[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12756-12762]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

  Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 2579) to amend title 5, United States Code, to provide for 
investigative leave requirements with respect to Senior Executive 
Service employees, and for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 2579

       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 ``Government Employee 
     Accountability Act''.

     SEC. 2. SUSPENSION FOR 14 DAYS OR LESS FOR SENIOR EXECUTIVE 
                   SERVICE EMPLOYEES.

       Paragraph (1) of section 7501 of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(1) `employee' means--
       ``(A) an individual in the competitive service who is not 
     serving a probationary or trial period under an initial 
     appointment or who has completed 1 year of current continuous 
     employment in the same or similar positions under other than 
     a temporary appointment limited to 1 year or less; or
       ``(B) a career appointee in the Senior Executive Service 
     who--
       ``(i) has completed the probationary period prescribed 
     under section 3393(d); or
       ``(ii) was covered by the provisions of subchapter II of 
     this chapter immediately before appointment to the Senior 
     Executive Service;''.

     SEC. 3. INVESTIGATIVE LEAVE AND TERMINATION AUTHORITY FOR 
                   SENIOR EXECUTIVE SERVICE EMPLOYEES.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 75 of title 5, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

   ``SUBCHAPTER VI--INVESTIGATIVE LEAVE FOR SENIOR EXECUTIVE SERVICE 
                               EMPLOYEES

     ``Sec. 7551. Definitions

       ``For the purposes of this subchapter--
       ``(1) `employee' has the meaning given such term in section 
     7541; and
       ``(2) `investigative leave' means a temporary absence 
     without duty for disciplinary reasons, of a period not 
     greater than 90 days.

     ``Sec. 7552. Actions covered

       ``This subchapter applies to investigative leave.

     ``Sec. 7553. Cause and procedure

       ``(a)(1) Under regulations prescribed by the Office of 
     Personnel Management, an agency may place an employee on 
     investigative leave, without loss of pay and without charge 
     to annual or sick leave, only for misconduct, neglect of 
     duty, malfeasance, or misappropriation of funds.
       ``(2) If an agency determines, as prescribed in regulation 
     by the Office of Personnel Management, that such employee's 
     conduct is flagrant and that such employee intentionally 
     engaged in such conduct, the agency may place such employee 
     on investigative leave under this subchapter without pay.
       ``(b)(1) At the end of each 45-day period during a period 
     of investigative leave implemented under this section, the 
     relevant agency shall review the investigation into the 
     employee with respect to the misconduct, neglect of duty, 
     malfeasance, or misappropriation of funds.
       ``(2) Not later than 5 business days after the end of each 
     such 45-day period, the agency shall submit a report 
     describing such review to the Committee on Oversight and 
     Government Reform of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of 
     the Senate.
       ``(3) At the end of a period of investigative leave 
     implemented under this section, the agency shall--
       ``(A) remove an employee placed on investigative leave 
     under this section;
       ``(B) suspend such employee without pay; or
       ``(C) reinstate or restore such employee to duty.
       ``(4) The agency may extend the period of investigative 
     leave with respect to an action under this subchapter for an 
     additional period not to exceed 90 days.
       ``(c) An employee against whom an action covered by this 
     subchapter is proposed is entitled to, before being placed on 
     investigative leave under this section--
       ``(1) at least 30 days' advance written notice, stating 
     specific reasons for the proposed action, unless--
       ``(A) there is reasonable cause to believe that the 
     employee has committed a crime for which a sentence of 
     imprisonment can be imposed; or
       ``(B) the agency determines, as prescribed in regulation by 
     the Office of Personnel Management, that the employee's 
     conduct with respect to which an action covered by this 
     subchapter is proposed is flagrant and that such employee 
     intentionally engaged in such conduct;
       ``(2) a reasonable time, but not less than 7 days, to 
     answer orally and in writing and to furnish affidavits and 
     other documentary evidence in support of the answer;
       ``(3) be represented by an attorney or other 
     representative; and
       ``(4) a written decision and specific reasons therefor at 
     the earliest practicable date.
       ``(d) An agency may provide, by regulation, for a hearing 
     which may be in lieu of or in addition to the opportunity to 
     answer provided under subsection (c)(2).
       ``(e) An employee against whom an action is taken under 
     this section is entitled to appeal to the Merit Systems 
     Protection Board under section 7701.
       ``(f) Copies of the notice of proposed action, the answer 
     of the employee when written, and a summary thereof when made 
     orally, the notice of decision and reasons therefor, and any 
     order effecting an action covered by this subchapter, 
     together with any supporting material, shall be maintained by 
     the

[[Page 12757]]

     agency and shall be furnished to the Merit Systems Protection 
     Board upon its request and to the employee affected upon the 
     employee's request.

    ``SUBCHAPTER VII--REMOVAL OF SENIOR EXECUTIVE SERVICE EMPLOYEES

     ``Sec. 7561. Definition

       ``For purposes of this subchapter, the term `employee' has 
     the meaning given such term in section 7541.

