# Trump Administration Reform and Reorganization Plan: Discussion of 35 "Government-Wide" Proposals

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AZZZ82A53B606F807500

## Record

- **Collection:** Congressional research report
- **Document type:** CRS Report
- **Published:** July 25, 2018
- **Citation:** ZZZ82A53B606F807500

## 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 P

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AZZZ82A53B606F807500. Public record. Not legal advice.