S-766-119
Presented to President.
Sponsored by Joni Ernst (R-IA)
What it does
This bill requires the Office of Management and Budget to issue guidance directing federal agencies to annually report on "covered projects" — those more than 5 years behind schedule or at least $1 billion over their original cost estimate. OMB must compile this information into a public annual report submitted to Congress and posted online, including project details, cost changes, delays, and any bonuses paid to contractors.
Who benefits
Taxpayers and watchdog groups who gain visibility into cost overruns and delays on large federal projects; members of Congress conducting oversight; government accountability organizations; contractors who perform well may benefit from comparative transparency. Journalists and researchers tracking federal spending efficiency would also gain a new public data source.
Who is hurt
Federal agencies and contract officers who would bear new administrative reporting burdens; contractors and grant recipients associated with troubled projects who could face increased public scrutiny or reputational harm; OMB, which takes on added compilation and publication responsibilities without a dedicated funding increase specified in the text.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that billions of taxpayer dollars are lost annually to poorly managed projects that run years behind schedule and far over budget, and that mandatory public reporting creates accountability pressure that has historically improved cost discipline in defense and infrastructure programs. They contend that transparency about which contractors and agencies are responsible for major overruns allows Congress to target oversight and future appropriations more effectively.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill creates new paperwork and compliance burdens for federal agencies without providing additional funding or staff to carry it out, potentially diverting resources from actual project management. They contend that annual reporting requirements often become box-checking exercises that fail to change underlying behavior, and that the $1 billion or 5-year thresholds may miss many smaller but still wasteful projects while not addressing root causes of overruns.
Constitutional context
This bill falls under Congress's authority to oversee executive branch spending and operations, an extension of its Article I appropriations and oversight powers; it raises no significant constitutional question since it only imposes a reporting requirement rather than altering removal, appointment, or adjudicatory structures.
Checks and balances
Congress expands its oversight capacity over executive agencies by mandating disclosure through OMB, while agencies retain full discretion over project management decisions; no removal or appointment authority is affected.
Historical precedent
Similar transparency and reporting mandates exist under laws like the Federal IT Acquisition Reform Act (FITARA) and GAO's high-risk list reporting, which require periodic public disclosure of troubled federal programs.