     ``Sec. 7562. Removal of Senior Executive Service employees

       ``(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law and 
     consistent with the requirements of subsection (b), the head 
     of an agency may remove an employee for serious neglect of 
     duty, misappropriation of funds, or malfeasance if the head 
     of the agency--
       ``(1) determines that the employee knowingly acted in a 
     manner that endangers the interest of the agency mission;
       ``(2) considers the removal to be necessary or advisable in 
     the interests of the United States; and
       ``(3) determines that the procedures prescribed in other 
     provisions of law that authorize the removal of such employee 
     cannot be invoked in a manner that the head of an agency 
     considers consistent with the efficiency of the Government.
       ``(b) An employee may not be removed under this section--
       ``(1) on any basis that would be prohibited under--
       ``(A) any provision of law referred to in section 
     2302(b)(1); or
       ``(B) paragraphs (8) or (9) of section 2302(b); or
       ``(2) on any basis, described in paragraph (1), as to which 
     any administrative or judicial proceeding--
       ``(A) has been commenced by or on behalf of such employee; 
     and
       ``(B) is pending.
       ``(c) An employee removed under this section shall be 
     notified of the reasons for such removal. Within 30 days 
     after the notification, the employee is entitled to submit to 
     the official designated by the head of the agency statements 
     or affidavits to show why the employee should be restored to 
     duty. If such statements and affidavits are submitted, the 
     head of the agency shall provide a written response, and may 
     restore the employee's employment if the head of the agency 
     chooses.
       ``(d) Whenever the head of the agency removes an employee 
     under the authority of this section, the head of the agency 
     shall notify Congress of such termination, and the specific 
     reasons for the action.
       ``(e) An employee against whom an action is taken under 
     this section is entitled to appeal to the Merit Systems 
     Protection Board under section 7701 of this title.
       ``(f) Copies of the notice of proposed action, the answer 
     of the employee when written, and a summary thereof when made 
     orally, the notice of decision and reasons therefor, and any 
     order effecting an action covered by this subchapter, 
     together with any supporting material, shall be maintained by 
     the agency and shall be furnished to the Merit Systems 
     Protection Board upon its request and to the employee 
     affected upon the employee's request.
       ``(g) A removal under this section does not affect the 
     right of the employee affected to seek or accept employment 
     with any other department or agency of the United States if 
     that employee is declared eligible for such employment by the 
     Director of the Office of Personnel Management.
       ``(h) The authority of the head of the agency under this 
     section may not be delegated.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 75 of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding after the item relating to section 7543 the 
     following:

   ``subchapter vi--investigative leave for senior executive service 
                               employees

``7551. Definitions.
``7552. Actions covered.
``7553. Cause and procedure.

     ``subchapter vii--removal of senior executive service employees

``7561. Definition.
``7562. Removal of Senior Executive Employees.''.

     SEC. 4. SUSPENSION OF SENIOR EXECUTIVE SERVICE EMPLOYEES.

       Section 7543 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``misappropriation of 
     funds,'' after ``malfeasance,''; and
       (2) in subsection (b), by amending paragraph (1) to read as 
     follows:
       ``(1) at least 30 days' advance written notice, stating 
     specific reasons for the proposed action, unless--
       ``(A) there is reasonable cause to believe that the 
     employee has committed a crime for which a sentence of 
     imprisonment can be imposed; or
       ``(B) the agency determines, as prescribed in regulation by 
     the Office of Personnel Management, that the employee's 
     conduct with respect to which an action covered by this 
     subchapter is proposed is flagrant and that such employee 
     intentionally engaged in such conduct;''.

     SEC. 5. MISAPPROPRIATION OF FUNDS AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Reinstatement in the Senior Executive Service.--Section 
     3593 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(2), by inserting ``misappropriation 
     of funds,'' after ``malfeasance,''; and
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``or malfeasance'' and 
     inserting ``malfeasance, or misappropriation of funds''.
       (b) Placement in Other Personnel Systems.--Section 3594(a) 
     of title 5, United States Code, is amended by striking ``or 
     malfeasance'' and inserting ``malfeasance, or 
     misappropriation of funds''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Meadows) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Cummings) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.


