HR-6330-119
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Sponsored by Brian Jack (R-GA)
What it does
This bill would amend federal law to allow agencies to pay federal employees a single lump-sum payment when they are required to relocate for government purposes, instead of the current system of itemized reimbursements for individual moving expenses. The General Services Administration (GSA) would be required to write regulations specifying when agencies may use lump-sum payments, how the amounts are calculated, and how employees can dispute or appeal decisions. Agencies would also be required to report data on usage, employee challenges, and cost savings to the GSA within three years, and the GSA would then submit an analysis to Congress.
Who benefits
Federal employees who relocate at government direction and prefer a simpler, flexible payment over managing itemized reimbursements. Federal agencies that may reduce administrative overhead from processing individual expense claims. Taxpayers, if lump-sum payments result in lower total relocation costs than itemized reimbursements. The GSA, which gains centralized rulemaking authority over the new system. Congressional oversight committees, which would receive structured data on program performance.
Who is hurt
Federal employees whose actual relocation costs exceed the lump-sum amount offered, leaving them to cover the difference out of pocket. Employees in high-cost relocation markets (e.g., moving to expensive metro areas) who may fare worse under a standardized lump sum than under itemized reimbursement. Relocation service vendors and moving companies that currently benefit from government contracts tied to itemized reimbursement systems. Employees with complex moves — large families, specialized household goods, or long distances — who may receive less than their actual costs.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the current itemized reimbursement system is administratively burdensome for both agencies and employees, requiring extensive documentation and processing time. They contend that lump-sum payments give employees flexibility to manage their own moves efficiently, potentially at lower cost, while reducing the government's administrative overhead — a model already used successfully in the private sector and by some agencies on a limited basis. The mandatory reporting requirement ensures Congress can evaluate whether the program delivers promised savings.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that lump-sum payments shift financial risk from the government to individual employees, particularly those with higher-than-average moving costs, and that without strong regulatory floors, agencies could set lump sums below actual relocation costs to achieve savings at employees' expense. They contend that the bill delegates significant discretion to the GSA to determine payment amounts without statutory minimums, meaning employees in costly relocation scenarios — such as moves to high-cost-of-living areas — could face out-of-pocket losses that effectively reduce their compensation.