A Federal Sunset Commission: Review of Proposals and Actions

Virginia A. McMurtry
Specialist in American National Government

The sunset concept provides for programs and agencies to terminate automatically on a periodic basis unless explicitly renewed by law. In the last 12 years bills to create a federal sunset commission, modeled on the sunset review process in Texas, have been introduced in each Congress (including H.R. 393 in the 111th Congress). 

Former President George W. Bush called for creation of a federal sunset commission in his FY2006 budget submission. Bills reflecting an Office of Management and Budget (OMB) draft proposal were introduced in the 109th Congress (S. 1399, H.R. 3276, H.R. 3277). On July 20, 2006, the Committee on Government Reform voted to report H.R. 3282 favorably to the House, along with a related program review bill, H.R. 5766, as amended. Floor action had been scheduled for June 27, 2006, but was postponed, and no further action occurred on the bills. 

In the 110th Congress, with the budget submissions for FY2008 and FY2009, President Bush reaffirmed his support for passage of the Administration's proposal to create a federal sunset commission. In addition to the Brady bill (H.R. 5794), a new sunset measure, S. 1731, was introduced on June 28, 2007, by Senator John Cornyn. 

In the 111th Congress, Representative Brady reintroduced his bill as H.R. 393, the Federal Sunset Act of 2009, on January 9, 2009. Senator Cornyn introduced his measure, S. 926, the United States Authorization and Sunset Commission Act of 2009, on April 29, 2009. Provisions very similar to those in H.R. 393 also were found as a separate title in three budget reform bills introduced in the House, during the first session of the 111th Congress, including H.R. 311 (Title II), H.R. 534 (Title I), and H.R. 3964 (Title IV, Subtitle A). The Congressional Budget Resolution for FY 2010, S.Con.Res. 13, as passed by the Senate, provided for the establishment of a deficit reduction reserve fund for the bipartisan congressional sunset commission, but the sunset fund provision was not retained in the conference version of S.Con.Res. 13, as approved by both chambers. 

Supporters of sunset commission measures suggest that there are too many overlapping and ineffective federal programs that contribute to the growing federal deficit, and that the existing structure of congressional committees does not encourage systematic review of similar agencies and programs. According to sunset proponents, congressional reviews of many programs are sporadic and inadequate, as evidenced by the number of unauthorized appropriations. An action forcing mechanism—such as threat of termination—is necessary; a sunset commission would assist Congress in performing its oversight function, thereby reducing fraud, waste, and abuse. 

Critics of the sunset commission measures counter that such bills would burden Congress with a tremendous workload for mandatory reauthorization of agencies and programs. Consequently, such measures may prove infeasible to carry out, or alternatively, result in perfunctory reviews. Sunset commissions might increase congressional personnel costs, since additional staff would be needed to assist the commission in its review activities. Opponents further contend that the review and reauthorization process would pose a special threat to certain kinds of programs, such as those which provide a safety net for the most vulnerable in society.


Date of Report: March 12, 2010
Number of Pages: 15
Order Number: RL34551
Price: $29.95

Document available electronically as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail congress@pennyhill.com or call us at 301-253-0881.