Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 254.
Requires the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to issue guidance within one year directing executive and independent agencies to annually report projects that are either more than five years behind schedule or at least $1 billion over original cost. Reports must include project descriptions, locations, contractors, original and current schedules and cost estimates (CPI-adjusted), explanations for delays or cost increases, awards or bonuses, and be submitted to Congress and posted on OMB’s website each year.
Liberals emphasize contextual causes and protect public-interest projects
Narrow oversight bill with modest burden and bipartisan appeal; limited controversy makes House passage relatively straightforward.
Requires the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to issue guidance within one year directing executive and independent agencies to annually report projects that are either more than five years behind schedule or at least $1 billion over original cost.
Reports must include project descriptions, locations, contractors, original and current schedules and cost estimates (CPI-adjusted), explanations for delays or cost increases, awards or bonuses, and be submitted to Congress and posted on OMB’s website each year.
Technical transparency measure with limited fiscal impact historically fares well; implementation and agency resistance create some uncertainty.
How solid the drafting looks.
Liberals emphasize contextual causes and protect public-interest projects
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberals emphasize contextual causes and protect public-interest projects
Likely supportive of increased transparency and accountability for large federal projects, with caveats.
Would want the reporting to include context about underfunding, regulatory constraints, and impacts on workers and communities.
May push for careful treatment of projects serving public-interest goals and oppose using reports solely to defund programs.
Sees the bill as a reasonable, technocratic improvement to oversight that promotes fiscal responsibility.
Wants clear guidance to limit administrative burden, protect classified details, and ensure consistent reporting standards.
Likely to favor the bill while seeking implementation details and resource estimates for agencies.
Generally favorable because it exposes taxpayer-funded waste and holds agencies and contractors accountable.
May argue the bill should enable stronger consequences for mismanagement and insist on public naming of responsible contractors.
Some conservatives will caution about protecting national-security information, but many will champion the bill as anti-waste oversight.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Technical transparency measure with limited fiscal impact historically fares well; implementation and agency resistance create some uncertainty.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals emphasize contextual causes and protect public-interest projects
Technical transparency measure with limited fiscal impact historically fares well; implementation and agency resistance create some uncerta…
Pro readers get the full perspective split, passage barriers, legislative design review, stakeholder impact map, and lens-based policy tradeoff analysis for Billion Dollar Boondoggle Act of 2025.
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.