U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

1 

49–010 

" ! SENATE 109TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

REPORT

2006

109–289 

Calendar No. 528 

TO EXTEND RELOCATION EXPENSES TEST 

PROGRAMS FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

TO ACCOMPANY

S. 2146 

TO EXTEND RELOCATION EXPENSES TEST PROGRAMS FOR 

FEDERAL EMPLOYEES 

JULY 21, 2006.—Ordered to be printed 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTScongress.#13
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota 

FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

MICHAEL D. BOPP, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

JENNIFER A. HEMINGWAY, Professional Staff Member 

JOYCE A. RECHTSCHAFFEN, Minority Staff Director and Counsel 

JASON M. YANUSSI, Minority Professional Staff Member 

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

I. Purpose & Summary ..................................................................................... 00 

II. Background .................................................................................................... 00 

III. Legslative History .......................................................................................... 00 

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis .......................................................................... 00 

V. Estimated Cost of Legislation ....................................................................... 00 

VI. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact .................................................................. 00 

VII. Changes in Existing Law .............................................................................. 00 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
1P.L. 105–264; 112 Stat. 2350. 

2Government Relocation Advisory Board, Findings and Recommendations, September 2005, p. 

2. 3 41 CFR 300–304. Chapter 302 of the FTR contains federal civilian relocation policies. 

4 5 U.S.C. §§ 5721 through 5739. 

Calendar No. 528 

109TH CONGRESS SENATE REPORT " ! 2d Session 109–289 

TO EXTEND RELOCATION EXPENSES TEST PROGRAMS 

FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES 

JULY 21, 2006.—Ordered to be printed 

Ms. COLLINS, from the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 2146] 

The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, 

to which was referred the bill (S. 2146) to extend relocation expenses test programs for Federal employees, having considered the 

same reports favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do 

pass. 

I. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

The purpose of S. 2146 is to extend the authority for the General 

Services Administration to conduct relocation expenses test programs for federal employees for an additional four years. The original authority, enacted as part of the 1998 Travel and Transportation Reform Act,1 expired on October 20, 2005. 

II. BACKGROUND

The federal government provides worldwide relocation assistance 

to approximately 28,000 federal civilian employees each year under 

various relocation rules and regulations at an estimated cost of 

more than $800 million.2 The relocation of federal employees has 

traditionally been governed by the Federal Travel Regulation 

(FTR),3 which implements the statutory requirements 4 and Executive branch policies for relocation and travel by federal civilian employees and others authorized to travel at government expense. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
2 

5www.gsa.gov/relo 

6 Under the FTR regime, expenses for which the Agency is responsible include: transportation 

and a per diem for employees and immediate family members (Part 302–4); miscellaneous moving expenses (Part 302–16); the transaction costs for the sale or purchase of the new and old 

residences, or obtaining or breaking of a lease (Part 302–11); transportation and temporary storage of household goods (Part 302–7); extended storage of household goods (Part 302–8); and a 

relocation income tax allowance (RITA). 7These are items for which a relocating employee may be compensated at the discretion of 

the relevant office. Discretionary items include: house hunting (Part 302–5); temporary quarters 

subsistence expense (Part 302–6); shipment of privately owned vehicle (Part 302–9); property 

management services (Part 302–15) and home marketing incentives (Part 302–14). 8P.L. 104–201. 

9P.L. 105–264. 

10Senate Report 105–295. 11 Report from CBP Acting Commissioner Deborah J. Spero to David L. Bibb, Acting Administrator, General Services Administration, February 9, 2006. 

The FTR is promulgated by the Administrator of General Services. 

The General Services Administration’s relocation management policy seeks to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the federal 

government in providing or obtaining ‘‘best value’’ relocation services through the implementation of governmentwide policies and 

tools.5

Under existing FTR requirements, certain relocation expenses 

must be reimbursed, including transportation and per diem for en 

route travel to the employee’s new duty station, miscellaneous expenses, residence transactions, and the transportation and temporary storage of household goods.6 The FTR also identifies expenses that may be reimbursed at agency discretion, including 

costs associated with finding a home, securing temporary quarters, 

and the use of a relocation services company for guaranteed home 

sale and other services.7

Reducing federal travel costs has been a longstanding goal of the 

Congress. The Federal Employee Travel Reform Act if 1996 8 made 

improvements in federal travel and relocation services. The Travel 

and Transportation Reform Act of 1998 9 authorized federal agencies to participate in travel pilot tests expected to save taxpayer 

dollars.10 The authority was limited to 10 pilot programs upon approval of the General Services Administration. The Act requires 

agencies to include in any request to the Administrator of General 

Services for approval of such a test program an analysis of the expected costs and benefits and a set of criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of the program. 

