(The Center Square) – A group of federal lawmakers wants to make sure government agencies don’t relocate without first analyzing the impact on workers, taxpayers, and agency missions.
The COST of Relocations Act, introduced by Rep. Suhas Subramanyam, D-Va., and Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., would require federal agencies to submit a cost-benefit analysis to Congress before moving their offices.
The goal is to prevent sudden relocations that could disrupt operations or result in staff losses.
The proposal comes as a response to past agency moves under the Trump administration, including the relocation of two U.S. Department of Agriculture offices from Washington, D.C., to Kansas City, Mo.
A government watchdog later found that those moves caused a major drop in staffing and productivity.
“We must stop the Trump administration’s politically motivated attempts to waste taxpayer dollars by unnecessarily moving federal agencies,” said Subramanyam in a statement.
“Our bill ensures that before any agency is moved, we can protect the American people by doing a thorough analysis based on logic, the best interest of taxpayers, and the agency’s mission,” he said. “These decisions should be based on what’s best for the American people, not political retribution.”
The Government Accountability Office reported that in 2018, USDA relocations led to the loss of over a third of the agency’s permanent full-time staff and a sharp decline in institutional experience. The report said productivity also dropped, with key reports delayed and grants taking longer to process.
“Across government, federal agencies and the civil servants who power them provide essential services for Americans across the country,” Van Hollen said. “Abruptly uprooting those agencies for political reasons not only endangers their critical missions, it’s also a waste of taxpayer dollars. This bill ensures that big decisions like these are made thoughtfully and driven by the best interests of the American people and their tax dollars.”
The legislation would require future cost-benefit reviews to include both quantitative data and qualitative impacts, like employee attrition and the agency’s ability to carry out its mission. These results would be made public and reviewed by the agency’s inspector general.
