69–006 

115TH CONGRESS REPT. 115–34 " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session Part 1 

VA ACCOUNTABILITY FIRST ACT OF 2017 

MARCH 10, 2017.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. ROE of Tennessee, from the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 1259] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, to whom was referred the 

bill (H.R. 1259) to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide 

for the removal or demotion of employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs based on performance or misconduct, and for other 

purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon 

without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 2 

Background and Need for Legislation .................................................................... 2 

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 11 

Subcommittee Consideration .................................................................................. 11 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 11 

Committee Votes ...................................................................................................... 12 

Committee Correspondence .................................................................................... 13 

Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 15 

Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives .................................... 15 

Earmarks and Tax and Tariff Benefits .................................................................. 15 

Committee Cost Estimate ....................................................................................... 15 

Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Estimate ............................ 15 

Federal Mandates Statement ................................................................................. 16 

Advisory Committee Statement .............................................................................. 16 

Constitutional Authority Statement ...................................................................... 16 

Applicability to Legislative Branch ........................................................................ 16 

Statement on Duplication of Federal Programs .................................................... 16 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

Disclosure of Directed Rulemaking ........................................................................ 16 

Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation ...................................................... 16 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill as Reported ...................................... 22 

Dissenting Views ..................................................................................................... 41 

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

H.R. 1259, the ‘‘VA Accountability First Act of 2017,’’ was introduced by Representative David P. Roe, M.D. of Tennessee, Chairman of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, on February 28, 2017. 

This bill would provide the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) with the authority to expeditiously remove, demote, or suspend any VA employee, including Senior Executive 

Service (SES) employees, based on performance or misconduct. It 

would also: provide improved protections for whistleblowers; allow 

the Secretary to reduce an employee’s federal pension if he or she 

is convicted of a felony that influenced his or her job at VA; recoup 

a bonus provided to an employee who engaged in misconduct or 

poor performance prior to receiving the bonus; and allow the Secretary to recoup any relocation expenses that were authorized for 

a VA employee only through the employee’s ill-gotten means, such 

as fraud, waste, or malfeasance. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

Section 1. Short title; Table of Contents 

This section provides the short title of the bill and the table of 

contents. 

Section 2. References to Title 38, United States Code 

This Section provides that amendments and changes made to 

current law in this bill are to title 38, United States Code (U.S.C.), 

unless otherwise specified. 

Section 3. Removal, demotion, and suspension of employees based 

on performance or misconduct 

On April 9, 2014, at a full Committee oversight hearing on patient safety, then-Full Committee Chairman, Representative Jeff 

Miller of Florida, stated that, based on information received by the 

Committee, forty patients at the Phoenix VA Health Care System 

may have died while awaiting medical care. It was also revealed 

that the Committee had evidence from whistleblowers that the 

Phoenix VA Health Care System kept multiple sets of records to 

conceal prolonged wait times for appointments. 

The allegations of several whistleblowers, including Drs. Samuel 

Foote and Kathleen Mitchell from Phoenix, shed light on these 

issues and improper practices, which resulted in one of the largest 

scandals that VA has ever endured. Subsequently, on August 7, 

2014, in part to address the problems related to the scandal exposed by the Committee, the Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act (‘‘Choice Act’’) was signed into law by President Barack 

Obama, which, among many other provisions, gave the Secretary 

the expedited authority to remove SES employees based on performance or misconduct. 

Since the passage of the Choice Act, the Committee has continued to uncover many instances of mismanagement or misconduct 

by VA employees. Some of these instances include: allegations of 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

1 After 10-month probe, report slams Phila. VA, Philly.com, April 17, 2015 http://articles.philly.com/2015-04-17/news/61222505_1_allison-hickey-veterans-affairs-benefits-officediana-rubens. 2 Aurora VA official: No line-by-line account of where $1 billion went, The Denver Post, July 

