[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 118 (Monday, July 20, 2026)]
[House]
[Pages H4661-H4663]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1700
FEDERAL RELOCATION PAYMENT IMPROVEMENT ACT
Mr. BURLISON. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 6330) to amend title 5, United States Code, to provide for
lump-sum relocation payments for Federal employees relocated in the
interest of the Government, and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 6330
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Relocation Payment
Improvement Act''.
SEC. 2. LUMP-SUM RELOCATION PAYMENTS FOR RELOCATED FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES.
(a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 57 of title 5,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``Sec. 5739a. Authority for lump sum payment for relocation
``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this subchapter, when the head of the agency concerned (or a
designee) authorizes or approves, an agency, through the
proper disbursing official, may pay to an employee who
relocates in the interest of the Government, a one-time lump
sum payment in lieu of any payment otherwise authorized or
required under this subchapter.
``(b) Regulations.--Under section 5738 of this title, the
Administrator of General Services shall prescribe regulations
necessary for the implementation and administration of this
section, including--
``(1) when agencies may authorize a one-time lump sum
payment under this section or the payments otherwise
authorized or required under this subchapter;
``(2) how agencies will calculate the lump sum amount; and
``(3) the process for employees to dispute a relocation
expenses claim with their agency,
[[Page H4662]]
notice of the employee's right to appeal the agency decision
to the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals, and citation to
the Board's procedures governing the appeals process.
``(c) Reporting.--
``(1) Agency submission.--Not later than 3 years following
the date of enactment of the Federal Relocation Payment
Improvement Act, the head of each agency shall submit to the
Administrator of General Services the following:
``(A) Data on the number of employees authorized a one-time
lump sum payment.
``(B) The number of employee challenges to agency
disallowance of claims pursuant to this section.
``(C) Data on cost savings achieved by the Federal
Relocation Payment Improvement Act.
``(D) A summary of recommendations to improve the Federal
Relocation Payment Improvement Act.
``(2) Administrator submission.--Not later than 90 days
after receipt of the data submitted pursuant to paragraph
(1), the Administrator of General Services shall submit to
the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House
of Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs of the Senate an analysis of the data
submitted pursuant to paragraph (1).''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for such
subchapter is amended by adding after the item relating to
section 5739 the following:
``5739a. Authority for lump sum payment for relocation.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Burlison) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Subramanyam) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
General Leave
Mr. BURLISON. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on this measure.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Missouri?
There was no objection.
Mr. BURLISON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, relocating Federal employees who receive assignments
to change official duty stations is a costly and bureaucratic process.
According to the General Services Administration, which manages such
relocations, in fiscal year 2024, the cost for employee relocation
across agencies ranged from $11,000 to a staggering $143,000 per
employee.
This high cost contrasts with the private sector, where relocation
costs are considerably less. In fact, current law and regulations
require seven categories of mandatory relocation entitlements and
another six discretionary.
This complexity diverts Federal agency resources that could otherwise
be available for other mission-focused priorities. It also comes at the
expense of Federal employee satisfaction, as those relocating are
forced to navigate a prolonged bureaucratic maze of document filings
and payment processes.
Fortunately, there is a tested alternative to the current system, as
demonstrated by agencies such as the Fish and Wildlife Service and
Customs and Border Protection in a recent pilot program.
Those agencies have utilized this pilot program to provide
negotiated, lump-sum payments to relocating employees who are then
responsible for moving themselves. The simplified lump-sum payments and
processes have already been demonstrated to reduce agency costs while
boosting employee satisfaction.
This bill would expand and codify the successful pilot program to
allow all agencies to provide these lump-sum payments to relocating
employees when such alternative is the most cost-effective option.
Furthermore, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that enacting
H.R. 6330 would save the government $306 million over 5 years.
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for offering this legislation,
and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor. I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. SUBRAMANYAM. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I rise regarding H.R. 6330, the Federal Relocation Payment
Improvement Act. As mentioned, the bill would allow Federal agencies to
pay for employee relocation costs through a simple lump-sum payment. It
also directs the government to establish an appeals process for
employees to dispute reimbursement decisions.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURLISON. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Jack).
Mr. JACK. Madam Speaker, I thank Representative Burlison for
yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of my bill, H.R. 6330, the
Federal Relocation Payment Improvement Act.
I am grateful for the overwhelming bipartisan support this
legislation received in committee, and I am grateful for the
opportunity to present it before the House of Representatives for
consideration today.
Madam Speaker, our Republican majority was elected on a promise to
make the Federal Government more efficient, reduce bureaucracy, and
ensure taxpayer dollars are spent responsibly. My bill fulfills that
pledge by streamlining the Federal employee relocation process,
reducing administrative burdens, lowering costs for American taxpayers,
and modernizing an outdated system.
To understand why this reform is necessary, let us review how the
current process operates. Each year, approximately 33,000 Federal
employees relocate across the country to meet the operational needs of
their agencies, at a cost of nearly $1.5 billion to the taxpayer.
Under current law, a Federal employee who is directed to relocate
pays relocation expenses out of pocket, retains documentation for each
of those expenses, submits detailed reimbursement requests, and then
waits sometimes more than 2 years to be fully reimbursed.
Meanwhile, the agencies tasked with administering these relocation
reimbursements dedicate significant time and resources to reviewing,
processing, and reconciling each claim. In some cases, a single
relocation can generate more than $140,000 in administrative costs.
The result is a process that is burdensome for employees, costly for
agencies, and inefficient for taxpayers. Fortunately, Madam Speaker,
there is a better way. Federal agencies, including the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, have
participated in pilot programs that provide employees with a single,
upfront, lump-sum relocation payment instead of requiring reimbursement
for each individual expense.
When given the option, Federal employees have overwhelmingly chosen
this streamlined approach. For instance, U.S. Customs and Border
Protection reported nearly $1 million in administrative savings. The
GSA estimates expanding this authority across the Federal Government
could save taxpayers between $300 million and $500 million annually.
Madam Speaker, that is the purpose of my legislation, H.R. 6330. My
bill makes this successful authority permanent and available to every
Federal agency. My bill preserves agency flexibility by keeping
participation optional. My bill requires agencies to report to Congress
on the savings achieved, ensuring continuing accountability to Congress
and the American taxpayer.
For Federal employees, this means a simpler and more predictable
relocation process. For Federal agencies, it means fewer administrative
burdens and a more efficient use of administrative resources. For
American taxpayers, it means an estimated $300 million to $500 million
in annual savings.
I thank our chairman, Representative James Comer, for his leadership
in advancing commonsense government reforms. I thank my colleague
Representative Burlison, who has distinguished himself as one of the
greatest defenders of liberty in Congress. I thank the members of the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform for their thoughtful
consideration of my legislation.
Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support my bill, H.R.
6330.
Mr. SUBRAMANYAM. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BURLISON. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this
important governmentwide reform bill that will save hundreds of
millions of dollars while improving the lives of the Federal workforce.
[[Page H4663]]
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Burlison) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 6330, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________