                             General Leave

  Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and to include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  From Jeff Neely at the GSA to Lois Lerner at the IRS, the Oversight 
and Government Reform Committee has uncovered numerous examples of 
high-ranking government employees engaging in behavior contrary to the 
principles of public service.
  In the private sector, these behaviors would be grounds for serious 
disciplinary action or termination. In some cases, these employees 
could face civil or criminal penalties--but not in the Federal 
bureaucracy. Only in Washington would these employees not be terminated 
but, instead, be placed on administrative leave with pay.
  H.R. 2579 helps ensure Senior Executive Service employees are held 
accountable for their actions while maintaining existing due process 
rights. This legislation was unanimously approved by the Oversight 
Committee last week, and a similar version of this bill was passed by 
the House by a vote of 402-2 last Congress.
  I want to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly) for his 
work on this bill, and I urge all Members to support its adoption.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am no longer surprised, but I am saddened that the Republicans are 
wasting the last few days before the August recess to vote on bills to 
repeal the Affordable Care Act for the 40th time and to continue their 
campaign to blame our country's civil servants for the challenges we 
face. We could be addressing the many serious and important issues 
facing our country, such as appointing conferees to negotiate a 
balanced budget to replace the harmful sequester, or passing 
legislation that would create jobs for the middle class, or voting on 
comprehensive immigration reform. Instead, Republicans are more 
interested in playing partisan games and in advancing political 
messaging bills.
  Americans want Congress to focus on creating jobs and on growing our 
economy. The Democrats have put forward a responsible budget that 
invests in the future and in the middle class while taking a balanced 
approach to deficit reduction. Yet, Republicans refuse to listen, with 
a record defined more by what they have failed to do than what they 
have actually achieved.
  It has been 209 days since the start of this Congress, and the 
Republicans have failed to pass a single jobs bill. It has been 129 
days since the Senate passed a budget, and the Republicans have refused 
to appoint conferees to complete negotiations and resolve final 
legislation. Now Senators John McCain, Susan Collins, Lamar Alexander, 
and Bob Corker have joined House Democrats in our calls to go to 
conference. Yet, here we are today debating on H.R. 2579, a bill that 
would strip due process protections from Senior Executive Service 
employees accused of wrongdoing.
  This bill would give a politically appointed agency head broad 
discretion

[[Page 12758]]

to fire Senior Executive Service employees without advance notice. The 
bill would provide no opportunity for a proper investigation or for 
employees to address the agency's concerns before such action is taken. 
H.R. 2579 would eliminate due process protections that were put in 
place precisely to protect civil servants from partisan, political 
influence. It would shift the burden onto employees to prove their 
innocence and seek reinstatement. This is contrary to the core legal 
principle of the American justice system--the presumption that one is 
innocent until proven guilty.
  My Republican colleagues would have you believe that this is a bill 
needed to hold senior executives in our Federal Government agencies 
accountable. Although abuses committed by government employees 
certainly need to be addressed, denying due process rights to employees 
is not the appropriate way to do it.
  There are existing procedures in place to deal with these challenges. 
Under current law, agencies may take action against senior executives 
for misconduct, neglect of duty, malfeasance, or the failure to accept 
a reassignment or a transfer of function. However, current law requires 
agencies to give Senior Executive employees 30 days' advance notice, 
among other rights, before disciplinary action is commenced unless 
there is reasonable cause to believe that the employee has committed a 
crime.
  I believe that we need to strengthen and improve the agency 
implementation of existing disciplinary procedures rather than pass 
legislation that would abridge the fundamental rights of our public 
servants. This bill would fire accused employees first, then ask 
questions later. I am afraid agency heads could feel undue pressure in 
particularly high-profile cases to terminate employees without first 
conducting a thorough investigation to determine the facts. For these 
reasons, I strongly oppose H.R. 2579, and I urge my colleagues to join 
me in opposing this legislation.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my 
distinguished colleague from the State of Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. For those of you up in the gallery, please 
put on your seatbelts. Again, this room is spinning so fast right now 
that it's hard to determine what's being said or why it's even being 
said. So, please, put them on. I don't want you to fall out of the 
gallery in trying to keep up with what's being said.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are advised to address their remarks 
to the Chair and to refrain from referring to occupants of the gallery.
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. My comment, Mr. Speaker, is I'm concerned 
about the safety of those watching today from the gallery. I just 
wanted them to be aware that there is a definite turntable here, and 
I'm really surprised that anybody can walk straight when they leave 
this room because of the spin that's put on everything. So my concern 
is for the safety of those watching today.
  In going back to February 6, 1788, James Madison said to us, ``If 
angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on 
government would be necessary.''
  I've got to tell you that Madison is still alive, and he is alive on 
both sides of the aisle. What amazes me sometimes is how we get so far 
away from what it is that we are trying to do and who it is we are 
trying to protect. Now, I've heard the terms that--do you know what?--
we're not protecting those who work for America. Let me tell you about 
those who work for America.
  When I come out of my church on Sunday morning--out of St. Paul's, 
the 8 o'clock mass--I see all kinds of people who work for America. 
When I'm down at the Kmart, doing my shopping, I see all kinds of 
people who work for America. When I'm in Erie, Pennsylvania, I see all 
kinds of people who work for America--the same in Meadville, 
Pennsylvania, and the same in Butler, Pennsylvania. So I'm sometimes 
confused about who it is we're trying to protect. If it's truly those 
who work for America, it is those who work for America.
  All of these folks behind me work for America. All of the people at 
our homes work for America, do they not?
  Now the question is: Who looks after those people, those American 
taxpayers? When there is an abuse, my goodness, have we gotten to the 
point at which our only concern is for those who get a check that says 
it came from the United States Government?
  I know who funds America. It is hardworking American taxpayers. That 
is why it's so unbelievable for me to sit here and listen to how we're 
not protecting those who work for America.

                              {time}  1400

  This is not about the men and women, the guys and gals that go to 
work every day for the government. The ranking member knows that this 
is not about stripping them of their rights. It truly is not. In fact, 
if you go to page 8, lines 15 through 17:

       An employee against whom an action is taken under this 
     section is entitled to appeal to the Merit Systems Protection 
     Board under section 7701 of this title.

