[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 22]
[Senate]
[Pages 30802-30803]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                EXTEND RELOCATION EXPENSES TEST PROGRAMS

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, on Tuesday, December 20, I introduced a 
simple but important bill that would allow an existing General Services 
Administration, GSA, program for streamlined Government employee 
relocations to continue for an additional 4 years. Under a pilot 
program enacted in 1998, government agencies including GSA, Customs and 
Border Protection, and the Department of Defense have been able to 
relocate staff in a more economical manner than what can be done under 
the existing Federal relocation regulations. This innovative and cost 
saving test program, known as the Voluntary Relocation Program, 
provides Government agencies additional flexibility to relocate 
personnel to meet mission critical staffing needs and, according to 
Customs and Border Protection, has resulted in a cost savings of nearly 
$25 million in their organization alone.
  I am very pleased that Senators Lieberman and Akaka have joined me in 
cosponsoring this legislation.
  The Department of Homeland Security began using the Voluntary 
Relocation Program to relocate hundreds of Border Patrol agents to 
critical U.S. border locations after the terrorist attacks of September 
11, 2001. As part of its new mission to protect national borders from 
security threats, agents from the Office of Border Patrol, OBP, eagerly 
volunteered to transfer to border locations deemed most vulnerable. 
However, these transfers took a long time to process and were very 
costly under the Federal travel regulations, FTR.

[[Page 30803]]

  According to Customs and Border Protection, CBP, relocation of 
personnel under the Federal travel regulations typically cost the 
Federal Government an average of $72,000 per Border Patrol agent move. 
Understandably, the agency's ability to relocate significant numbers of 
Border Patrol agents was limited, so customs and border protection, 
CBP, sought alternative funding sources.
  Under this voluntary program, employees receive a lump-sum payment to 
cover relocation costs, rather than submitting expense reports 
supported by receipts. Transferees that choose to relocate to a new 
duty station under the Voluntary Relocation Program manage the details 
of their own move and are fully responsible for determining how to 
spend the pre-determined lump-sum payment allocated by the Federal 
Government. Furthermore, employees enjoy greater input in how funds are 
allocated and transferees have more control over the logistics of their 
move. To date, the VRP has saved customs and border protection more 
than $23,500,000 in Border Patrol agent relocation costs.
  This Voluntary Relocation Program has provided both the government 
and its employees with both reduced administrative burdens and 
increased responsiveness to employees and the organization's mission.
  From April 2004 through September 2005, CBP processed 435 relocations 
at an average cost of $16,888 per move. Interim reports published by 
customs and border protection on the VRP indicate that participating 
employees are satisfied with the program and are interested in its 
continuation. It is anticipated that if the VRP program is extended, 
``several hundred'' CBP agents will seek to take advantage of the VRP 
for career ladder promotions within the first year of it being offered. 
Based upon the promise of the program's early results, the continuation 
of the VRP test program would benefit national security needs and the 
agency's mission.
  I believe that the VRP is an excellent example of how Government can 
work better and more cost effectively to best serve the interests of 
the public and government employees. This legislation would allow 
Federal agencies to provide an additional relocation incentive that 
would assist them in the accomplishment of their mission. I urge my 
colleagues to join me, Senator Lieberman and Senator Akaka in support 
of this legislation.

                          ____________________