Duplication Scoring Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Sen. Paul, Rand [R-KY]
- Committees
- Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 14, 2026
Bottom line
This bill aims to enhance transparency and accountability in federal spending by requiring the GAO to proactively identify and report potential programmatic duplication in new legislation.
What it actually does
This bill amends Title 31, United States Code, to mandate that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) assess certain legislation reported by Congressional committees for potential duplication or overlap with existing federal programs, offices, or initiatives previously identified as redundant in GAO reports. The GAO must then submit these findings to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the reporting committee, and publish them online. The CBO is given the discretion to include this information as a supplement to its cost estimates.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill will improve governmental efficiency and reduce wasteful spending by providing Congress with critical information about potential redundancies before new programs are enacted. By making this information public and integrating it into the CBO scoring process, it promotes fiscal responsibility and informed decision-making, ultimately leading to better use of taxpayer dollars.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that this bill adds another layer of bureaucracy and could potentially slow down the legislative process, creating unnecessary hurdles for new initiatives. They might also contend that the GAO already produces duplication reports, and this bill merely formalizes a process that could be achieved through existing oversight mechanisms, thus not significantly improving efficiency while adding administrative burden to the GAO.
The bill is very short and clearly written, making it highly accessible for a quick and thorough understanding by any informed reader.
Section 2, amending Section 719 of title 31, United States Code
GAO Assessment of Duplication in Covered Legislation
This section mandates that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) analyze all bills and joint resolutions reported by any Congressional committee. The GAO must determine if these legislative proposals create new federal programs, offices, or initiatives that would duplicate or overlap with existing ones previously identified as wasteful or redundant in annual GAO reports. If such a risk is found, the GAO must identify the new feature, its location in the bill, and the relevant GAO report, then submit this information to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the reporting committee, and publish it on its website.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is crucial for promoting fiscal responsibility by ensuring that Congress is fully aware of potential redundancies before creating new programs. It provides an objective, expert assessment from the GAO, which can help prevent the proliferation of inefficient government spending and improve the allocation of taxpayer dollars, ultimately leading to a more effective government.
Critics contend
Opponents might argue that while the intent is good, this provision could lead to delays in the legislative process as committees await GAO assessments. They might also contend that the GAO already identifies duplication, and this formal mandate might not significantly alter outcomes but rather add an administrative burden to the GAO, potentially diverting resources from other important oversight functions without a clear return on investment.
Tradeoffs
The provision navigates the tension between the desire for increased governmental efficiency and fiscal accountability on one hand, and the potential for added bureaucratic steps and delays in the legislative process on the other. It also raises questions about the resources required for the GAO to fulfill this expanded mandate effectively without compromising other responsibilities.
Specifies that the Act takes effect on the earlier of two dates: 60 days after the next update to the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) website under 31 U.S.C. 1122(a), or the date a new Congress begins after one year from the Act's enactment.
Section 3
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for effective date provisions, ensuring a clear, albeit sometimes complex, timeline for implementation. It is not an attempt to hide content.
Case for: Proponents would argue that this provision provides a clear, albeit somewhat complex, timeline for implementation, ensuring that the necessary administrative systems, such as the OMB's website update, are considered and potentially ready before the Act takes full effect, promoting a smooth transition.
Case against: Critics might contend that the dual-condition effective date could create ambiguity or require tracking external events (like specific OMB website updates) to determine the exact start date, potentially complicating implementation planning for affected agencies and legislative bodies.
Estimated impact: This provision has a minor procedural impact, primarily affecting the timing of when the new GAO and CBO responsibilities begin, ensuring a degree of readiness before full implementation.