To require Federal agencies to conduct a benefit-cost analysis on relocations involving the movement of employment positions to different areas, and for other purposes.
Sponsors
Legislative Progress
IntroducedMr. Subramanyam (for himself, Mr. Beyer, Mr. Carson, Mr. Connolly, …
Summary
What This Bill Does
The COST of Relocations Act (Congressional Oversight to Secure Transparency of Relocations Act) requires federal agencies to jump through extensive bureaucratic hoops before relocating employees or reorganizing administrative functions. Any move affecting more than 5% or 100 employees (whichever is fewer) triggers mandatory benefit-cost analyses, Inspector General reviews, and Congressional reporting requirements. The bill particularly scrutinizes relocations that would move federal jobs out of the Washington DC metro area.
Who Benefits and How
Federal employees currently working in the Washington DC National Capital Region benefit significantly through job protection - the bill creates substantial barriers to relocating their positions to other parts of the country. Congressional oversight committees gain increased power and information flow, receiving detailed reports on all major agency relocation proposals. Washington DC area businesses (real estate, restaurants, hotels, services) benefit from preserving the concentration of federal workers in their region. Inspector General offices receive expanded roles and resources to conduct these mandated reviews.
Who Bears the Burden and How
Federal agencies seeking to relocate operations face massive new compliance burdens: they must conduct formal economic analyses following OMB Circular A-4 standards, prepare detailed reports on employee engagement and stakeholder impacts, submit to Inspector General scrutiny, and wait for Congressional committee review before proceeding. Regions outside Washington DC seeking to attract federal employment opportunities face higher barriers to entry - the special scrutiny of moves out of the Capital Region makes such relocations less likely. Taxpayers ultimately bear the costs of this compliance bureaucracy and the potential inefficiencies from blocked relocations that might have saved money or improved service delivery.
Key Provisions
- Prohibits covered relocations (affecting 5%+ or 100+ employees) without prior benefit-cost analysis conducted according to OMB Circular A-4 economic principles
- Requires agencies to submit unredacted analysis reports to their Inspector General, including employee engagement plans, stakeholder assessments, risk mitigation strategies, and mission impact analyses
- Mandates Inspector General review and reporting to four Congressional committees (Senate Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs, Senate Environment & Public Works, House Oversight & Government Reform, House Transportation & Infrastructure) within 90 days
- Applies special scrutiny to relocations moving positions from inside to outside the National Capital Region, requiring comparison of DC-area real estate options versus destination locations
- Requires public disclosure of relocation analysis reports (excluding proprietary and confidential information)
Evidence Chain:
This summary is derived from the structured analysis below. See "Detailed Analysis" for per-title beneficiaries/burden bearers with clause-level evidence links.
Primary Purpose
Requires federal agencies to conduct mandatory benefit-cost analyses before relocating employees or administrative functions, with Inspector General review and Congressional reporting requirements.
Policy Domains
Legislative Strategy
"Create bureaucratic friction and oversight barriers to prevent or slow down federal agency relocations, particularly moves out of the National Capital Region (Washington DC area)."
Likely Beneficiaries
- Federal employees in the National Capital Region (job protection from relocation)
- Congressional oversight committees (increased power and information)
- Washington DC area real estate and service industries (preserves federal workforce concentration)
- Inspector General offices (increased responsibilities and resources)
Likely Burden Bearers
- Federal agencies seeking to relocate functions (compliance burden, reporting requirements)
- Office of Management and Budget (review responsibilities)
- Taxpayers (costs of compliance and potential inefficiencies from blocked relocations)
- Regions outside DC seeking federal jobs (reduced opportunities for federal employment distribution)
Bill Structure & Actor Mappings
Who is "The Secretary" in each section?
- "federal_agency"
- → Any federal agency as defined in 5 USC 902
- "reviewing_committees"
- → Senate committees (Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs, Environment & Public Works) and House committees (Oversight & Government Reform, Transportation & Infrastructure)
- "office_of_inspector_general"
- → Office of Inspector General for each federal agency
- "office_of_management_and_budget"
- → Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
Key Definitions
Terms defined in this bill
We use a combination of our own taxonomy and classification in addition to large language models to assess meaning and potential beneficiaries. High confidence means strong textual evidence. Always verify with the original bill text.
Learn more about our methodology