PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Government Management, Organization, and Procurement.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 31, 2009
Scrapping Unsustainable Redundant Programs Leaves Us Solvent Act of 2009 or the SURPLUS Act - Requires the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services (HHS), Homeland Security (DHS), Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Interior, Labor, State, Transportation (DOT), Treasury, and Veterans Affairs (VA), the Attorney General, and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to: (1) determine if any federal programs within his or her agency are duplicative; (2) submit to Congress, and make available to the public, a report on the results; and (3) terminate or consolidate programs performing similar functions, except for any program that is required or authorized by statute.
Considers to be duplicative: (1) a grant program the purpose of which the Secretary determines to be to benefit a specific group that is identical or substantially similar to a group that is eligible for another grant program; and (2) any other program the Secretary determines to be performing the same essential function as another program.
People & committees
Rep. Gordon, Bart [D-TN-6] · D–TN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Government Management, Organization, and Procurement.
Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.3479 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.3479 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.3479 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.3479 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.