[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 26, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H1981-H1983]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE REFORM ACT

  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill (H.R. 4359) to amend title 5, United States Code, to 
provide that Federal employees may not be placed on administrative 
leave for more than 14 days during any year for misconduct or poor 
performance, and for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 4359

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Administrative Leave Reform 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 63 of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 6330. Limitation on administrative leave

       ``(a) In General.--During any calendar year, an employee 
     may not be placed on administrative leave, or any other paid 
     non-duty status without charge to leave, for more than 14 
     total days for reasons relating to misconduct or performance. 
     After an employee has been placed on administrative leave for 
     14 days, the employing agency shall return the employee to 
     duty status, utilizing telework if available, and assign the 
     employee to duties if such employee is not a threat to 
     safety, the agency mission, or Government property.
       ``(b) Extended Administrative Leave.--
       ``(1) In general.--If an agency finds that an employee is a 
     threat to safety, the agency mission, or Government property 
     and upon the expiration of the 14-day period described in 
     subsection (a), an agency head may place the employee on 
     extended administrative leave for additional periods of not 
     more than 30 days each.
       ``(2) Report.--For any additional period of 30 days granted 
     to the employee after the initial 30-day extension, the 
     agency head shall submit to the Committee on Oversight and 
     Government Reform in the House of Representatives, the 
     agency's authorizing committees of jurisdiction of the House 
     of Representatives and the Senate, and the Committee on 
     Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate a 
     report, not later than 5 business days after granting the 
     additional period, containing--
       ``(A) title, position, office or agency subcomponent, job 
     series, pay grade, and salary of the employee on 
     administrative leave;
       ``(B) a description of the work duties of the employee;
       ``(C) the reason the employee is on administrative leave;
       ``(D) an explanation as to why the employee is a threat to 
     safety, the agency mission, or Government property;
       ``(E) an explanation as to why the employee is not able to 
     telework or be reassigned to another position within the 
     agency;
       ``(F) in the case of a pending related investigation of the 
     employee--
       ``(i) the status of such investigation; and
       ``(ii) the certification described in subsection (c)(1); 
     and
       ``(G) in the case of a completed related investigation of 
     the employee--
       ``(i) the results of such investigation; and
       ``(ii) the reason that the employee remains on 
     administrative leave.
       ``(c) Extension Pending Related Investigation.--
       ``(1) In general.--If an employee is under a related 
     investigation by an investigative entity at the time an 
     additional period described under subsection (b)(2) is 
     granted and, in the opinion of the investigative entity, 
     additional time is needed to complete the investigation, such 
     entity shall certify to the applicable agency that such 
     additional time is needed and include in the certification an 
     estimate of the length of such additional time.
       ``(2) Limitation.--The head of an agency may not grant an 
     additional period of administrative leave described under 
     subsection (b)(2) to an employee on or after the date that is 
     30 days after the completion of a related investigation by an 
     investigative entity.
       ``(d) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       ``(1) Investigative entity.--The term `investigative 
     entity' means an internal investigative unit of the agency 
     granting administrative leave, the Office of Inspector 
     General, the Office of the Attorney General, or the Office of 
     Special Counsel.
       ``(2) Related investigation.--The term `related 
     investigation' means an investigation that pertains to the 
     underlying reasons an employee was placed on administrative 
     leave.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall begin to apply 90 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.
       (c) Rules of Construction.--Nothing in the amendment made 
     by subsection (a) shall be construed to--
       (1) supersede the provisions of chapter 75 of title 5, 
     United States Code; or
       (2) limit the number of days that an employee may be placed 
     on administrative leave, or any other paid non-duty status 
     without charge to leave, for reasons unrelated to misconduct 
     or performance.
       (d) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for 
     subchapter II of chapter 63 of title 5, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding after the item relating to section 6329 
     the following new item:

``6330. Limitation on administrative leave.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Chaffetz) and the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Ms. 
Plaskett) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.


                             General Leave

  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to

[[Page H1982]]

revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the 
bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Utah?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  H.R. 4359 is a commonsense solution to address the misuse of 
administrative leave for misconduct or performance issues.
  Unfortunately, it has been commonplace for the Oversight and 
Government Reform Committee to hear stories of Federal employees who 
remain on administrative leave for months, or years, at a time.
  Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker. The overwhelming majority of people who 
work for the Federal Government are good, honest, decent, patriotic 
people who care. They work hard, they are trying to serve their 
country, and they put in an honest day's work. But we do have some bad 
apples. Every once in a while, they show up, and they start working for 
the Federal Government. They create problems and they create mayhem.
  Unfortunately, we have to tighten the rules surrounding their 
situation because we have had a number of Federal employees that have 
remained on administrative leave sometimes not just for days, sometimes 
not just for weeks. Sometimes this drags on for months and for years--
years--to be on administrative leave. While on administrative leave, 
these employees receive full pay and benefits despite the fact that 
they are not working. There are going to be extraordinary 
circumstances, but this is happening far too often.
  It is particularly difficult to understand how the IRS could, for 
example, justify allowing Lois Lerner to sit on administrative leave 
for 4 months before her retirement. She was an individual who abused 
her power as a Federal employee by engaging in the political targeting 
of American citizens.
  But she is not alone. This is certainly not a bill just about her 
situation. Every year, hundreds, if not thousands, of Federal employees 
are under investigation for significant misconduct and remain on 
administrative leave for far longer than is necessary to complete an 
investigation.
  One reason administrative leave has become such a significant problem 
is because agencies simply find it easier to keep an employee on 
administrative leave. It is the path of least resistance. This means 
that some individuals face little to no penalty for significant 
misconduct and are all too often permitted to remain on administrative 
leave until they are able to retire.
  Mr. Speaker, abuse of administrative leave is a real problem. H.R. 
4359 will protect American taxpayer dollars from being further wasted.
  Consider one example highlighted by the inspector general for the 
Environmental Protection Agency, who found an employee earning $120,000 
a year annually while watching pornography on the job. This employee 
was placed on administrative leave for a year--a year. I believe, in 
this particular case, this person actually admitted to doing it. It 
wasn't just a casual oops. This person was watching for literally hours 
upon hours each day and admitted it. They put him on administrative 
leave, and this went on for a year.
  Why should the American taxpayers have to pay for that? It is a clear 
waste of our dollars. The American people deserve better, and so do the 
employees who work around this person.
  According to the Government Accountability Office report, the GAO, 
which reviewed the use of administrative leave between the years 2011 
and 2013, 263 Federal employees were on administrative leave for more 
than a year at the 24 agencies reviewed. GAO found that those 
individuals on administrative leave cost the people, the American 
taxpayers, more than $31 million.
  Why should we have to pay for that? It is an astonishing amount of 
money to pay for Federal employees, and they are doing absolutely 
nothing. They can, essentially, go wherever they want to go, and it is, 
essentially, a paid vacation.
  It also sends the wrong message to the hardworking Americans from 
whom we levee taxes. We cannot use tax dollars to pay misbehaving or 
poor-performing Federal employees. There are often situations that come 
up where the employees need a fair chance to defend themselves. But 
again, under this bill, it gives them plenty of time to do that. If 
there needs to be an extension, there can be an extension; but if there 
is not timely disciplinary action, if any disciplinary action at all, 
for their performance issues, the American taxpayers are left holding 
the bag and the expense.
  Mr. Speaker, agencies are abusing the system of administrative leave 
and failing to explain why.
  In a report conducted by Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, agencies 
were found to be opaque about why they were using administrative leave, 
or completely nonresponsive, when Senator Grassley inquired about 58 
employees at the Department of Defense that they had on administrative 
leave for more than a year. Think about that. At the DOD, the 
Department of Defense, they had 58 employees who had been on 
administrative leave for more than a year, and the Department of 
Defense just decided not to respond, just literally did not respond.
  Mr. Speaker, I understand the need and utility of administrative 
leave. When used properly, administrative leave provides agencies with 
the flexibility needed to better manage human resources and to get to 
the bottom of certain situations, but it has become a tool that 
agencies hide behind with far too little oversight and accountability.
  The shortcomings of the current system need to end, and this bill 
that I am the chief sponsor of will curb these abuses. Specifically, 
this legislation will limit the use of administrative leave for 
misconduct or performance issues to 14 days per year in order to push 
agencies to complete their investigations quickly or to find acceptable 
alternate work for the individual to perform during such an 
investigation. This is fair to the employee, as well as the management, 
as well as the American taxpayers. Rather than allowing indefinite 
leave, agencies will have to take disciplinary action against bad 
actors, which will serve to bring greater accountability to the Federal 
workforce.

  The bill is also critical to protecting whistleblowers. The Office of 
Special Counsel, or the OSC, has a responsibility in the Federal 
Government to investigate potential reprisal and petition the Merit 
Systems Protection Board to stop retaliatory actions. However, being 
put on administrative leave does not constitute a personnel action that 
is reviewable by the OSC.
  Thus, as long as a whistleblower is placed on administrative leave, 
he or she is left in limbo at the discretion of the agency with no 
right to appeal their status. Because of this, I believe that the bill 
before us, H.R. 4359, will go a long way to help reducing retaliation 
and protect whistleblowers by barring agencies from leaving employees 
on indefinite administrative leave.
  Mr. Speaker, getting this legislation to the floor today, I am proud 
to say we have been able to work collaboratively in a bipartisan way. I 
particularly want to thank Mr. Lynch of Massachusetts for his passion 
on this issue and working with us. We incorporated some of those 
suggestions into the bill today.
  We have altered the bill to give the agencies the option to extend 
the use of administrative leave beyond 14 days in discrete 30-day 
periods. Under these provisions, the agencies will be required to 
report to Congress after the use of the first 30-day extension, 
detailing why the extension is necessary, the stage of any 
investigation against the employee, the reasons the employee cannot 
return to the workplace, as well as other pertinent information.
  Again, I want to thank Mr. Lynch for his work on this legislation. I 
believe that this is a stronger bill and more fair to the employees. I 
think it was an important step forward.
  I thank Mr. Cummings, the committee as a whole, and the many members 
who were involved in getting the bill to this point today.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I think we can all agree that agency overuse of administrative leave 
can be a problem and that we need to pursue ways that agencies can use 
administrative leave more efficiently, while preserving due process 
protections for Federal employees.

[[Page H1983]]

  I want to thank the chairman for working with the minority, and 
particularly with Representative Lynch, to address our concerns that 
the original bill could have encouraged agencies to suspend employees 
without pay and without due process.
  The bill, as reported, would preserve the ability of an agency to 
place employees on administrative leave in those exceptional 
circumstances when they may pose a threat to safety, agency mission, or 
government property. It would also allow the agency to consider the 
results of a thorough and complete investigation prior to taking 
disciplinary action. The bill, however, would not punish employees by 
stripping them of pay before allegations are properly adjudicated, 
preserving the principle that one is innocent until proven guilty.
  The bill before us strikes the appropriate balance, we believe, 
between the need for stricter oversight of agency use of administrative 
leave and the due process rights of Federal employees. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 4359.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I urge the passage of H.R. 4359. We have 
worked in a good, bipartisan way. It is a good bill for the country and 
is good for the employees of the Federal Government.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Womack). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4359, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________