Overview
Title
To amend section 102 of the Revised Statutes of the United States to provide that a person who refuses to answer certain questions or is finally convicted of perjury before either House of Congress shall be debarred from Federal employment, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
H.R. 9084, the "STOP the SWAMP Act," says that if someone doesn't answer important questions or lies when talking to people who make laws, they won't be able to work for the government anymore, and they might even have to give back some money they've been paid.
Summary AI
H.R. 9084, known as the "STOP the SWAMP Act," aims to change existing laws so that if someone refuses to answer questions or is found guilty of lying under oath during Congressional hearings, they can’t work for the federal government. If a federal employee is found guilty, they will be fired. The bill also allows Congress to take back salary funds from federal employees who do not cooperate with investigations. The bill includes measures for judicial review of these actions.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The proposed legislation, referred to as the “Safeguarding Transparency and Oversight to Prevent the Spread of Washington’s Administrative Misconduct and Partisanship Act” or the "STOP the SWAMP Act," aims to amend section 102 of the Revised Statutes of the United States. The bill seeks to enforce stricter penalties on individuals who either refuse to answer questions when summoned as witnesses in congressional investigations or are found guilty of perjury before Congress. Key punitive measures include debarment from federal employment, fines, and imprisonment. Additionally, the bill outlines a procedure for Congress to rescind salary funds from non-cooperative federal employee witnesses.
Summary of Significant Issues
One major issue is the potential implication of partisanship in the bill's language, notably in its lengthy title that uses terms like “Administrative Misconduct and Partisanship.” Such language may attract accusations of bias and polarized interpretations. Furthermore, the implementation of the law may have ethical implications regarding due process; debarment from federal employment if someone refuses to answer Congress’s questions or is convicted of perjury could be considered overly punitive.
Ambiguities in the bill, such as the criteria for debarment from federal employment, could lead to inconsistent application and legal challenges. The complex procedures described for rescinding salary funds might be burdensome, involving multiple committees and potentially causing significant delays. Lastly, terms like "appropriate Member of Congress" lack clarity, which might lead to confusion about enforcement responsibilities.
Public Impact
Broadly, this bill could shape public perceptions of government accountability and transparency. By threatening severe penalties for non-compliance in congressional investigations, it may deter misconduct and encourage greater cooperation from federal employees and other witnesses. This might bolster public trust in congressional procedures aimed at oversight and accountability.
However, the bill might also raise concerns regarding civil liberties and fair treatment. The severe nature of penalties might be viewed as infringing on individuals' rights to fair trials and due process, potentially stirring public controversy. If enacted with perceived partisanship, the bill might further polarize public opinion regarding governmental motivations and actions.
Impact on Stakeholders
For federal employees, the bill could present a significant risk, as non-compliance with a congressional inquiry might not only lead to job loss but also hinder future employment opportunities within the federal sector. This increased pressure might improve cooperation but could equally lead to fears and uncertainties among current government staff.
Government bodies responsible for enforcement, like those overseeing federal employment and judicial processes, might experience increased caseloads and procedural complexities. Legal professionals involved in defending or prosecuting related cases might see this as an opportunity for more work, yet they may also criticize the potential constraints on legal rights and proceedings.
Ultimately, while the aim of enhancing governmental transparency and accountability is vital, the approach and language of the bill might lead to contention and scrutiny from multiple quarters, necessitating careful consideration and possible amendments to address these concerns effectively.
Financial Assessment
The "STOP the SWAMP Act," as described in H.R. 9084, contains several financial references related to the consequences of individuals not cooperating with Congressional investigations. The bill provides specific measures on how financial penalties and adjustments would be applied in such cases.
Financial Penalties and Debarment
One of the key financial aspects of the bill involves debarment from federal employment, which directly affects individuals' access to federal salaries and benefits. Section 2 outlines that any person who refuses to answer pertinent questions or is convicted of perjury in a Congressional hearing is subjected to a fine. Specifically, these fines range from no less than $100 to a maximum of $1,000. Additionally, these individuals face imprisonment, which can vary from a minimum of one month to a full year. These fines and the potential loss of future federal employment highlight the bill's financial impact on individuals who violate its provisions.
Rescinding Salary Funds
The bill also introduces procedures for Congress to rescind salary funds from employees who fail to comply with investigations. Section 2(b) explains that if a federal employee is found guilty of not cooperating, Congress can act to take back funds allocated for the individual's salary and expenses. This provision aims to financially penalize the employee's employing entity for retention of non-compliant individuals.
However, this process involves multiple steps, including the introduction and passage of a joint resolution, which might lead to bureaucratic delays. The complexity of these procedures aligns with one of the issues identified, where such complexity could slow down the execution of taking back the salary funds.
Judicial Review and Potential Legal Challenges
The bill allows for judicial review of the debarment from federal employment, which could result in additional legal costs and resource allocation should individuals choose to appeal the decision. This calls into question the potential legal expenses that might arise due to the ambiguity in the criteria for debarment, as noted in the issue regarding the lack of clear guidelines.
In summary, H.R. 9084 includes several financial repercussions for individuals who refuse to answer questions or commit perjury during Congressional inquiries. The financial penalties and the potential withholding of salary funds serve as strong deterrents within the bill. However, the complexity of these processes and the possibility for legal challenges could lead to delays and additional costs, potentially complicating the bill's implementation and enforcement.
Issues
The acronym 'STOP the SWAMP Act' in Section 1 suggests a partisan stance, which may lead to perceived bias in the bill's intentions and could polarize opinions among lawmakers and the public.
The provision in Section 2(a) to debar individuals from Federal employment if they refuse to answer congressional questions or are convicted of perjury raises ethical concerns about due process and may be seen as overly punitive.
The lack of clear criteria in Section 2(a)(b) and (c) for what constitutes grounds for debarment from Federal employment could lead to inconsistent application and potential legal challenges.
The complexity of the procedures for rescinding salary funds in Section 2(b), involving multiple steps and committees, may introduce significant delays and bureaucratic obstacles, hindering timely implementation.
The ambiguity around the term 'appropriate Member of Congress' in Section 2(b)(c) might lead to confusion and disputes over responsibility and authority, complicating enforcement.
The lengthy title of the Act, as noted in Section 1, could hinder public and legislative understanding of its main objectives, reducing transparency and engagement.
The subjective language in Section 1, such as 'Washington’s Administrative Misconduct and Partisanship,' might not be clearly defined, leading to differing interpretations and potentially partisan disputes.
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 bill section provides the short title, referring to the legislation as the “Safeguarding Transparency and Oversight to Prevent the Spread of Washington’s Administrative Misconduct and Partisanship Act” or the “STOP the SWAMP Act.”
2. In general Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The text outlines amendments to laws regarding witnesses in congressional investigations, specifying penalties for witnesses who refuse to answer questions or commit perjury, including misdemeanor charges, fines, potential jail time, and debarment from federal employment. It also sets procedures for Congress to rescind salary funds from federal employee witnesses who do not cooperate, detailing how such joint resolutions can be introduced, processed, and subject to review.
Money References
- In general. (a) Debarment of certain witnesses from Federal employment.—Section 102 of the Revised Statutes of the United States relating to congressional investigations (2 U.S.C. 192) is amended— (1) by striking “Every” at the beginning and inserting the following: “(a) Every”; (2) by striking “, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry,”; and (3) by adding at the end the following: “(b) Every person who having been summoned as a witness pursuant to subsection (a), having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry, shall, in addition to any other penalties provided by law, be— “(1) deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than $100 and imprisoned in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months; and “(2) debarred from Federal employment. “