Government Employee Accountability Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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--

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source