3. The OLRC has extremely broad authority that’s underused due to resources, which the CP solves

Along the same lines, Professor Eric Gouvin's proposal shared some similar features with the recommendations propounded by some of the other writers previously discussed, but ultimately pursued a more ambitious agenda than the others. Justice Ginsburg, Professor Kramer, and Professor Eric Gouvin each noted that the Office of the Law Revision Counsel for the United States House of Representatives has the “paper” authority to serve as the kind of law revision committee that Justice Cardozo envisioned, but has never done so.155 [FOOTNOTE 155 BEGINS] Ginsburg, supra note 108, at 1432; Kramer, supra note 16, at 78-79 (“[W]hile this body's statutory mandate is broad enough to permit it to serve a planning function, lack of resources has limited it to the strictly ministerial task of keeping the United States Code up to date.”); Eric J. Gouvin, Truth in Savings and the Failure of Legislative Methodology, 62 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1281, 1370 (1994) (“Although on paper the Office of Law Revision Counsel's powers sound impressive, its modest staffing, limited compensation levels, and lack of participation by members of Congress translates into limited prospects for meaningful revision of federal statutes as a practical matter.”). [FOOTNOTE 155 ENDS] All three writers described this phenomenon as a significant lost opportunity.156 [FOOTNOTE 156 BEGINS] Ginsburg, supra note 108, at 1432; Kramer, supra note 16, at 79 (“As a result, Congress gives little systematic consideration to the impact of new legislation on the federal courts. What planning takes place is done haphazardly in committee, and on those occasions when serious consideration is given to structuring federal jurisdiction, questions of efficiency are seldom in the foreground.”); Gouvin, supra note 155, at 1370 (“By invigorating the Office, the judiciary's task of deciphering legislation might be made easier and the quality of the legislative product may improve.”). [FOOTNOTE 156 ENDS] Gouvin noted that political realities may prevent the Office from effectuating change, even if it were granted the power to do so.157 *193 Notably, however, the kind of changes Professor Gouvin imagined this office undertaking seemed to go beyond the “noncontroversial” and “housekeeping” functions that Justice Ginsburg and Professor Kramer suggested would fall within the jurisdiction of a law revision commission, making Professor Gouvin's proposal arguably more consistent with Justice Cardozo's vision and the American Law Institute model than the more limited proposals are.158