H.R. 6644 Update: The Industry Showed Up — Now What?

This post is an update to our March 2026 piece, Housing Legislation Update: What the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act Means for Corporate Relocation Home Sale Programs. A lot has happened since then, and a lot is still unresolved.

The headline: The House passed H.Res. 1299, the House-amended version of H.R. 6644, on May 20 by a sweeping 395-13 vote, and the Trump administration has since released a Statement of Administration Policy indicating the President would sign the bill if it reaches his desk. The bill now returns to the Senate, which is expected to take it up in June. This is significant movement. For the relocation industry, the outcome is bittersweet.

A Detail That Explains a Lot

Here's context that helps explain why the House wasn't simply falling in line with the Senate: the House actually passed its own version of H.R. 6644 first, back on February 9. The Senate then passed a significantly amended version on March 10 that added new and controversial provisions, including the institutional investor restrictions, that created concerns for the relocation industry. The House was being asked to accept a bill that came back with major additions it never voted on. That's a meaningful distinction, and it explains the months of negotiation that followed.

Where Things Stand Legislatively

The House Financial Services Committee had worked to include definitional exclusions and a 365-day ownership threshold in earlier versions of the revised House text — language that would have drawn a clear line protecting relocation home sale programs. That language did not survive into the final bill. The version that passed the House largely reverted to the original Senate language on institutional investors, with one change: the divestment requirement was removed. No explicit relocation carve-out made it into the final text.

The Senate adjourned through the end of May and will not return until June, where it already faces a packed legislative calendar. Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Scott (R-SC) and Ranking Member Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) issued a joint statement expressing a desire to work with the White House and House on remaining concerns. That said, it is considered unlikely that the Senate would reopen Section 1001, the institutional investor section, given that the House version already aligned closely with the original Senate language. The most probable path is that the Senate passes the House version without further changes sometime in June, with the bill potentially reaching the President's desk before July 4th.

Why the Rulemaking Process Is Now the Whole Ballgame

Here's the critical thing for mobility program leaders to understand: if the bill is signed into law, the large institutional investor provisions do not go into effect immediately. Section 1001 includes a 180-day implementation window, during which the U.S. Department of Treasury is required to conduct a formal regulatory rulemaking process. That process will develop the actual definitions, parameters, and requirements that will govern how the law is applied in practice.

That 180-day window is where the relocation industry's fight now lives. The definitional exclusions and the 365-day threshold that the House Financial Services Committee tried to build into the bill text will now need to be established through Treasury's rulemaking instead. WERC and the industry will be actively engaged in that process, making the case that relocation home sale programs were never intended to be captured by this legislation, and pressing Treasury to codify that intent in regulation.

What's Still Needed From the Industry

With the rulemaking window ahead, WERC is asking mobility practitioners, corporate HR and government affairs teams, and industry partners to take two specific actions in the coming weeks.

First, reach out to your members of Congress and ask them to go on record, formally and explicitly, clarifying that relocation home sale programs were not intended to be impacted by the institutional investor provisions, and urging Treasury to ensure that intent is reflected in the rulemaking.

Second, urge the House Financial Services Committee and Senate Banking Committee to include language in any conference reports that articulates this intent directly. Committee report language carries significant weight in regulatory proceedings and will strengthen WERC's hand in the Treasury engagement.

Your Program Today

BVO, AVO, and GBO programs continue to operate normally. Nothing changes until the bill is signed into law and the 180-day clock starts running. Even then, the Treasury rulemaking process will determine the practical impact. WERC has made clear that if issues remain unresolved after rulemaking, additional options exist to continue protecting relocation home sale programs.

The fundamental argument hasn't changed: relocation home sale programs put homes back in the hands of individual owner-occupants in a matter of months. That's the opposite of what Congress was trying to stop. The next chapter of this advocacy is being written at Treasury. Plus will continue to monitor closely and keep you informed every step of the way.