S. 766Senate bill · 119th CongressOn the President's deskGovernment Operations and Politics

Billion Dollar Boondoggle Act of 2025

Sponsored byJoni ErnstR-IAIntroduced Feb 27, 2025Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Sep 29, 2026) — Presented to President.

What it does

Congressional Research Service, Feb 27, 2025

This bill requires the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to collect information from federal agencies and report to Congress regarding projects that are behind schedule or have expenditures that have exceeded the original cost estimate.

Specifically, the bill requires OMB to issue guidance directing federal agencies to annually submit specified information to OMB regarding certain federally funded projects that (1) are more than five years behind schedule, or (2) have expenditures that are at least $1 billion more than the original cost estimate for the project.

Among other information, the agencies must submit to OMB

a description of each project;an explanation of any change to the original scope of the project;the original and current expected dates for the completion of the project;the original and current cost estimates adjusted for inflation; an explanation for any delays in completing the project or increases in the cost; andthe amount of and rationale for any award, incentive fee, or other type of bonus awarded for the project.The bill also requires OMB to submit an annual report to Congress containing the information submitted by the agencies and post the report on the OMB website.

Face Value

as enrolled
84Focused

How much of this bill its name accounts for.

  • Every bill starts at100
  • Areas of law−16

    Amends 3 separate titles of the US Code: 5, 10, 44.

Face Value measures reach, not honesty. A big bill can be accurately named, and a low score is not an accusation — it means the contents reach further than any short title could describe. Count it yourself ↗ How this is worked out

Discussion

7 comments

Sign in to join the discussion and put your vote on the record.

Sort
7
nadia.hartleyDemoNV-2voted Nay7d ago
I'd like to see the fiscal note before taking a position. The summary is silent on cost, which is normally the whole argument. Whether that matters depends entirely on the implementation date.
4
pinecommuterDemoME-1voted Nay7d ago
In favour. The transparency provisions alone justify it, and they're the hardest part to undo later. The committee report would settle it either way.
3
rustbelt_rayDemoLA-2voted Nay8d ago
This is unglamorous plumbing, and unglamorous plumbing is usually what matters. Yes from me. It'll come down to what the agency does with it.
5
greta_walkerDemoIN-87d ago
The reporting requirement *is* the guardrail. Once the numbers are public the politics change on their own.
2
pine_ledgerDemoCT-3voted Nay7d ago
This looks like it codifies practice that already exists informally. Worth doing — informal practice evaporates when an administration changes. I'd want the cost estimate before I'd defend either position.
2
pinecommuterDemoME-1voted Nay7d ago
Agreed on substance, disagreed on timing. Doing this badly now makes doing it well later harder.
1
abel_commuterDemoNY-1voted Yea8d ago
The summary reads clearly enough, but the enforcement mechanism is doing all the work and it's the part with the least detail. The floor version may not be this version, which is the usual problem.
Your position on S. 766No positions yet