  Nobody is being stripped of anything. What we're doing is taking care 
of all those people who elected us to come here. I've got to tell you, 
I wasn't just elected as a Republican to come and take care of only 
those folks in my district that are registered Republican. I was sent 
here to represent everybody. I've never sat back and said, You know 
what? This isn't in the best interest of my Republican constituents. It 
helps my Democrat constituents. Since I'm a Republican, I'll game it, 
I'll spin it so that I can't vote that way. That's absolutely stupid.
  Again, how far have we gotten from the initial message of what it is 
we're trying to do? The Government Employee Accountability Act--when we 
had the GSA hearing and the ranking member sat there, I said, Why is 
Mr. Neely on leave with pay when you know the IG had him under 
investigation? In fact, you bonused him money for the very same event 
that he's being investigated for. You bonused him, and then you let him 
go home to do what he wants to do. He's on leave with pay.
  When I go back home, people ask me all the time, and I see their 
faces, and I can't look at them and say, You know what? What you don't 
understand is that in Washington, you can do the wrong thing and 
there's no accountability. Now, if you're back home in the private 
sector and you do the wrong thing, you're held accountable. What you 
have to understand is that you work in the private sector, not the 
public sector. They cry out for equal treatment. Not special treatment, 
not to be handled differently than anybody else. But they say, Mr. 
Kelly, if it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander.
  Should not both sides of this aisle be concerned with what's right 
for the American taxpayer? Should we not be concerned with what's right 
for American citizens? Should we not say to these same people who run 
these agencies, Look, we know you don't have the tools that you need--
and that's what I was told by the GSA, that they put Mr. Neely on leave 
because they don't have any mechanism to do otherwise.
  I don't want to keep beating up Jeff Neely, but by the same token, I 
refuse to keep beating up American taxpayers. If I don't have the 
stomach, if I don't have the backbone to do what's right, and if I 
can't walk a straight line when I leave here--this is not about taking 
the rights away from people who work for the government. Come on, guys. 
You know that.
  Oh, my goodness. We've got to get together on this because this is 
not making sense to me. This looks like the back end of a frat party 
where everybody's kind a walking crooked coming out, trying to figure 
out what it is they did for the last 3 or 4 hours. I've got to tell you 
that this is common sense for America. If we cannot protect those who 
sent us here, if we cannot restore the trust of those who sent us here, 
if we're going to come here and debate and make a mockery and spin it 
to the point where it confuses the American people--this is not about 
taking anybody's rights away. This is about reinforcing the 
responsibilities

[[Page 12759]]

