Bill Overview
Title: SWAMP Act
Description: This bill prohibits new construction or major renovation of certain executive agency headquarters in the District of Columbia metropolitan area and establishes a competitive bidding process for the relocation of such headquarters. The General Services Administration (GSA) must (1) establish a process to allow an executive agency to request the GSA to issue a solicitation for the relocation of its headquarters or allow the GSA to issue such a solicitation without a request, if necessary; (2) allow any state to respond to a solicitation with a proposal for the relocation of the agency's headquarters; and (3) in consultation with the executive agency, select a state for the relocation of the agency's headquarters using a competitive bidding procedure based on certain considerations.
Sponsors: Rep. Johnson, Bill [R-OH-6]
Target Audience
Population: People associated with or dependent on federal executive agencies headquartered in the DC metropolitan area
Estimated Size: 3500000
- The bill affects executive agencies whose headquarters are currently located in the District of Columbia metropolitan area.
- Employees of these agencies may be required to relocate if the headquarters are moved to another state.
- Local economies in the District of Columbia area might be impacted due to decreased demand if these agencies move.
- Communities and states outside the District of Columbia metropolitan area could be positively impacted through economic growth and job creation.
- The process will affect stakeholders involved in construction and real estate, potentially decreasing demand in DC and increasing in favored relocation areas.
Reasoning
- The population affected is primarily those working in federal agencies with headquarters in the DC area, as well as local economies dependent on such agencies.
- The budget constraints will likely limit the number of relocations and renovations that can be done in the short term.
- The policy could lead to economic growth in areas selected for new agency headquarters, boosting local infrastructure and job markets.
- Conversely, areas in DC might experience economic downturns due to the exit of agencies.
- The impact varies based on whether individuals are willing to relocate or not, with potential job loss or gain depending on personal circumstances.
Simulated Interviews
Manager in a federal agency (Washington, DC)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned about relocating since it would disrupt my family's life.
- If my job moves and I don't, it might affect my career trajectory.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Construction manager (Texas)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could provide more job opportunities in construction here if a federal agency relocates to Texas.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Local business owner (Virginia)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The relocation might decrease my sales as federal workers are a significant part of my clientele.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 7 |
Logistics coordinator for a federal agency (Maryland)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried about the impact on my job and livelihood if the agency moves.
- Relocating is not feasible for me due to my children's schooling.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
State economic planner (California)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act offers a chance for California to provide proposals to host federal agencies, boosting our local economy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Real estate developer (New York)
Age: 31 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this policy could open up new streams of business for developers in receiving states.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Retired federal employee (Washington, DC)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry about the potential economic decline in DC as a result of losing federal agency headquarters.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Small business owner (South Carolina)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If a federal agency relocated nearby, it might boost my business due to increased population and purchasing power.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Environmental advocate (Pennsylvania)
Age: 26 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While economic growth is good, I'm concerned about the environmental impacts of relocating and building new headquarters.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
State government official (Illinois)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy presents a chance for Illinois to attract federal agencies, boosting local development.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $120000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $150000000)
Year 2: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $130000000)
Year 3: $80000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $100000000)
Year 5: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $70000000)
Year 10: $20000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $30000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Potential resistance from federal workers unwilling or unable to relocate, leading to staffing challenges.
- Uneven economic effects with potential initial disturbances in the DC metropolitan area's real estate and labor market.
- Need for adequate infrastructure and amenities in new locations to ensure smooth transitions.