PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Carter, Earl L. "Buddy" [R-GA-1] · R–GA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management.
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: May 19, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1779 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1779 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1779 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1779 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2025-03-03 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
This proposal would require the Administrator of General Services to dispose of the San Francisco property containing the Speaker Nancy Pelosi Federal Building by May 31, 2025. The Administrator would dispose of the property under the referenced federal property-disposal statute or, if the Administrator determined that disposal under that statute was not feasible, sell it at fair market value and for its highest and best use.
(a) Sale Not later than May 31, 2025, the Administrator of General Services shall— (1) dispose of the property described in subsection (b) pursuant to subchapter III of chapter 5 of title 40, United States Code; or (2) if a disposal pursuant to paragraph (1) is not feasible, in the determination of the Administrator, sell the property described in that subsection at fair market value and for the highest and best use.
(b) Property described The property referred to in subsection (a) is the property generally consisting of 90 7th St, San Francisco, California 94103, including the building known as the Speaker Nancy Pelosi Federal Building, subject to a survey, as determined appropriate by the Administrator.
Section 1 would give the proposal the short title “Stop Wasteful Allocations of Money for Pelosi Act,” or “SWAMP Act.” The title does not establish that spending was wasteful.
1. Short title This Act may be cited as the Stop Wasteful Allocations of Money for Pelosi Act or the SWAMP Act.
Section 2 would make disposal mandatory by May 31, 2025. It specifies disposal under subchapter III of chapter 5 of title 40, United States Code, or a fallback sale if the Administrator determined that disposal under that statute was not feasible. The text does not expressly require an attempted statutory disposal before that determination. The fallback sale would have to be at fair market value and for the property's highest and best use; the supplied text does not define those terms.
(a) Sale Not later than May 31, 2025, the Administrator of General Services shall— (1) dispose of the property described in subsection (b) pursuant to subchapter III of chapter 5 of title 40, United States Code; or (2) if a disposal pursuant to paragraph (1) is not feasible, in the determination of the Administrator, sell the property described in that subsection at fair market value and for the highest and best use.
The covered property would generally consist of 90 7th Street, San Francisco, California 94103, including the Speaker Nancy Pelosi Federal Building. The description would be subject to a survey if the Administrator considered one appropriate.
(b) Property described The property referred to in subsection (a) is the property generally consisting of 90 7th St, San Francisco, California 94103, including the building known as the Speaker Nancy Pelosi Federal Building, subject to a survey, as determined appropriate by the Administrator.
The supplied actions snapshot, updated May 19, 2025, records introduction in the House on March 3, 2025, and referrals that day to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and its Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management.
Source snapshot updated 2025-05-19T15:27:28Z. 2025-03-03: Referred to the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management. 2025-03-03: Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. 2025-03-03: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-03-03. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish what other versions or accompanying materials contain.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for a particular recipient or place was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials. Formal earmark status cannot be established from the supplied source set; accompanying disclosures and committee materials are absent.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow preferential benefit, special exemption, or carve-out was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: May 19, 2025. How PlainBill uses AI