Overview
Title
To require the evaluation of Federal agencies and programs for duplicative, wasteful, or outdated functions, and to recommend the elimination or realignment of such functions, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
The bill wants to check if any parts of the government are doing the same job or wasting money. It suggests ways to fix this by cutting unnecessary parts or merging them, and tries to find new government jobs for workers affected by the changes.
Summary AI
H.R. 824, also known as the "Government Office Realignment And Closure Act of 2025" or "GORAC Act of 2025," aims to evaluate Federal agencies and programs every ten years to identify and address outdated, wasteful, or duplicative functions. The Comptroller General will hire a non-Federal auditor to conduct these evaluations and recommend which agencies or programs should be realigned, eliminated, or merged. The recommendations will be used to draft legislation aimed at reducing waste and saving federal funds, which will then be applied to reduce the national debt. Additionally, efforts will be made to relocate employees affected by these changes to other positions within the government.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
The proposed "Government Office Realignment and Closure Act of 2025" aims to streamline federal government operations by evaluating federal agencies and programs every ten years. This evaluation would be conducted by non-federal auditors, focusing on identifying outdated, wasteful, or duplicative functions. The goal is to recommend and implement changes to eliminate or realign such functions, thus saving public funds to pay down the national debt.
Summary of Significant Issues
A primary concern with this bill is the use of non-federal auditors to evaluate federal programs. The process for selecting these auditors is not explicitly defined, which raises questions about potential biases or favoritism in the selection and evaluation process. The criteria for evaluating programs are also subjective, hinging on terms like “irrelevant” or “failed to meet objectives,” which could lead to arbitrary decisions influenced by politics.
Another notable issue is the vague language concerning the relocation of federal employees affected by program eliminations or realignments. The bill requires "reasonable efforts" for employee relocation but does not define what constitutes these efforts, leading to uncertainty and potential dissatisfaction among federal workers.
The bill's reliance on bureaucratic and complex procedural language might obscure its true intent, making it difficult for those outside government or legal professions to fully understand. This complexity extends into Congress's process for handling reform proposals, which could hinder transparency and accountability.
Finally, the lack of a clear financial impact assessment could surprise federal budgets, as the bill does not provide a detailed cost analysis regarding the proposed implementation bills.
Impact on the Public
The broad impact on the public would likely relate to the potential for improved efficiency in government operations. By curbing wasteful spending and focusing on relevant governmental functions, there could be enhanced service delivery and reduced taxpayer burdens over time.
However, the execution of such evaluations—with unclear selection criteria and the potential for biased audit outcomes—could lead to premature or politically influenced decisions that might adversely affect certain public services. Furthermore, the potential for workforce instability among federal employees could indirectly affect service efficiency and availability to the public.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Federal Employees: The most immediate impact would be felt by federal employees, particularly those whose roles might be considered redundant. The lack of specific relocation measures may lead to job insecurity and dissatisfaction. This instability could negatively affect employee morale and productivity.
Federal Agencies: Agencies might experience pressure to streamline operations comprehensively. Those that are well-aligned with national priorities may fare better, while others might face closures or significant restructuring.
Congress and Legislators: Legislators navigating this bill may face challenges due to the complex language and procedural descriptions. Complexity in legislative processes might lead to deliberative challenges, affecting timely and effective decision-making.
Auditors and Consultants: Non-federal auditors stand to benefit from the bill, as significant resources would likely be directed toward procuring their services for evaluations. Transparency and rigorous selection criteria would be crucial to ensure fair and unbiased audits.
In conclusion, while the "GORAC Act of 2025" has laudable aims of enhancing government efficiency and accountability, its success will depend greatly on the clarity of its implementation processes, criteria, and its capacity to relay transparency and fairness throughout the audit and implementation procedures.
Issues
The process for selecting a non-Federal auditor, as detailed in Section 2(a)(2), lacks transparency and could lead to bias or favoritism. The selection criteria are not explicitly stated, raising concerns about the impartiality of the evaluations and recommendations on Federal agency realignment or elimination.
The subjective nature of the evaluation criteria in Section 2(a)(3) for determining which Federal programs to realign or eliminate, based on terms like 'irrelevant' or 'failed to meet its objectives', could lead to arbitrary or politically motivated decisions.
The language in Section 2 regarding the relocation of Federal employees is vague. It specifies 'reasonable efforts' for relocation without defining the term, potentially leading to workforce instability and employee dissatisfaction.
The bill's reliance on complex bureaucratic language, as noted in Section 2 and Section 3, may obscure its intent, making it difficult for general public understanding and reducing transparency and accountability.
Section 3's procedural guidance for Congressional consideration of reform proposals involves complex terms like 'highly privileged' and 'privileged' motions. This complexity can create confusion about legislative priorities and hinder transparency.
The absence of financial implications or a cost analysis in Section 3(b), concerning the proposed implementation bills, raises concerns about potential unanticipated expenditures that could impact federal budgets.
The definition of 'Federal agency' and 'Federal program' in Section 2(e) includes exceptions that can lead to confusion about the scope of what is included in the audit, complicating oversight and accountability.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
In Section 1, the Act is given the official short title “Government Office Realignment And Closure Act of 2025”, which can also be referred to as the “GORAC Act of 2025”.
2. Evaluation of Federal agencies and programs for duplicative, wasteful, or outdated functions Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines that every 10 years, the Comptroller General must evaluate each Federal program from the past decade using a non-Federal auditor. This process aims to identify duplicative or wasteful programs that should be streamlined, eliminated, or realigned, with saved funds directed to reducing the national debt and affected employees repositioned to other roles.
3. Congressional consideration of reform proposals Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Congress has outlined a detailed process for considering a reform proposal, where it must introduce a single implementation bill no later than the fifteenth day both Houses are in session. This bill goes through specific procedures, including debate limits and restricted amendment, with rules in place for handling the bill if one House receives it from the other, and acknowledging Congress’s ability to revise its own rules.