1, 2015 http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_28415366/va-deputy-secretary-making-eighth-tripdenver-hospital. 3 VA Put Vets at Risk by Spending Billions Unlawfully, Whistleblower Says, Government Executive, May 14, 2015 http://www.govexec.com/contracting/2015/05/va-put-vets-risk-spendingbillions-unlawfully-whistleblower-says/112828/. 4 VA Worker Gets Job Back Despite Armed Robbery Charge, The Daily Caller News Foundation, March 22, 2015 http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/22/va-worker-gets-job-back-despite-armedrobbery-charge/ 5 AP: VA data show low rate of discipline for drug loss, theft, February 27, 2017 http:// 

www.wfmj.com/story/34610739/ap-va-data-show-low-rate-of-discipline-for-drug-loss-theft 6 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Federal Workforce: Improved Supervision and Better 

Use of Probationary Periods are Needed to Address Substandard Employee Performance http:// 

www.gao.gov/assets/670/668339.pdf. 7 Report: VA employee took recovering vet to crack house, Montgomery Advertiser, August 16, 

2014. http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/story/news/local/alabama/2014/08/17/reportva-employee-took-recovering-vet-crack-house/14190573/. 8 A VA employee, a crack house, and a lengthy firing process, The Washington Post, August 

29, 2014. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2014/08/29/a-va-employee-acrack-house-and-a-lengthy-firing-process/. 9The Fiscal Times, Federal Employees: Can’t Hire the Best, Can’t Fire the Worst, July 17, 

2015. http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/07/17/Federal-Employees-Can-t-Hire-Best-Can-tFire-Worst. 

the manipulation of disability claims data at the Philadelphia Regional Benefit Office; 1 the continued construction failures of a new 

medical center in Aurora, Colorado that is now many years and a 

billion dollars over budget;2 allegations of illegal use of government 

purchase cards resulting in the waste of billions of dollars annually; 3 allegations of a VA employee remaining in her job after participating in an armed robbery; 4 numerous instances of not properly disciplining employees involved with the theft of opioids or 

missing prescriptions;5 and many other examples of poor performance or misconduct. Throughout all of these incidents, it has become clear that VA often does not hold individuals appropriately 

accountable for their actions. 

A recent study done by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), found that, on average, it takes six months to a year, 

if not longer, to remove a permanent civil servant in the Federal 

Government.6 This problem is epitomized by an example from 2014 

where a VA peer-support specialist took a veteran, who was an inpatient at the substance abuse clinic of the Central Alabama Veterans Health Care System, to an off-campus location where he 

helped the veteran purchase illegal drugs and paid for the veteran 

to partake in other illicit behaviors.7 It took VA over a year to even 

begin the removal process for this employee.8 Furthermore, a recent study by Vanderbilt University’s Center for the Study of 

Democratic Institutions found that when they surveyed non-management federal workers across the government and asked them 

how often under-performing, non-management employees are reassigned or dismissed, 70% said it ‘‘rarely or never happens.’’ 9 The 

Committee believes that these are clear indications that VA employees, and the federal system at large, are trapped in a failed 

and antiquated civil service system that is in desperate need of reform. 

Therefore, Section 3 would amend title 38, U.S.C., and create 

section 719, which would provide the VA Secretary with the authority to remove, demote, or suspend any title 5, hybrid title 38, 

or SES VA employee for performance or misconduct. Under this 

Section, the employee would be entitled to advance notice and the 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 

10Master Agreement Between the American Federation of Government Employees and the 

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, March 2011. https://www.va.gov/lmr/docs/agreements/ 

afge/master_agreement_between_dva_and_afge-fin_march_2011.pdf. 11 Berry, John V. ‘‘MSBP vs. Arbitration—A Choice for Federal Employees’’ February 25, 2014. 

http://www.mspblawblog.com/2014/02/mspb-vs-arbitration-a-choice-for-federal-employees.html. 

opportunity to respond to the charges, which cannot exceed ten 

business days altogether. The Secretary would then have five business days to make a final determination on the disciplinary action 

after reviewing the employee’s response. Once this decision has 

been made, the employee would be entitled to appeal his or her removal, demotion, or suspension to the Merit Systems Protection 

Board (MSPB), as long as the appeal is made within 7 business 

days of receiving his or her final disciplinary action from the Secretary. An administrative judge from the MSPB would then have 

45 days to complete an expedited appeal and render a decision. Beyond this level of appeal, the employee or the VA would be allowed 

to petition for further review by the full MSPB and both parties 

would be authorized to seek judicial review of the full MSPB’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. If the administrative judge under the MSPB is unable to complete the first 

level of appeal within 45 days, the MSPB would have 14 days to 

submit a report to Congress explaining why it was unable to render 

a decision within the required timeframe. In reviewing this appeal, 

the MSPB, at both the administrative judge and full MSPB levels, 

must provide deference to the Secretary’s level of punishment and 

would be required to uphold the decision, for both performance and 

misconduct charges, if the case is supported by substantial evidence. 

