PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Dec 8, 2016
Deter Revolving-door Appointments in our Nation; Stop Washington Appointees from becoming Manipulative Petitioners Act or the DRAIN the SWAMP Act
This bill amends the federal criminal code to revise post-employment lobbying restrictions on senior executive branch officials and employees.
Specifically, it imposes a five-year ban on communications by a former political appointee with the intent to influence officers or employees at their former executive branch agency or department.
The term political appointee includes certain senior political officials compensated on the Executive Schedule; limited term, limited emergency, and noncareer appointees in the Senior Executive Service; and employees in confidential or policy-determining positions in the excepted service.
Additionally, the bill amends the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 to impose a lifetime ban on lobbying by a former political appointee on behalf of a foreign government or foreign political party.
People & committees
Rep. DeFazio, Peter A. [D-OR-4] · D–OR
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 the Constitution and Civil Justice.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H7401-7402)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 12, 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.6476 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.6476 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.6476 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.6476 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.