Brian Jack (R-GA)
Federal Relocation Payment Improvement Act
A Republican bill with no cosponsors
Last activity — Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
In the other chamber's committee
Passed one chamber and has been handed to a committee in the other.
The committee decides whether it goes any further, and most bills that reach a committee never leave it. A committee that simply does nothing kills a bill without anyone ever voting against it, so no news from here is usually the news.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- Passed House voice vote
- In Senate committee
The House by voice vote (members called out yes or no together): no member's position on it was recorded.
What this bill would do
This bill, known as the "Federal Relocation Payment Improvement Act," aims to amend title 5 of the United States Code. It provides authority for federal agencies to give employees a one-time lump sum payment when they are relocated in the interest of the government. These lump sum payments would be used instead of any other payments currently authorized or required under the subchapter. The Administrator of General Services will be responsible for creating the regulations for these payments. Finally, agencies must submit specific data regarding these payments to the Administrator of General Services.
Yes
- Scored +4
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
The bill authorizes agencies to use lump-sum payments instead of other required payments, which the reporting requirements aim to track for achieved cost savings.
- Scored +3
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
The bill requires agencies to submit data on relocation payments and employee challenges to the Administrator of General Services for analysis.
The opposite
- Scored -2
Would union members be better off under this?
The bill allows agencies to replace existing required relocation payments with a one-time lump sum, which may alter established compensation structures.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Lump-sum relocation payments: Agencies can pay a one-time lump sum to an employee who relocates in the interest of the Government instead of using other authorized payments (Section 2(a)).
-
Dispute and appeal process: The bill establishes that regulations will include a process for employees to dispute relocation expense claims and provides notice of the right to appeal agency decisions to the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (Section 2(b)(2)(3)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Lump sum instead of required payments: An agency may pay a one-time lump sum in lieu of any payment otherwise authorized or required under the subchapter (Section 2(a)).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — The bill authorizes agencies to use lump-sum payments instead of other required payments, which the reporting requirements aim to track for achieved cost savings.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill requires agencies to submit data on relocation payments and employee challenges to the Administrator of General Services for analysis.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would union members be better off under this? — The bill allows agencies to replace existing required relocation payments with a one-time lump sum, which may alter established compensation structures.
- 7/21/2026
- Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
- 7/20/2026
- Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
- Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H4661-4662)
- On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H4661-4662)
- DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 6330.
- Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H4661-4663)
- Mr. Burlison moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
- 12/2/2025
- Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 37 - 6.
- 12/1/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
- Introduced in House