Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
The bill requires Federal agencies to conduct and document a benefit-cost analysis before carrying out certain "covered relocations" that move or replace more than the lesser of 5 percent or 100 employees outside their commuting area.
Agencies must submit an unredacted analysis to their Inspector General, which reviews it and reports findings to four congressional committees within 90 days; a redacted public version must also be published.
The analysis must follow OMB Circular A-4 (as of Sept 17, 2003) and include outcomes, metrics, stakeholder engagement, staffing and financial plans, risk assessments, and mission-impact evaluations.
Administrative oversight bill with limited fiscal impact has plausible bipartisan support, but standalone passage is less likely without inclusion in a larger vehicle.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill sets a specific and enforceable-seeming administrative process—requiring agencies to perform and document benefit-cost analyses under a named analytic standard, to provide unredacted reports to agency OIGs, and to make findings available to Congress and the public—while leaving important implementation and resourcing details unspecified.
Liberal emphasizes worker protections and equity beyond cost metrics
Liberal emphasizes worker protections and equity beyond cost metrics
Likely broadly supportive of the bill's transparency and worker-focused requirements but cautious about implementation.
Views mandatory analyses and IG review as helpful for protecting employees and communities from harmful relocations.
Concerned that a narrow cost-benefit framing might undercount equity and service-access harms.
Generally favorable to stronger review and transparency while weighing efficiency costs.
Sees IG reports and public documentation as reasonable checks to improve decision quality.
Concerned about increased bureaucracy, potential delays, and unclear procedural timelines.
Skeptical of added procedural mandates that increase costs and reduce agency flexibility.
Views mandatory analyses, IG reviews, and public disclosures as potential political tools and sources of delay.
Might support transparency in principle but opposes expansive federal requirements that constrain management.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Administrative oversight bill with limited fiscal impact has plausible bipartisan support, but standalone passage is less likely without inclusion in a larger vehicle.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberal emphasizes worker protections and equity beyond cost metrics
Administrative oversight bill with limited fiscal impact has plausible bipartisan support, but standalone passage is less likely without in…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill sets a specific and enforceable-seeming administrative process—requiring agencies to perform and document benefit-cost analyses under a named analytic standard, to pr…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.