Commission to Relocate the Federal Bureaucracy Act
SB 353, the Commission to Relocate the Federal Bureaucracy Act, would create a federal commission to study moving certain non-security-related federal agencies out of the Washington, DC metropolitan area to other parts of the United States. The commission would include senior administration officials and agency leaders, and it would be required to produce a report to Congress within one year of enactment.
The bill directs the commission to evaluate potential relocation sites using factors such as cost efficiency, lower cost of living, existing infrastructure, available land, local industry partnerships, technology capacity, telework experience, and whether an area is in a qualified opportunity zone or otherwise economically distressed. It also requires consultation with state and local officials, business leaders, economic development representatives, and residents in candidate communities. In developing its recommendations, the commission must prioritize a goal of transferring at least 100,000 employees of covered agencies outside the Washington, DC metropolitan area.
If enacted, the bill would not itself relocate agencies, but it would establish a formal federal process to study and recommend relocation of covered agencies and their employees. It would affect executive branch planning and potentially influence future appropriations, agency reorganization decisions, and federal workforce distribution. The bill defines covered agencies broadly as non-security-related agencies and sets criteria that could steer future relocations toward lower-cost, infrastructure-ready, and economically distressed regions.
The available record shows the bill was introduced and referred to committee without recorded votes or committee debate, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment in the provided materials. Based on the bill’s structure and sponsors, it appears to be framed as a government efficiency and decentralization measure, with an emphasis on reducing costs and spreading federal jobs beyond Washington, DC. No formal opposition or support is captured in the supplied transcripts or vote history.
The main points of potential contention are the scope of agencies that could be targeted, the feasibility and cost of relocating large numbers of federal employees, and the effect on agency operations and workforce retention. Supporters are likely to emphasize cost savings, regional economic development, and reduced concentration of federal power in Washington, while critics may question whether relocation would disrupt agency performance, impose transition costs, or create staffing and telework challenges. Because no hearing transcript or vote record is provided, these concerns are inferred from the bill’s design rather than from stated objections in the record.