To provide fairness for all employees and streamline the appeals 

process, the procedure set up by this Section to dispute a removal, 

demotion, or suspension for performance or misconduct, would supersede any title 5, U.S.C., requirements and any current collective 

bargaining agreements that VA has at both the national and local 

levels. The Committee understands this is a major shift, in not only 

VA’s current policy but also across the entire civil service system, 

but believes that such a step is necessary to ensure that the expedited timeline created by this Section is not bypassed by current 

grievance procedures provided in collective bargaining agreements. 

For example, the Committee found that, if each procedural step is 

followed, VA’s master agreement with the American Federation of 

Government Employees (AFGE) triggers a 349-day process, and 

this time period can be expanded.10 The Committee believes that 

it would defy common sense to have the expedited provisions of 

this bill superseded by a process that can take 349 days or more. 

Some have contended that the arbitration process can take longer 

than a decision by the MSPB and ‘‘. . .arbitrators tend to be more 

open to reversing disciplinary cases in genera1.11 ’’ The Committee 

finds this contrary to the goal of reforming the VA and providing 

the avenue to more expeditiously remove unacceptable employees. 

To prevent retaliation, this Section would also protect whistleblowers by not allowing the Secretary to remove, demote, or suspend an employee if he or she has filed a complaint with the Office 

of Special Counsel (OSC) or under the whistleblower protections 

that were enacted into law as part of the ‘‘Continuing Appropriations and Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
5 

12 Congressional Research Service Report No. 96–530, Sept. 12, 2013, page 1, https:// 

www.fas.org-sgp-crs-misc/96-530.pdf (citing P.L. 83–769, 68 Stat. 1142 (Sept. 1, 1954), see now 

5 U.S.C. § 8311 et seq). 13P.L. 87–299, 75 Stat. 640 (Sept. 26, 1961), see now 5 U.S.C. § 8312. 

Agencies Appropriations Act of 2017, and Zika Response and Preparedness Act,’’ (P.L. 114–223) until such complaints are resolved 

and/or finalized. The Committee believes that providing these protections is critically important, as whistleblowers are vital to this 

Committee’s oversight of VA. Further, the Committee believes that 

the new disciplinary process outlined by this Section would provide 

constitutionally adequate levels of due process for employees while 

still providing the Secretary with the authority to remove, demote, 

or suspend any VA employee for poor performance or misconduct. 

Section 4. Reduction of benefits for Department of Veterans Affairs 

employees convicted of certain crimes 

As a result of the wait list scandal referenced throughout this report, a new focus was placed on holding VA employees accountable. 

When the Department does take appropriate action, managers are 

often blocked from making real progress due to the length and complexity of current disciplinary procedures, which can allow an employee to elude punishment and an adverse record of conduct on 

the employee’s employment file by retiring in lieu of removal. The 

Committee believes that employees who are proposed for removal 

due to their misconduct or poor performance should not be able to 

retire or resign without any consequence and with their full federal 

pensions. Once employees file for retirement, irrespective of any 

proposed removal from federal service, current law does not permit 

actions that would reduce the employee’s federal pension and benefits except in rare and extreme circumstances, such as in cases of 

treason or terrorism. 