Use of the authority provided by the Travel and Transportation Reform Act of 1998 

Currently, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) deploys more 

than 30,000 front line personnel, including nearly 12,000 border 

patrol agents, at the ports and along the country’s borders to protect the nation against instruments of terror, facilitate international trade and assist in other national security efforts. CBP 

has found the average historical cost to the federal government to 

move a border patrol agent to be $72,000 under the FTR.11

As the seriousness of international threats escalated after 9/11, 

the Office of Border Patrol (OBP) within CBP identified a need to 

relocate hundreds of agents to critical U.S. border locations. Border 

patrol agents volunteered to transfer to border locations deemed 

most vulnerable. Yet, the high cost of these transfers limited CBP’s 

ability to relocate agents in a timely and cost-effective manner, and 

CBP sought alternative funding sources. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
3 

12Mandatory and discretionary reimbursable relocation expenses are set out in the Federal 

Travel Regulation, Part 302. 13 Report from CBP Acting Commissioner Deborah J. Spero to David L. Bibb, Acting Administrator, General Services Administration, February 9, 2006. 14 In the initial survey of participating CBP employees, a small minority expressed concern 

that the lump-sum payment was inadequate to cover the costs of the move. Consequently, CBO 

increased the lump-sum payment to offset the tax burden to $6,750, $13,500, $20,250, or 

$27,000 according to the category of employee. 15 Report from CBP Acting Commissioner Deborah J. Spero to David L. Bibb, Acting Administrator, General Services Administration, February 9, 2006. 16Government Relocation Advisory Board, Findings and Recommendations, September 2005, 

p. 37. 17Government Relocation Advisory Board, Findings and Recommendations, September 2005, 

p. 37. 

In 2004 and 2005, CBP sought and received approval from GSA 

to conduct two relocation expenses test pilot programs designed to 

provide the Border Patrol greater flexibility to expeditiously relocate agents at a significant savings. Under both programs, transferees were fully responsible for arranging their own moves, rather 

than submitting expense reports supported by receipts, and received a predetermined single payment to cover all expenses incurred from the move.12 The lump-sum amount paid to relocating 

employees was dependent on the agents’ family status and ranged 

from $5,000 for relocation of a single, nonhomeowner, to $20,000 

for a multi-person household owning a home. The programs, known 

as the Voluntary Relocation Program and the Alternative Relocation Payment Program, were developed through cooperative efforts 

with the federal employee unions representing border patrol 

agents. 

The lump-sum payments have the added benefit of reducing the 

administrative burden. CBP found that administrative resources 

previously required to file and review detailed vouchers and process payments were reduced. From April 2004 through September 

2005, CBP processed 435 relocations at an average cost of $16,888 

per move, resulting in estimated savings of $23,693,500 in relocation costs.13

CBP has adjusted the program to be more responsive to the 

needs of its employees. For example, as a direct result of input 

from participating employees, CBP increased the lump-sum 

amounts by an incremental margin to offset the tax burden on employees participating in the program.14 CBP’s final report to the 

General Services Administration on the pilot programs indicate 

that participating employees appreciated the additional flexibility 

provided by the program and expressed interest in its continuation.15

GSA approved the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) Relocation Test Program in March 2003. The pilot program ended in 

April 2005. In its September 2005 report, the Governmentwide Relocation Advisory Board stated that the program ‘‘has been extremely successful in providing the FBI with the flexibility in recruitment of vital private-sector personnel and the authority to provide a myriad of relocation of benefits to fill positions deemed critical in addressing the war on terrorism.’’ 16 The FBI reported a sav- ings of more than $1.3 million with 878 employees electing the 

fixed-rate reimbursement under the Relocation Test Program.17

The capability to efficiently relocate personnel, while simultaneously minimizing costs, can be of significant benefit to federal 

agencies as they continue to recruit and retain a highly-skilled 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
4 

18Government Relocation Advisory Board, Findings and Recommendations, September 2005, 

p. iv. 

workforce. In its September 2005 report, the Government Relocation Advisory Board concluded that employee relocation should be 

completed in a cost-efficient manner and in the shortest time practicable to allow the transferee to be settled in the new location and 

focused on the new assignment.18 The Committee hopes that agencies will avail themselves of the relocation expenses test program 

authority as part of their broader human capital plans. 

III. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

S. 2146 was introduced by Senators Collins, Lieberman, and 

Akaka on December 20, 2005, and was referred to the Committee 

on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. On January 27, 

2006, the bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Oversight of 

Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District 

of Columbia, which favorably polled the legislation on April 21, 

2006. 

On June 15, 2006, the Committee considered S. 2146 and ordered 

the bill reported favorably by voice vote without amendment. Members present were Senators Collins, Voinovich, Coleman, Coburn, 

Chafee, Bennett, Lieberman, Carper, Dayton, and Pryor. 

IV. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1—Extension of Relocation Expenses Test Programs 

(a) Amends 5 U.S.C. § 5739 to strike the provision limiting the 

relocation expenses test program to 24 months. Extends the authority for agencies, upon approval of the Administrator of General 

Services, to conduct relocation expenses test programs for an additional four years. 

(b) Provides that the amendments would take effect as though 

enacted as part of the Travel and Transportation Reform Act of 

1998. 

V. ESTIMATED COST OF LEGISLATION

JUNE 30, 2006. 

Hon. SUSAN M. COLLINS, 

Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MADAM CHAIRMAN: As you requested, the Congressional 

Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 2146, 

a bill to extend relocation expenses test programs for federal employees. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Matthew Pickford. 

Sincerely, 

DONALD B. MARRON, Acting Director. 

Enclosure. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
5 

S. 2146—A bill to extend relocation expenses test programs for federal employees 

With the approval of the General Services Administration (GSA), 

federal agencies were able to test new and innovative methods of 

reimbursing their employees for travel and relocation expenses 

without seeking a waiver of current rules or law prior to the start 

of fiscal year 2005. (The authority for such relocation expense test 

programs expired on October 20, 2005.) S. 2146 would reauthorize 

the relocation expenses test program until October 20, 2009. 

CBO estimates that implementing S. 2146 would reduce federal 

administrative expenses associated with employee reimbursement 

by about $15 million annually, assuming amounts provided in appropriation acts are correspondingly reduced. Enacting the legislation would not affect direct spending or revenues. S. 2146 contains 

no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would not affect the budgets 

of state, local, or tribal governments. 

Under existing Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) requirements, 

certain relocation expenses must be reimbursed, including transportation and per diem for travel to the employee’s new duty station, real estate sales and settlement expenses, and the transportation and storage of household goods. Other expenses that may be 

reimbursed at an agency’s discretion are costs associated with finding a home, securing temporary quarters, and the use of a relocation service company. 

Before authority to operate a relocation expenses test program 

expired, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation each initiated a voluntary relocation program. Those programs allowed employees being transferred to arrange and pay for their own moves using a predetermined lumpsum payment rather than submitting expense reports to obtain reimbursement. Based on information from GSA, CBO estimates that 

the two agencies reduced moving costs by about $15 million annually by implementing test programs outside of the requirements of 

the FTR. Assuming a similar level of participation, CBO estimates 

that implementing S. 2146 would reduce relocation costs by about 

$15 million a year. Those savings would be achieved only to the extent that amounts provided in appropriation acts are correspondingly reduced. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Matthew Pickford. 

This estimate was approved by Jeffrey Holland, Chief, Projections 

Unit. 

VI. EVALUATION OF REGULATORY IMPACT

Pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of 

the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee has considered 

the regulatory impact of this bill. CBO states that there are no 

intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and no costs on state, local, or tribal 

governments. The legislation contains no other regulatory impact. 

VII. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the bill, as 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS
6 

reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted 

is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic and 

existing law, in which no change is proposed, is shown in roman): 

TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE: GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES 

PART III—EMPLOYEES 

SUBPART D—PAY AND ALLOWANCES 

CHAPTER 57—TRAVEL, TRANSPORTATION, AND 

SUBSISTENCE 

Subchapter II—Travel and Transportation Expenses, New Appointees, Student Trainees, an6 Transferred Employees 

5739. Authority for relocation expenses test programs. 

(a)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, 

under a test program which the Administrator of General Services 

determines to be in the interest of the Government and approves, 

an agency may pay through the proper disbursing official øfor a period not to exceed 24 months¿ any necessary relocation expenses in 

lieu of any payment otherwise authorized or required under this 

subchapter. An agency shall include in any request to the Administrator of such a test program an analysis of the expected costs and 

benefits and a set of criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of the 

program. 

* * * * * * * 

(e) The authority to conduct test programs under this program 

shall expire ø7 years¿ 11 years after the date of enactment of the 

Travel and Transportation Reform Act of 1998. 

* * * * * * * 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with REPORTS