COST of Relocations Act
- Bill Number
- H.R. 2470
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Government Operations and Politics
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-03-27: Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
- Last Updated
- 2026-06-19T08:06:24Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose
The legislation, titled the "Congressional Oversight to Secure Transparency of Relocations Act" (or "COST of Relocations Act"), aims to promote transparency and accountability in federal agency decisions to relocate significant numbers of employee positions. It requires agencies to evaluate the benefits and costs of such moves before proceeding, ensuring that relocations are justified and not wasteful of taxpayer funds.
Key Provisions
- Requirement for Benefit-Cost Analysis: Federal agencies must conduct a detailed benefit-cost analysis for any "covered relocation" (defined below) before submitting proposals to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) or other reviewers. This analysis follows guidelines from OMB Circular A-4 (as of September 17, 2003), which outlines economic and social principles for evaluating government actions.
- Agency Report Submission: Agencies submit an unredacted (full, uncensored) report of the analysis to their Office of Inspector General (OIG). The report must include:
- Anticipated outcomes and improvements, quantified where possible (e.g., in dollars or other metrics).
- Explanations, measurement metrics, and an employee engagement plan.
- Lists of stakeholders, timelines for engagements, and assessments of impacts on those served by the positions and in the destination area or agency.
- A comprehensive relocation strategy covering staffing, resources, timelines, risks, mitigation, and succession planning.
- Analysis of effects on the agency's mission during and after the relocation.
- Public Disclosure: Agencies must publish a redacted version of the report, excluding proprietary (private business), trade secrets, or other confidential information.
- OIG Review and Congressional Reporting: The OIG reviews the agency's report and, within 90 days, submits its own report to specific congressional committees (Senate: Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Environment and Public Works; House: Oversight and Government Reform, Transportation and Infrastructure). The OIG report covers data used, conclusions, adherence to OMB guidelines, and comparisons of real estate options (especially if moving from the National Capital Region).
- Exceptions and Definitions:
- The law does not override other existing legal requirements for relocations.
- "Covered relocation" applies to moves or redelegations (reassigning functions to new positions) affecting more than the lesser of 5% or 100 employees outside their commuting area, or transferring jurisdiction to another agency. It includes the National Capital Region (Washington, D.C. area, as defined in U.S. law).
- "Administrative redelegation of function" means creating new positions that replace existing ones within the same agency.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- This introduces a new mandatory pre-approval process for large-scale relocations, including benefit-cost analyses and independent OIG oversight, which were not previously required by statute.
- It builds on but does not replace OMB Circular A-4 guidance, adding enforcement through congressional reporting and public transparency.
- No prior law specifically thresholds relocations at 5% or 100 employees or mandates stakeholder assessments and risk mitigation plans for such moves.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: Increases administrative burdens with required analyses, potentially delaying relocations and raising costs for planning. Agencies must justify moves rigorously, which could prevent inefficient or hasty decisions but may limit flexibility in reorganizing operations.
- On Citizens: Enhances public access to information about federal job relocations, affecting local economies where positions are moved (e.g., job losses in one area, gains in another). Taxpayers benefit from ensured cost-effectiveness, reducing risks of wasteful spending.
- On International Relations: No direct impacts, as the bill focuses on domestic federal operations.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Federal Agencies and Employees: Agencies face new compliance requirements; employees may experience disruptions from relocations, with protections via engagement plans.
- Offices of Inspector General (OIGs): Gain expanded review responsibilities to ensure analyses are thorough.
- Congressional Committees: Receive reports for oversight, enabling better monitoring of executive branch actions.
- Regional Communities and Stakeholders: Local governments, businesses, and residents in origin and destination areas (e.g., National Capital Region vs. other U.S. locations) are assessed for impacts, with input timelines required.
- Taxpayers and the Public: Benefit from transparency and accountability in federal spending.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: Strengthens oversight without conflicting with existing laws (e.g., it explicitly preserves other requirements). The use of OMB Circular A-4 ensures consistency with established federal evaluation standards, but OIG determinations on "sufficiency" for funding could lead to disputes or litigation if agencies challenge reviews.
- Constitutional: Aligns with Congress's power to oversee executive spending (via appropriations and accountability), promoting checks and balances without infringing on agency operations.
- Political: Could curb politically driven relocations (e.g., moving jobs to favor certain regions), fostering bipartisan scrutiny through committee reports. It may spark debates on federal decentralization vs. efficiency, especially for moves outside the National Capital Region.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Rep. Subramanyam, Suhas [D-VA-10]
Cosponsors (32)
Rep. Beyer, Donald S. [D-VA-8], Rep. Carson, André [D-IN-7], Rep. Connolly, Gerald E. [D-VA-11], Rep. Elfreth, Sarah [D-MD-3], Rep. Evans, Dwight [D-PA-3], Rep. Garcia, Robert [D-CA-42], Rep. Hoyer, Steny H. [D-MD-5], Rep. Ivey, Glenn [D-MD-4], Rep. Lynch, Stephen F. [D-MA-8], Rep. McClain Delaney, April [D-MD-6], Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large], Rep. Raskin, Jamie [D-MD-8], Rep. Scott, Robert C. "Bobby" [D-VA-3], Rep. Titus, Dina [D-NV-1], Rep. Tlaib, Rashida [D-MI-12], Rep. Vindman, Eugene [D-VA-7], Rep. McCollum, Betty [D-MN-4], Rep. Pocan, Mark [D-WI-2], Rep. Bishop, Sanford D. [D-GA-2], Rep. Walkinshaw, James R. [D-VA-11], Rep. Cleaver, Emanuel [D-MO-5], Rep. Barragán, Nanette Diaz [D-CA-44], Rep. Goldman, Daniel S. [D-NY-10], Rescom. Hernández, Pablo Jose [D-PR-At Large], Rep. DelBene, Suzan K. [D-WA-1], Rep. Brown, Shontel M. [D-OH-11], Rep. Chu, Judy [D-CA-28], Rep. Hayes, Jahana [D-CT-5], Rep. Huffman, Jared [D-CA-2], Rep. Thanedar, Shri [D-MI-13], Rep. Bera, Ami [D-CA-6], Rep. Mfume, Kweisi [D-MD-7]
Recent Actions
- 2025-03-27: Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
- 2025-03-27: Introduced in House
- 2025-03-27: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- Congressional Oversight to Secure Transparency of Relocations Act — issued 2025-03-27 — PDF (8 pages)