Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
This bill amends 5 U.S.C. to expand and clarify federal agency authority to pay cash awards to employees who identify agency 'wasteful expenses.' It raises the individual award cap from $10,000 to $20,000, defines "wasteful expenses," requires agency CFO determinations and referral to the President for rescission consideration, mandates transparency and reporting to OPM and Congress, excludes OIG employees from eligibility, and directs GAO reviews every three years for six years.
Liberals worry incentives could prompt harmful program cuts (speculative).
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill makes a focused substantive change by expanding and clarifying agency authority to pay cash awards for identification of 'wasteful expenses,' raises the award cap, and builds in some reporting and oversight.
This bill amends 5 U.S.C. to expand and clarify federal agency authority to pay cash awards to employees who identify agency 'wasteful expenses.' It raises the individual award cap from $10,000 to $20,000, defines "wasteful expenses," requires agency CFO determinations and referral to the President for rescission consideration, mandates transparency and reporting to OPM and Congress, excludes OIG employees from eligibility, and directs GAO reviews every three years for six years.
Content is technocratic, low-cost, and oversight-oriented—features that historically aid enactment—though procedural and scheduling factors remain important uncertainties.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill makes a focused substantive change by expanding and clarifying agency authority to pay cash awards for identification of 'wasteful expenses,' raises the award cap, and builds in some reporting and oversight. It integrates cleanly with specific statutory provisions but leaves important operational, fiscal, and anti-abuse details to administrative implementation or future guidance.
Liberals worry incentives could prompt harmful program cuts (speculative).
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberals worry incentives could prompt harmful program cuts (speculative).
Likely cautiously supportive of measures that increase accountability and transparency.
They will value disclosures and GAO oversight but worry incentives could prioritize cost-cutting over program integrity or harm frontline services.
Generally favorable as a pragmatic accountability measure with implementation caveats.
Sees value in higher awards and formal CFO role, but wants clarity on definitions, budget impacts, and safeguards against gaming or administrative burden.
Likely strongly supportive as a pro-fiscal-discipline reform that rewards employees for finding waste.
Views increased awards and automatic referral for rescission as tools to reduce unnecessary government spending.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Content is technocratic, low-cost, and oversight-oriented—features that historically aid enactment—though procedural and scheduling factors remain important uncertainties.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals worry incentives could prompt harmful program cuts (speculative).
Content is technocratic, low-cost, and oversight-oriented—features that historically aid enactment—though procedural and scheduling factors…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill makes a focused substantive change by expanding and clarifying agency authority to pay cash awards for identification of 'wasteful expenses,' raises the award cap, an…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.