of those who work for the American taxpayer, and that is all of us, 
both Republican and Democrat.
  I've got to tell you what I've said before. There is no way I'll ever 
go back to northwest Pennsylvania and tell them, You just don't get it. 
See, the problem with you people is you're so busy working trying to 
make ends meet, you don't understand how government works. We can twist 
it. We can turn it. We can say anything we want. What we ask you is to 
believe. You know what the American people are telling us? I don't 
believe you any more. I don't trust you any more. I don't understand 
why I can be held accountable for everything I do, but other folks that 
work for me can do pretty much anything they want. Then we'll redeploy 
them. We'll push them off to another area. They won't lose a penny. 
We'll bring them back in under some other title, some other agency. All 
I want to do is give those managers of those agencies the tools that 
they have requested of us in Congress, give them the ability to hold 
people accountable.
  Who am I talking about? I'm talking about the senior executives. I'm 
not talking about every gal and guy who walks into an office every day 
that does great work for the American people. Let's not get confused. 
So, please, don't spin it. My days of riding a merry-go-round are over, 
and so should yours be. We can fix this. We have to put things in there 
that make it possible to hold people accountable. The people that 
raised me, the people that I've worked for, the people that I have 
played under as coaches, hold you accountable for everything you do, 
and there are repercussions for doing the wrong thing. You don't give 
them a pat on the back and say, You know what? Go home for a while. 
Don't worry about your pay. The American taxpayer is going to pick up 
the tab on that. We'll keep you safe. We'll keep you covered.
  Senior executive, this is the creme de la creme, This is the top of 
the bunch. This isn't all those people you see walking in and out. I 
don't want to get it confused with the gentleman from Maryland about 
sequestration. This is about what's fair for this Nation. I'm sick and 
tired of having everyone else throwing in and saying, No, you don't 
understand. Let's all put it in a blender, we'll pour it out, and 
they'll drink it. No, they won't. The American people are choking now 
on the rhetoric that comes out of this House because we don't talk 
straight. We talk Washingtonese, which nobody understands. We wouldn't 
allow it in our public sector, and we shouldn't allow it here.
  If it's about accountability, listen, I will tell you what, I would 
like to see accountability not just in the government employee, but 
also in Members of this great legislature. My goodness, if we don't 
understand what Madison said and we are truly not ruled by angels, as 
we know, we are obliged to put in elements that force us--because we 
won't do the right thing on our own--force us to do the right thing for 
the American taxpayers and those men and women who get up every day, 
throw their feet out over the bed, and go to work. Do you know why they 
do it? Because they love their families and they love their country, 
and they know they have to do it.
  Mr. Speaker, thank you so much for allowing this piece of legislation 
to come forward. I can't tell you how proud I am to be a Member of this 
body. We may disagree on some things, but people tell me, Kelly, you 
don't understand. I say, No, no, no. The problem is I do understand; I 
just don't agree. I understand it so well that if we don't right these 
wrongs, this great country will never be what it was supposed to be. 
For us to sit here as a body and allow it to happen and say, Too tough 
a vote. Man, some people are not going to like me for this. I may not 
get elected the next time. I just say, Get a stomach, get a stronger 
back, and do what's right for America. This is about what's right for 
the true Americans that keep this great organization going. That is the 
American taxpayer.
  So having said that, Mr. Speaker, I thank you so much for allowing me 
to get up and speak, and please, ``If angels were to govern men, 
neither external nor internal controls on government would be 
necessary.'' Isn't it amazing that over 225 years ago, the same thing 
rings true today? If it were really angels that were running the 
organization, we wouldn't be having these conversations, and we would 
just go ahead with every day and say it's all right.
  We're not. We're ruled by men. Men make mistakes. Men need to be held 
accountable when they make a mistake. I want to make sure that each of 
us, no matter what party you represent, is able to go to their home 
district and say, I did what was right for you today. I did what was 
right for you, your children, and your grandchildren. I did what was 
right for America.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Before yielding to Mr. Lynch, I just want to say one thing. I 
listened to the gentleman, and I have the utmost respect for him. But I 
remind him that this is American jurisprudence that has had the concept 
of ``innocent until proven guilty'' for as long as he just talked 
about.
  Mr. KELLY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I just want to finish this. I listened to you very 
carefully. You had an outstanding speech, but I want to just make sure 
we're clear on something.
  The senior executives suspected right now of criminal activity may 
already be removed or placed in indefinite suspension without pay. We 
need to focus on improving agency implementation.
  You talk about the Neely case. Rather than passing legislation that 
would deprive employees of their due process rights--I do want to keep 
in mind that there is a little thing called the Constitution of the 
United States of America that every 2 years we come and swear we're 
going to uphold. Part of that Constitution is about due process, and 
that's what we are trying to adhere to here.
  I think we have to be very careful when we start looking at just 
individual cases. We're making legislation for Federal employees 
throughout this country, and I just want to provide some caution there.
  I now yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).
  Mr. LYNCH. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to say that I have the utmost 
affection and respect for the gentleman from Pennsylvania. He and I are 
friends. But I must say that he's wrong on this case.
  It's ironic that you choose James Madison as the one person that you 
rely upon in your argument, because it was James Madison that actually 
drafted the due process clause. He was the one that took the 
recommendations from the delegates from New York and actually drafted 
the text. He made his own amendments to the due process clause that we 
today rely upon to protect constitutional rights.
  Let me also talk about the Senior Executive Service in our Federal 
government. Those are the employees that rise to the top. They do after 
years of serving in many cases because of their expertise in protecting 
our veterans at the VA hospitals. But the Senior Executive Service is 
an experienced corps of dedicated Federal employees who provide 
institutional stability and continuity across administrations, and they 
serve as a vital link between political appointees, frontline managers, 
and the Federal workforce. We don't want each administration coming in 
and saying for no reason, Well, I'm a Republican. I'm going to fire all 
the Democratic executives in the Senior Executive Service. We don't 
want a Democrat coming in and saying, I'm going to fire all these 
Republicans who are in senior positions.
  One of the protections we provide is due process of law. Despite the 
important role that Senior Executive Service employees play in the 
Federal Government, this bill that's on the floor today would deprive 
these employees of the basic due process rights available to them under 
existing law. The legislation would give agency heads the broad 
discretion to just fire people, fire senior executives that are 
suspected of

[[Page 12760]]

misconduct, and employees would bear the burden of proving their 
reinstatement. This is called ``ready, fire, aim.'' It would allow 
firing employees for basically any reason that in the discretion of the 
senior management is required. As the gentleman from Maryland and I--
and I congratulate him on his advocacy here--it presumes guilt before 
we get all the facts. That is completely inconsistent with the 
principles of our Constitution.
  I am deeply concerned that this legislation may cause irreparable 
reputational damage if an individual is wrongly accused and forced to 
seek reinstatement. The person may eventually be vindicated, but the 
damage to the individual's reputation, their financial stability, and 
their career may be beyond repair. Moreover, there are effective tools 
already existing to hold senior executives accountable for performance 
and conduct issues. These disciplinary procedures provide very simply, 
30 days' notice. You have to have notice why you're fired in writing. 
That's not a lot to ask, 30 days' notice of why you're being fired. 
This is what you're eliminating from the law right now. It gives that 
person 30 days to scramble to get a representative to put a case 
together to say, No, these aren't the facts. It allows them, if they 
are able, to get an attorney or a representative, which includes the 
right to that written decision and the right to appeal to the Merit 
Systems Protection Board.
  Those are the basic due process rights that James Madison has 
supported. You're right, James Madison is still here today. He's on 
this side. He's on the side of due process. He doesn't want a kangaroo 
court. He wanted protections for constitutional rights, and he thought 
it was so important that he incorporated those in the text of the 
Constitution.
  During committee consideration of H.R. 2579, I offered an amendment 
to apply these existing due process protections to the expedited 
removal provisions in the bill, but my amendment was rejected. For 
these reasons--and I say again I have great respect for the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania--I urge my colleagues to vote against this measure in 
support of due process, in support of the principles that James Madison 
advocated. Also, I want to say the previous bill that the gentleman 
talked about earlier that we voted on, 410 votes, that had the ``ready, 
aim, then fire'' provision.

