HR-1722-119
Received in the Senate. Read twice. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 467.
Sponsored by Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-IA)
What it does
This bill would require the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to issue guidance directing all federal executive and independent regulatory agencies to annually report on any taxpayer-funded project that is either more than 5 years behind its original completion date or has exceeded its original cost estimate by at least $1 billion. The OMB Director would then compile and publish this information in an annual report submitted to Congress and posted publicly on the OMB website. The report would include project descriptions, contractor names, cost and schedule changes, explanations for delays or overruns, and any bonuses paid to contractors. Classified projects may be included in a separate classified annex.
Who benefits
Taxpayers broadly, who would gain visibility into how federal funds are spent on large, delayed, or over-budget projects. Members of Congress and congressional oversight committees, who would receive structured data to inform appropriations and accountability decisions. Journalists, watchdog organizations, and government accountability groups, who would gain a public data source for investigative reporting. Smaller or more efficient contractors, who may benefit competitively if poor performance by larger contractors becomes more visible. State and local governments that co-fund federal projects and have an interest in federal cost discipline.
Who is hurt
Federal agencies that would bear new administrative and reporting burdens to compile and submit the required data annually. Large federal contractors and subcontractors on delayed or over-budget projects, whose performance records would be publicly disclosed. Agencies managing long-running, complex projects — such as defense acquisition programs or environmental remediation efforts — that may face reputational or political pressure even when delays stem from factors outside their control, such as insufficient appropriations. Contractors who have received performance bonuses on troubled projects may face public scrutiny.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that federal cost overruns and schedule delays are a persistent, documented problem — the Government Accountability Office has repeatedly found that major defense and IT acquisition programs routinely exceed original budgets by billions of dollars and miss deadlines by years. They contend that public transparency is a proven accountability tool, and that requiring OMB to aggregate and publish this data gives Congress and the public the information needed to demand corrective action, cancel failing projects, or reform contracting practices before costs spiral further.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that a reporting mandate alone does not fix the structural causes of cost overruns — such as unrealistic initial estimates, scope changes driven by Congress itself, or chronic underfunding — and may create a false sense of accountability without meaningful consequences. They contend that the administrative burden of compiling detailed annual reports across all federal agencies could divert staff resources from project execution, and that public disclosure of contractor performance data without full context could unfairly damage the reputations of firms working on genuinely complex, high-risk projects where some overruns are expected and unavoidable.