Overview
Title
To establish a competitive bidding process for the relocation of the headquarters of Executive agencies, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
The SWAMP Act is a plan to move important government offices from Washington, D.C. to other places in the U.S. through a fair competition. This is like having a contest to find the best new places for these offices, but they have to use the money they already have.
Summary AI
H.R. 514, also known as the “SWAMP Act”, proposes a plan for moving the headquarters of U.S. Executive agencies out of the Washington metropolitan area to other states via a competitive bidding process. The bill defines which agencies are impacted and sets out that new construction, major renovations, and new leases are restricted in the Washington area unless otherwise covered by law. It empowers the Administrator of General Services to manage the relocation process, allowing states and their subdivisions to make bids, which will be evaluated on economic impact, local expertise, and national security considerations. The bill does not authorize extra funding, relying instead on existing resources and potential proceeds from federally-owned property sales to cover costs.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
The bill titled "Strategic Withdrawal of Agencies for Meaningful Placement Act," or the "SWAMP Act," aims to relocate the headquarters of certain Executive agencies out of the Washington metropolitan area. This legislative move seeks to redistribute federal agency functions across various states, possibly driving economic growth and enhancing regional expertise.
General Summary of the Bill
The SWAMP Act intends to establish a competitive bidding process for the relocation of Executive agencies' headquarters. The bill prohibits these headquarters from being newly set up within the Washington metropolitan area unless they already exist there as of the Act's enactment date. In such cases, the bill restricts lease renewals and building renovations. Furthermore, the bill outlines a competitive process, managed by the General Services Administration, to relocate federal agency headquarters, considering economic impact, expertise alignment, and national security. A noteworthy element is that relocations must be funded without extra federal allocations, potentially using proceeds from the sale of federal properties.
Summary of Significant Issues
Several issues are noteworthy within this legislative proposal:
Resource Efficiency: The prohibition on locating headquarters in the Washington area could lead to the abandonment of existing infrastructure, raising concerns about the efficient use of federal resources. This could lead to waste if buildings and facilities in this area are vacated without a clear, funded plan for repurposing.
Financial Constraints: With no additional funds authorized for relocations, the General Services Administration might face financial and operational challenges, which could affect the timely and effective implementation of the bill.
Growth Limitations: For agencies currently allowed to continue in the Washington area, the bill's constraints on construction and leasing renewals could limit growth and operational flexibility, potentially hindering long-term strategic planning.
Vagueness and Subjectivity: Certain provisions, such as determining the necessity for relocation solicitations, lack detailed criteria, leading to potential subjectivity and risk of biased decision-making.
Regional Favoritism: The bill may inadvertently favor certain regions by allowing only political subdivisions outside Washington but within Maryland and Virginia to submit relocation proposals, potentially overlooking more economically distressed areas across the United States.
Ambiguity in Terms: Ambiguities in terms like "major renovation" could lead to interpretative challenges and legal uncertainties for federal agencies regarding compliance.
Impact on the Public and Stakeholders
Broadly, the public might experience varied impacts. On one hand, dispersing federal headquarters across different states could stimulate local economies, create job opportunities, and diversify the concentration of federal influence beyond the nation's capital. On the other hand, disrupting established facilities could incur unforeseen costs and hamper efficiency in federal operations, at least in the short term.
For stakeholders within the Washington metropolitan area, particularly businesses and residents reliant on the presence of federal agencies, the bill could mean a significant economic shift. Conversely, states where new agency headquarters might be established could see positive economic developments and increased federal engagement, enhancing regional expertise and infrastructure.
Ultimately, while striving for a more geographically dispersed federal presence, the SWAMP Act presents challenges related to financial feasibility, equitable opportunity distribution, and practical implementation, which will need careful navigation to realize its potential benefits.
Issues
The prohibition on the location of headquarters in the Washington metropolitan area (SEC. 2(b)(1)) is rigid and may lead to potential resource waste if existing infrastructure has to be abandoned, raising concerns about financial efficiency and practicality in the usage of federal properties.
The lack of additional funding for the Administrator of General Services to implement the Act (SEC. 2(f)) could lead to insufficient resources for carrying out relocations effectively and may detract from current operations or other priorities.
The exception allowing existing headquarters to remain in the Washington metropolitan area (SEC. 2(b)(2)) does not account for future growth or needs, potentially leading to overcrowding and limitations on expansion within existing spaces, raising concerns about long-term strategic planning.
The language in SEC. 2(c)(1)(B) allowing relocation solicitations 'if determined necessary' is vague and subjective, opening the door for potential abuse or biased decisions, which could lead to legal or ethical concerns regarding the transparency and fairness of the relocation process.
The rule of construction in SEC. 2(d) favoring political subdivisions outside of Washington, D.C. but within Maryland and Virginia raises concerns about regional favoritism, potentially at the expense of opportunities for more economically distressed areas across the U.S.
There is ambiguity in what constitutes a 'major renovation' (SEC. 2(b)(3)(A)), risking varying interpretations and possible unintentional compliance costs or restrictions, thus creating legal uncertainties for federal agencies.
The use of the acronym 'SWAMP Act' in the title (SEC. 1) could carry negative connotations or political implications, potentially affecting public perception and leading to broader political discourse around the motivations and intentions behind the bill.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The opening section of the bill states the official name of the legislation as the "Strategic Withdrawal of Agencies for Meaningful Placement Act," abbreviated as the "SWAMP Act."
2. Relocation of headquarters of Executive agencies Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The bill section outlines that the headquarters of Executive agencies cannot be located in the Washington metropolitan area unless already situated there at enactment, in which case renovations and lease activities are restricted. It requires a competitive bidding process for relocation, considering economic, expertise, and national security factors, and allows funding from building sales, with no additional funds authorized.