                              {time}  1415

  It gave the due process rights. The bill that we supported in the 
previous session, it wasn't exactly the same, as the gentleman 
acknowledged; it had due process rights. It allowed employees to have 
30 days to have a written decision to know what the charges were 
against them and to respond. So this is a very, very different bill 
than passed the House overwhelmingly in the previous session.
  This bill does not allow the employee the 30 days' notice of what 
they did wrong. It does not allow them to defend themselves against the 
charges. It does not allow them to have a representative. It does not 
allow them the ability to protect their reputation in real-time. This 
bill fires them first and then asks questions later. For those reasons, 
it should be rejected.
  Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Marchant). The gentleman has 8\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other 
side, I do have great respect for both of the gentlemen. It is not a 
question of respect for other Members of Congress. The question is: How 
much respect do we have for American taxpayers?
  I think sometimes we get too confused right here about the collegial 
atmosphere that has to exist. You know, if you don't talk nicely to 
each other, it can cause a problem. And I understand that. But we know 
each other. I have shared some very emotional moments with Mr. Cummings 
when he lost his nephew. I understand that. Steve--Mr. Lynch--and I 
know each other. It's not about the spin. Nobody is losing their due 
process under this. You know that.
  Again, I refer back to page 8, lines 15 through 17:

       An employee against whom an action is taken under this 
     section is entitled to appeal to the Merit Systems Protection 
     Board under section 7701 of this title.

  There is no reason for us to be having a conversation that again 
divides the Nation; and it divides people because we constantly want to 
make sure that everybody understands that one party is for one type of 
philosophy, the other party is not. You know, they don't ever want to 
take care of everybody.
  I'm talking about the American taxpayer here. I'm talking about the 
agencies.
  Mr. Cummings and I sat and listened to the people from the GSA; and 
when we asked them why are they placed on leave with pay when there is 
obviously an investigation going on, you knew about it. The IG came to 
you and told you that, in spite of that, you still bonused this 
gentleman. They gave him extra money for doing exactly what he was 
being investigated for.
  And we said: My goodness, why would you do that?
  And they said: Because we don't have any tools to do anything about 
it. We don't have the mechanism to do that.
  Why is it that we have to constantly widen the gap between what's 
right for America and what's just flat out right?
  This isn't about Democrats and Republicans trying to protect our 
friends who work here in the government. Of course I want to protect 
them. And I will guarantee you that if this is going to pass today, I 
guarantee you will not see a mass exodus of people who work for the 
government saying, oh, my gosh, let me get my resume together; I've got 
to get out of here.
  They're not leaving. And why aren't they leaving? Because these are 
good jobs. We're talking about the senior executives. We're not talking 
about every gal and guy. We're not talking about those in uniform who 
protect us. We're talking about the senior executives, those to whom we 
have given the most responsibility and authority. We're talking about 
giving them a tool to hold those who work under them responsible. They 
don't have it now.
  I don't want to walk away or turn my back on people who work every 
day for this government. These are darn good jobs. Please tell me, if 
it's such a terrible place to work, why do so many people apply for 
work?
  Mr. LYNCH. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. No, I will not yield.
  Mr. Lynch, we've been yielding for far too long, and I will be glad 
to yield to you when I'm done here, and that's up to the chairman.
  But I have to tell you, why do we constantly put this spin on to 
divide this body?
  If I were a manager and I were put in charge and given the 
responsibility to do things, but then told, Look, you have the 
responsibility, you better perform to the right level here, but by the 
way, when you have people who are not acting appropriately, you don't 
have any tool to change that. You don't have any way to reprimand them, 
to call them forward.
  It just doesn't make sense. And I'll tell you who it doesn't make 
sense to. It doesn't make sense to all those folks I described before. 
I've got people back in western Pennsylvania working two jobs. This is 
mom and dad working a job. Why? Because they have this tremendous 
ability to self-reliance, and they know they have children they've got 
to take care of. They want to feed them, they want to clothe them, they 
want to educate them. They want to be part of the system that has made 
sense to so many people for so long.
  Why do people come to this country? My goodness, they come across the 
ocean in inner tubes to try to get here. They crawl across the desert 
to get here. They don't get here because they don't like us. They get 
here because they love the opportunity.
  All I want to do is give the managers of these agencies the same 
tools that everybody else has. This is not about trying to make an 
employee look bad. This is about holding an employee accountable. When 
is it that we got to

