Study Federal Agency Moves From Capital

Full Title:
Commission to Relocate the Federal Bureaucracy Act

Summary#

This bill creates a federal commission to study moving non-security federal agencies out of the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. The commission must report to Congress within one year and recommend which agencies could be relocated. The study must weigh factors such as local costs, available land and infrastructure, related local industries, and recent telework by agency staff.

  • Main change: Sets up a commission made mostly of senior federal officials to study relocation of covered agencies based in the DC area.
  • Who is excluded: Agencies the President decides are "security-related" are not covered.
  • Commission membership: Includes the heads of OPM, OMB, GAO, the White House personnel office, many Cabinet secretaries (Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Energy, HHS, HUD, Interior, Labor, Transportation, Veterans Affairs), plus EPA and FDA chiefs.
  • Timeline: The commission must send its report to Congress within 1 year of the law starting.
  • Factors to consider: cost of living, pre-existing infrastructure and available land, presence of related industries, and whether many employees teleworked in the prior five years.
  • What is unclear: The bill does not say what happens after the report, who pays for any moves, or what steps would actually relocate an agency.

What it means for you#

  • Federal employees in the DC area: This could lead to recommendations that some non-security agencies move to other parts of the country. The bill itself only requires a study and report, not an actual move.
  • Agencies and agency managers: Agencies designated as "covered" could be evaluated for transfer based on the listed factors. The President’s decision about which agencies are security-related would affect which agencies are reviewed.
  • Communities outside DC: Areas with lower cost of living, land, and related industries might be identified as places to host federal offices. This could mean new federal jobs and buildings for some localities if moves later occur.
  • Taxpayers and federal budgeting: Any real relocations could affect federal spending and local tax bases, but this bill does not itself authorize expenditures for moves.
  • Teleworking employees: The commission must consider whether a sizeable share of an agency’s workforce teleworked in the five years before the law. Agencies with more telework may be more likely to be recommended for relocation.
  • National security and continuity planners: Agencies the President labels as security-related are not part of the study, which leaves national-security and similar agencies in place under this bill.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

  • The bill does not include a cost estimate or fiscal note.
  • Possible costs that could follow from recommendations (not required by this bill) include costs to move staff and offices, new or renovated buildings, and IT or records transfers.
  • There would be administrative costs to run the commission and prepare the report. The bill does not say who pays for any relocations or how those moves would be funded.
  • Local governments could face planning or infrastructure costs if agencies later relocate to their areas; the bill does not address these impacts.

Proponents' View#

  • The bill appears intended to reduce the concentration of federal civilian agencies in the Washington, D.C. area.
  • A possible argument for the bill is that moving agencies could lower costs if new locations have a below-average cost of living.
  • The bill could be seen as aiming to place agencies where local industries can partner with them, which might strengthen agencies’ ability to do their work.
  • The requirement to consider telework could make it easier to shift agencies whose employees already work remotely.

Opponents' View#

  • One concern is the bill only creates a study; it does not set standards or funding for actual relocations, so effects are uncertain.
  • The President’s power to exempt "security-related" agencies gives broad discretion over which agencies are reviewed; the bill does not define that term.
  • The bill does not explain how to protect continuity of operations, records, or classified material if agencies move.
  • Moving agencies could disrupt employees’ lives and could cause loss of experienced staff who do not relocate; the bill does not address staff transitions or retention.
  • The potential costs and logistics of moving offices, records, technology, and employees are not estimated or planned for in the bill.