STOP the SWAMP Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. McCormick, Richard [R-GA-7]
- Committees
- Rules Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 30, 2026
Bottom line
This bill significantly stiffens penalties for federal employees who obstruct congressional investigations or commit perjury, aiming to enhance accountability and transparency within the federal government.
What it actually does
This bill amends existing federal law to impose new, severe penalties on individuals, particularly federal employees, who refuse to answer pertinent questions during congressional investigations or are convicted of perjury or making false statements to Congress. It mandates debarment from federal employment and removal from civil service for such offenses, and establishes a new, expedited legislative process for Congress to rescind salary funds from agencies employing non-compliant witnesses.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue this bill is essential for strengthening congressional oversight, ensuring federal employees are held accountable for their testimony, and combating perceived 'administrative misconduct and partisanship' by deterring false testimony or non-cooperation. It aims to restore public trust in government by ensuring transparency and compelling executive branch cooperation with legislative inquiries.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that existing laws already provide sufficient penalties for perjury and contempt of Congress, and that adding debarment from federal employment could be overly punitive or politically motivated, potentially chilling legitimate dissent or creating an environment where federal employees fear testifying. Concerns might also be raised about due process and the potential for politically charged investigations to unfairly target individuals or agencies.
The bill is relatively short and straightforward, allowing for a quick read and understanding of its core provisions.
Section 2(a), amending 2 U.S.C. 192(b)
Debarment from Federal Employment for Contempt of Congress
This provision amends existing law to specify that any person summoned as a witness by Congress who refuses to answer questions pertinent to an inquiry, in addition to existing misdemeanor penalties (fine and imprisonment), shall be debarred from Federal employment. If the person is already a federal employee, they will be removed from civil service.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision provides a critical deterrent against obstruction of congressional oversight, ensuring that individuals, especially federal employees, take their obligations to testify truthfully and completely seriously. It aims to close a perceived loophole where existing penalties might not be sufficient to compel cooperation.
Critics contend
Critics might contend that existing contempt of Congress statutes are sufficient and that adding debarment from federal employment could be an excessive punishment, potentially used to target political opponents or create a chilling effect on testimony, even for those with legitimate concerns about self-incrimination or executive privilege.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the need to strengthen congressional oversight powers with concerns about individual rights and the potential for politicization of investigations.
Section 2(a), amending 2 U.S.C. 192(c)
Debarment from Federal Employment for Perjury or False Statements
This provision mandates that any person summoned as a witness by Congress who is finally convicted of perjury (under 18 U.S.C. 1621) or making false statements (under 18 U.S.C. 1001) shall be debarred from Federal employment. 'Finally convicted' is defined to include cases where appeals are exhausted or the time for appeal has expired. Federal employees convicted of such offenses would be removed from civil service.
Section 2(a), amending 2 U.S.C. 192(e)
Right to Judicial Review of Debarment
This provision explicitly states that any debarment from Federal employment under this section shall be subject to judicial review, providing a legal avenue for individuals to challenge such decisions.
Section 2(b), amending 2 U.S.C. 194(b)
Joint Resolution to Rescind Salary Funds for Non-Compliant Federal Employees
This provision establishes a new process allowing any member of either House to introduce a privileged joint resolution to rescind salary funds for a federal employee witness from their employing entity. This can occur within 180 days of a statement of facts being certified to a U.S. attorney for non-compliance. The joint resolution is subject to specific expedited legislative procedures and judicial review.
This subsection defines 'appropriate Member of Congress' for the purpose of certifying a statement of facts to a U.S. attorney. It expands this authority beyond just the President of the Senate or Speaker of the House to include the Chairman or ranking minority member of the relevant standing committee, or the Chairman or ranking minority member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Section 2(b), amending 2 U.S.C. 194(c)
Why it matters:While placing definitions at the end of a section is standard legislative practice, this particular definition significantly broadens the number of individuals who can initiate serious legal and legislative processes against federal employees, making it a consequential detail that is easy to miss.
Case for: Supporters would argue this decentralizes and empowers more members of Congress to pursue accountability, making it easier to initiate investigations and enforcement actions against non-compliant witnesses without requiring the involvement of top leadership.
Case against: Critics might contend that broadening this authority could lead to more frequent or politically motivated referrals, potentially overwhelming U.S. attorneys or being used for partisan purposes rather than genuine, high-level oversight.
Estimated impact: This provision significantly increases the number of individuals who can trigger the process for contempt of Congress or perjury referrals, potentially leading to a greater volume of such actions.