[[Page 12761]]

the point that accountability is a political agenda? Really? Really?
  And we're going to take any time we can get to try and make the other 
party look bad, because I've watched here for 2\1/2\ years. It's not 
enough to win the vote. You've got to make the other side look really, 
really bad. It's not enough to say we just didn't agree on this and we 
moved to something else. No, the point is to say, you know what, this 
is how horrible these people are. They don't care about you. They don't 
care about your kids or your grandchildren. They really want to hurt 
you.
  No, we've shared too much time together. I don't sit in any committee 
with anybody, whether from our party or from your party, that says, I 
came here to destroy America. They don't say that. They don't say, I 
came here to divide America. They don't say that. They say, I came here 
because I thought I had a calling and I want to make a difference.
  This bill is so simple. It is so much common sense. Really, this is a 
problem, to hold people accountable for a job they're not doing right? 
We didn't strip them of anything in due process. They still have their 
rights, everything. And it's not for everybody; it's for the senior 
executives at the top. The top. That's all it's about.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I've got to tell you, this is so common sense. It's 
what we do in the private sector every day. I don't want it to become a 
political battle over something that makes sense to the American 
people.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their 
remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland has 8 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman from Maryland for yielding.
  You know, it has been sad to have to sit here for so long and hear 
the Kafkaesque understanding of due process by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania. In a word, due process has to come before the sanction, 
not after; before the loss of job, not after, or it means nothing.
  Today, of course, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2579 that would 
eliminate due process protections for senior executive servicemembers 
by allowing agency heads, political appointees, for the first time 
since the passage of the great civil service reforms in the early part 
of the 20th century, to fire Federal employees without giving them 
advance notice or an opportunity to address allegations against them 
before they are dismissed.
  This bill, in particular, gives real credence to the view that the 
series of bills on the floor today are an attack on Federal employees. 
H.R. 2579 would reverse the long-settled principle of ``innocent until 
proven guilty'' to ``guilty until proven innocent.''
  Employees could be immediately fired by the politically appointed 
agency head. They could get their job back only by accepting the burden 
of proof to prove their innocence. It's not enough that employees would 
be notified of the reasons of their removal and would have 30 days to 
respond. They're gone. They're fired immediately. No due process rights 
like those currently in place: at least 30 days notice; representation 
by an attorney; a written decision; a right to appeal to the Merit 
Systems Protection Board.
  The absence of due process and of standards that the political 
appointee must use in making the decision to fire is nothing short of 
breathtaking. Under this bill, the agency head, one person, one 
political appointee, determines whether the employee knowingly acted in 
a manner that--get this--``endangers the interest of the agency 
mission.'' What could be broader than that? You could be fired for 
anything under that standard.
  One person decides whether the employee's removal is ``necessary in 
the interest of the United States.'' Wow, let's rein that in somewhat.
  One person decides that other procedures prescribed in other 
provisions of law just can't be invoked; they're not good enough. There 
you have it--judge and jury--exactly what the civil service system was 
developed to avoid, exactly what the Constitution says we must avoid. 
If you believe in the Constitution, it is important not to demagogue, 
but rather to explain to the public why every State, local, and Federal 
government puts employees--
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentlelady.
  Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman.
  Why is it that every unit of government puts employees they want to 
fire, they know they want to fire them, on administrative leave with 
pay while due process proceeds, even when the person is accused of 
serious offenses? Because the employer, my friends, is the government. 
That's the difference. The employee has certain due process rights that 
the same employee would not have if the employer were a private 
business. That is civics 101, gentlemen.
  Justice Powell, writing in Arnett v. Kennedy about due process rights 
of employees said:

       Due process is conferred not by legislative grace, but by 
     constitutional guarantee.

  This bill comes from a Republican House that requires that Members 
state the constitutional basis for every bill introduced in this House. 
This bill expresses a Republican frustration that Lois Lerner of the 
IRS was placed on administrative leave with pay. Sorry folks, you're 
not allowed to support the Constitution only when you like the results. 
Let's defeat this ``prove your innocence'' departure from the 
Constitution of the United States.
  Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say first of all that I 
associate myself with the words of the gentlelady from the District of 
Columbia. I think she said it quite well.
  Mr. Speaker, we must be about the business of guarding this thing we 
call the Constitution. We are here only for a moment--only for a 
moment--and in that moment we have already been given a document by 
which we should govern ourselves. It has been interpreted by courts 
over and over again, and one of the things that has stood the test of 
time is due process. That very due process, I have said many a time, 
has allowed me to be a Member of this Congress of the United States and 
so many others who would have never had an opportunity. And so no 
matter when we are here, no matter what time we are here for, we must 
guard it.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. Lynch was very clear when he talked about how we are in a 
situation where we fire somebody first, and then suddenly we say, okay, 
we're going to give them some due process.
  Going back to Ms. Norton, due process comes before the firing. That's 
the way it's supposed to be.
  And we all care about every employee. We care about how every 
American is treated, and that's what this argument is all about--
fairness.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. How much time do we have, Mr. Speaker?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).
  Mr. LYNCH. I thank the gentleman, and I appreciate his advocacy.
  Mr. Speaker, I do want to point out some inconsistencies in the 
argument by my friend from Pennsylvania. In the case of Mr. Neely and 
in the case of Lois Lerner, under existing law, all that was required 
before they fired either of those individuals is to give them 30 days' 
notice, 30 days' written notice of the charges against them, give them 
the 30 days to put together a defense or to offer their version of the 
facts.
  That's all that was required, and then we could have fired them or 
put

