three agencies into a new Federal Statistical
Service.
S. 929 would have abolished the Commerce Department, and, as amended, would have
consolidated the Census Bureau and BEA with BLS under the Department of Labor.
H.R. 1756, legislation similar to S. 929, would have transferred Census and BEA to the
Department of Labor and consolidated BEA with BLS.
The report138 accompanying the House version of the FY1996 budget reconciliation bill,
H.R. 2491, would have dismantled the Commerce Department, and transferred Census
and BEA to a new Federal Statistics Agency. As passed by the House, the bill retained the
provision to dismantle Commerce, but instead of establishing the new statistics agency, it
would have transferred Census and BEA to the Labor Department. The conference
agreement on the legislation did not include the provision to abolish Commerce.
President Clinton vetoed the legislation on December 6, 1995.
Additionally, a proposal from the Obama Administration in 2012 would have consolidated
Census, BEA, BLS, and a number of other agencies, into a new cabinet level department.139
GAO has also produced reports and offered testimony before Congress in the past discussing the structure
of federal statistical agencies, the potential impact of consolidating some or all of them, and comparisons
between the decentralized system of statistical agencies in the United States with more centralized
systems abroad.140
Proposal #14: “Consolidation of the Department of Energy’s Applied
Energy Offices and Mission Refocus”141
Brief Proposal Summary
The Trump Administration proposes three changes to refocus the mission of the Department of Energy
(DOE): create a new Office of Energy Innovation; maintain the newly created Office of Cybersecurity,
Energy Security, and Emergency Response (CESER); and create a new Office of Energy Resources and
Economic Strategy.142
The Office of Energy Innovation would organize applied energy research under one office—instead of the
existing structure that organizes offices by major energy technology or primary energy source. In this
138 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Budget, Seven-Year Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act of 1995, report to
accompany H.R. 2491, 104th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 104-280 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1995).
139 Alice Lipowicz, “Obama reorganization could affect at least 12 agencies,” FCW, 2012,
https://fcw.com/articles/2012/01/17/obama-reorganization-would-move-noaa-ntia-and-nist-as-well.aspx.
140 GAO, Statistical Agencies: Statutory Requirements Affecting Government Policies and Programs, GGD-96-106, 1996,
https://www.gao.gov/products/GGD-96-106; GAO, Statistical Agencies: Consolidation and Quality Issues, T-GGD-97-78, 1997,
https://www.gao.gov/products/T-GGD-97-78; GAO, Statistical Agencies: Proposed Consolidation and Data Sharing Legislation,
T-GGD-98-91, 1998, https://www.gao.gov/products/T-GGD-98-91; and GAO, Statistical Agencies: A Comparison of the U.S.
and Canadian Statistical Systems, GGD-96-142, 1996, https://www.gao.gov/products/GGD-96-142.
141 This section was coordinated by Corrie Clark, Analyst in Energy Policy, cclark@crs.loc.gov, 7-7213, with contributions from
Peter Folger, Specialist in Energy and Natural Resources Policy, pfolger@crs.loc.gov, 7-1517; Mark Holt, Specialist in Energy
Policy, mholt@crs.loc.gov, 7-1704; and Daniel Morgan, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, dmorgan@crs.loc.gov, 75849.
142 OMB, Delivering Government Solutions in the 21 st Century: Reform Plan and Reorganization Recommendations, June 21,
2018, pp. 63-65, https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/management/government-reform/ and https://www.whitehouse.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2018/06/Government-Reform-and-Reorg-Plan.pdf. (Hereinafter, Reform Plan.)
Congressional Research Service
44
manner, the proposal objective is to “reduce a practice of picking energy technology winners and losers
and pitting fuel types against one another for government funding and attention.”143 Instead of
“presupposing the fraction of the budget necessary for certain energy technologies or sources,” the
proposed office would require all research and development (R&D) “to compete for resources in the new
environment.”144 Another objective of this proposed consolidation would be “to integrate the positive
attributes of the [Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy] ARPA-E model, such as coordination with
industry and ability to incorporate cross-cutting research into program outcomes.”145
The proposal would separately maintain CESER “to address the critical mission” of U.S. energy
security.146 CESER is the federal government’s lead entity for energy sector-specific responses to energy
security emergencies—whether caused by physical infrastructure problems or by cybersecurity issues.147
The Office of Energy Resources and Economic Strategy would manage the Department’s “monitoring,
analyzing, and administering” of physical energy assets.148 The office would provide “oversight and
solution development for both the physical and market aspects of the nation’s energy system.”149
Affected Departments, Agencies, or Programs
The proposal would affect only DOE, specifically several DOE offices and programs. To create the Office
of Energy Innovation, the proposal would primarily consolidate assistant secretarial offices that are
currently organized under the Office of the Under Secretary of Energy.150 The assistant secretarial offices
that would likely be consolidated under the proposal—and are generally considered to be the “appl
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.