STOP the SWAMP Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Marshall, Roger [R-KS]
- Committees
- Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Aug 4, 2026
Bottom line
The bill significantly strengthens congressional oversight by imposing severe employment and financial penalties on federal employees who obstruct or mislead congressional investigations.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Revised Statutes to impose new penalties on individuals who refuse to answer pertinent questions or are convicted of perjury before Congress. Specifically, it mandates debarment from federal employment for such offenses and establishes a new, expedited process for Congress to rescind salary funds for federal employees found in contempt.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue this bill is crucial for enhancing transparency and accountability within the federal government, ensuring that federal employees fully cooperate with legitimate congressional inquiries and preventing administrative misconduct and partisanship by holding non-compliant individuals accountable.
Opponents contend
Opponents might contend that the bill could be used for political targeting, infringe upon the due process rights of federal employees, or create a chilling effect on testimony, potentially leading to overreach by Congress and politicization of the federal workforce.
The bill is short and relatively straightforward to read, but its significant implications for federal employees and congressional power warrant careful consideration beyond a quick review.
Section 2(a) amending 2 U.S.C. 192(b)
Debarment from Federal Employment for Refusal to Answer Congressional Questions
This provision amends existing law to stipulate that any person summoned as a witness before Congress who refuses to answer questions pertinent to the inquiry will not only face misdemeanor charges (fines and imprisonment) but also be permanently debarred from federal employment. If the person is already a federal employee, they will be removed from the civil service.
Supporters argue
Supporters contend this provision ensures accountability and compels federal employees to cooperate with congressional oversight, preventing stonewalling and promoting transparency within the bureaucracy.
Critics contend
Critics may argue this provision could be overly punitive, potentially chilling legitimate challenges to congressional authority or encouraging witnesses to provide incomplete answers out of fear, and could be used for political intimidation.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the need for robust congressional oversight against the due process rights and employment protections of federal employees, introducing a direct and severe consequence for non-compliance.
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 before Congress who is finally convicted of perjury (under 18 U.S.C. 1621) or making false statements (under 18 U.S.C. 1001) will be debarred from federal employment. 'Finally convicted' means all appeals are exhausted or the time for appeal has expired. Federal employees convicted of such offenses would be removed from the civil service.
Section 2(a) amending 2 U.S.C. 192(e)
Judicial Review for Debarment Decisions
This provision explicitly states that any debarment from federal employment resulting from a violation of the new subsections (b) or (c) of 2 U.S.C. 192 shall be subject to judicial review. This ensures that affected individuals have recourse to challenge the debarment in federal court.
Section 2(b) amending 2 U.S.C. 194
Congressional Authority to Rescind Salary Funds for Non-Cooperative Federal Employees
This provision establishes a new process allowing any Member of either House of Congress to introduce a privileged joint resolution to rescind salary and expense funds for a federal employee witness who has been certified for prosecution under 2 U.S.C. 194(a) (for contempt of Congress). This joint resolution would be referred to the Appropriations Committee, subject to specific expedited procedures for debate and a vote in both Houses, and also subject to judicial review.
Defines 'finally convicted' for the purpose of debarment for perjury or false statements. It means a conviction where the appeal period has expired or the appeals process is completed.
Section 2(a) amending 2 U.S.C. 192(c)(1)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to define terms precisely, ensuring legal clarity and preventing debarment based on convictions that are still under appeal.
Case for: Ensures clarity and prevents debarment based on convictions that are still under appeal, protecting due process by requiring a final legal determination.
Case against: No specific case against this definitional clarity, as it enhances legal precision.
Estimated impact: Clarifies the timing and finality of debarment, impacting the legal process for affected individuals by setting a clear standard for when the penalty can be applied.
Expands the authority to certify a statement of facts to a U.S. attorney (triggering the salary rescission process) beyond the President of the Senate or Speaker of the House to include the chair or ranking member of the relevant committee, or the chair or ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
Section 2(b) amending 2 U.S.C. 194(c)
Why it matters:While presented as a technical clarification of who constitutes an 'appropriate Member of Congress,' this provision significantly broadens the number of individuals who can initiate the process, potentially decentralizing power.
Case for: Proponents would argue it decentralizes and streamlines the process for initiating contempt proceedings, making it more responsive to committee-level oversight needs and empowering individual members.
Case against: Opponents might argue it increases the potential for politically motivated actions by allowing more individuals to trigger the process, potentially bypassing leadership's discretion and leading to more frequent or partisan use of the mechanism.
Estimated impact: Significantly broadens the scope of individuals who can initiate the process for salary rescission, potentially leading to more frequent use of the mechanism and shifting power dynamics within Congress.