By Heather Curtis

WMAL.com

WASHINGTON – Members of the D.C. delegation blasted a resolution in the House Oversight Committee that would explore moving some federal agencies out of the D.C. metro area to save money. The resolution was proposed by Jason Chaffetz (R-UT).

“What is this foolishness? Why are we wasting out time when we have so many matters before us today?” Rep. Eleanor Homes Norton (D-DC) said at a committee hearing Wednesday. Norton said moving federal agencies would be prohibitively expensive, and taxpayers would be stuck with the bill.

She and Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) argued many federal employees are already based outside the D.C. area. According to the Office of Personnel Management’s website, 7 percent of all federal employees work in Washington, nearly 8 percent in Virginia and 6.5 percent in Maryland. More than 8 percent of the federal workforce is based in California, and a little more than 7 percent in Texas.

United States Rep. Rod Blum (R-IA) favored moving agencies on a case-by-case basis. He said it makes sense for some agencies, including any that handle national security or defense, to be located in the District.

“We all know that Washington D.C. is one of the highest cost of living in the United States. If we relocated, for example, the USDA to Iowa or to the Midwest there is no doubt we could save on personnel costs,” Blum said.

Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA) didn’t dispute the assertion that D.C. is a really expensive place to live but sarcastically said maybe there’s some good swamp land in Louisiana suitable for government agencies.

In response to Blum’s comment Connolly said, “And I’m sorry, I said to my friend from Iowa, there aren’t enough cows to satisfy him here.”

Aside from financial considerations, the Constitution calls for a seat of government, and Connolly said Washington, D.C. is sacred ground with rich historical history.

“It is absurd to suggest that that’s what this resolution says,” Chaffetz said. He added the federal workforce is growing quickly, and D.C. just can’t handle all these people citing the already gridlocked roads. He argued the resolution simply calls for a cost benefit analysis to see if it would be advantageous to move certain federal agencies out of the city.

In the end, the resolution was “ordered favorably reported.” Since it’s a resolution and not a bill, the measure isn’t binding.

Copyright 2017 by WMAL.com. All Rights Reserved. (photo: U.S. Department of the Interior)