[[Page 12762]]

them on administrative leave without pay. That was within the 
discretion of GSA.
  So when GSA tells Mr. Kelly they can't do anything, there's plenty 
they could do. They could have taken both those employees, put them on 
administrative leave without pay--talk about protecting the taxpayer. 
I'm for that. They had the power to do that in these cases.
  They could have taken both those employees, under current law, with 
due process in place, put them both on administrative leave without 
pay, and we could have protected the taxpayer. That was the discretion 
on the part of the administration and the folks that made the decision 
in that place. It was not a fault of the law.
  But interestingly enough, it also protected us to have the second 
version of the facts put forward to bring more light to this.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to yield the 45 seconds we have 
remaining to Mr. Lynch to close.
  Mr. LYNCH. Think about this. That due process right would allow an 
employee who might be the fall guy, it might be a person that they're 
trying to fire to shut them up, it gives them an opportunity to come 
before the public and say, while they're still in their job, to say, 
no, that's not the way it went down.
  Now, it might be to the benefit of the Republican, it might be to the 
benefit of the Democrat, whatever position you have, whoever that 
individual might be. But it brings truth, it brings facts, and it 
brings the ability of that individual employee to protect themselves.
  That's what we're asking for here, that 30 days' opportunity. And it 
can be without pay. We can protect the taxpayer and still give due 
process rights to our employees. This bill should be opposed for all 
those reasons.
  I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) for yielding.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, facts are a stubborn thing, and what we are 
hearing today are a number of assertions that truly are not the facts.
  Let me read from the bill, because the opposing arguments would be 
that we can fire them for any particular reason, but that's not what 
the bill says. The bill says we may remove an employee for serious 
neglect of duty, misappropriation of funds--which, I might add, was the 
case in point that we were just talking about--or malfeasance. And the 
head of the agency has to know that it was knowingly done.
  This gives just another tool in the toolbox. It doesn't do away with 
due process. It doesn't do away with a number of the facts that we 
already have today, but it adds another tool.
  What it really does is allow our managers to manage. What a novel 
concept. We're going to actually allow and trust Federal employees to 
manage the people under them.
  We have been in hearing after hearing that says, Well, why didn't you 
do something about it? Why did you not address this? And they said, 
Well, our hands are tied. We didn't have the tools to do it.
  This bill, as Mr. Kelly has so eloquently put it, gives them the tool 
to do exactly that. It doesn't do away with due process.
  We've accepted amendments, three different amendments that protect 
the rights of employees--they are embedded in this bill--and yet we 
still find that my colleagues opposite want to say that they're not in 
support of this.
  I just find it just appalling that we can continue to allow employees 
to stay on the taxpayers' dollars when we know that there has been 
malfeasance, misappropriation of funds, and the neglect of duty.
  With that, I encourage all my colleagues to support this particular 
piece of legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a proud 
cosponsor of H.R. 2579, the Government Employee Accountability Act, 
offered by my good friend Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania.
  I applaud this commonsense legislation that was initially developed 
in response to a senior GSA employee orchestrating the infamous GSA 
conference in Las Vegas that cost taxpayers $800,000. He was placed on 
administrative leave with pay. Under current law, this is not only 
permitted, but there is little other recourse. There is no current 
mechanism for agencies to take away the pay of Senior Executive Service 
(SES) employees under investigative review for misconduct. Rather, 
employees can be placed on administrative leave or suspension, both 
with the opportunity for pay.
  Mr. Speaker, the necessity of the legislation before us today is 
again highlighted by the recent scandals plaguing the IRS and its 
targeting of conservative groups. Despite the continued emergence of 
compelling facts detailing Ms. Lerner's involvement with discriminatory 
targeting and her refusal to cooperate with Congressional 
investigations, Ms. Lerner continues to draw a $180,000 salary from the 
federal government. When she refused to resign, she was placed on 
administrative leave, so rather than being punished for targeting 
Americans based on their political beliefs, she is taking a well-paid 
vacation on the taxpayer dime.
  H.R. 2579 would authorize all federal agencies to place an employee 
on investigative leave without pay if the employees conduct was serious 
or flagrant. I believe that this legislation is critical in regaining 
the trust of Americans. Paid leave is a slap on the wrist, and simply 
does not sufficiently restore the public's trust that the federal 
government will hold those responsible for serious misconduct 
accountable.
  Mr. Speaker, Americans deserve real answers and solutions to ensure 
that high-ranking federal employees are reprimanded and held 
responsible for unacceptable behavior. For that reason, I urge my 
colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 2579.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2579, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.

                          ____________________