In 1954, Congress enacted what is commonly known as the ‘‘Hiss 

Act,’’ which prohibited the distribution of any federal retirement 

pensions to Federal Government employees, as well as Members of 

Congress, who were convicted of offenses ‘‘relating to disloyalty, the 

national defense and national security, conflicts of interest, bribery 

and graft, or for federal offenses relating generally to the exercise 

of one’s ‘authority, influence, power, or privileges as an officer or 

employee of the Government.’ ’’ 12 In 1961, Congress amended the 

statute to narrow this authority, so that a federal employee’s pension could only be reduced for more serious offenses that could 

harm the protection of the United States such as treason and acts 

of terrorism.13 While the Committee understands the congressional 

intent behind setting such a high bar for recouping an employee’s 

federal pension, the Committee believes the VA patient access 

scandal and VA’s demonstrated inability to hold employees accountable in a timely manner—therefore allowing individuals with 

the most egregious charges against them to retire in lieu of punishment—warrants a change in current civil service laws to ensure 

that VA employees do not personally benefit from felonious activity. 

Therefore, Section 4 would amend chapter 7 of title 38, U.S.C., 

to allow the Secretary to reduce the retirement pay for any VA employee upon his or her conviction of a felony that influenced that 

employee’s performance at work. The Secretary would have the auVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:02 Mar 11, 2017 Jkt 069006 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR034P1.XXX HR034P1

lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
6 

14 House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs hearing, ‘‘A Review of Awarding Bonuses to Senior 

Executives at the Department of Veterans Affairs,’’ June 20, 2014, https://edit-republicans-veterans.house.gov/sites/republicans.veterans.house.gov/files/113-75.PDF. 

thority to reduce the accrued years of credible service counted towards an employee’s pension by the number of years in which the 

employee was found to have committed acts involved in the felony 

conviction. Any contributions made by that employee toward his or 

her pension during this period would be returned to the employee 

in a lump sum. This Section would not, however, allow the Secretary to reduce any accrued federal health benefits. Before the reduction could take place, the employee would be entitled to notification of the reduction and an opportunity to respond as well as 

an appeal of the Secretary’s final decision to the Director of the Office of Personnel Management. The Committee believes that providing the VA Secretary with this authority still affords protections 

to employees by targeting only instances of felonies that influence 

the employee’s work performance while also providing a fair process for the employee to dispute such an action. 

Section 5. Authority to recoup bonuses or awards paid to employees 

of Department of Veterans Affairs 

The Committee’s investigations into the wait list scandal have 

uncovered evidence that some VA employees and VA senior managers may have falsified data to improve their performance metrics 

to receive bonuses. Regardless of whether falsified data used to justify the receipt of bonus money was deliberately manipulated or 

not, bonuses should be awarded on the basis of actual, verified performance, and not on an inaccurate portrayal of one’s work. 

Following investigations by the Committee, the VA’s Office of Inspector General (VAOIG), and outside media outlets that brought 

these VA scandals to light during previous Congresses, Committee 

Members questioned the large bonuses that were issued to many 

VA employees, especially many senior VA leaders who oversaw facilities where ‘‘secret’’ appointment wait-lists were used. Committee 

Members questioned VA at several Committee hearings from April 

2014 to August 2014 on whether the Secretary would have the 

legal authority to recoup any performance awards or bonuses 

issued to VA employees if the Secretary deemed their performance, 

particularly performance based on manipulated or inaccurate data, 

merited the recoupment. On June 17, 2014, Committee staff was 

told at a briefing by Mr. Samuel Retherford, VA’s then-Principal 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human Resources and Administration, that the Secretary had the authority to rescind any bonus or 

performance award from an SES employee within 12 months of it 

being awarded to the employee. Later, at a June 20, 2014, full 

Committee oversight hearing entitled, ‘‘A Review of Awarding Bonuses to Senior Executives at the Department of Veterans Affairs,’’ 

the Honorable Gina Farrisee, VA’s then-Assistant Secretary for 

Human Resources and Administration, informed Members of the 

Committee that the Secretary did not have the authority to rescind 

any bonus or performance award from any employee after the 

award had been issued.14

On July 15, 2014, following the conflicting statements made by 

VA employees as to whether the Secretary had the authority to rescind a performance award, then-Chairman Representative Jeff 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
7 

15 Report no. 15–02997–526, VA Office of the Inspector General, ‘‘Administrative Investigation: 

Inappropriate Use of Position and Misuse of Relocation Program and Incentives,’’ September 28, 

2015, http://www.va.gov/oigtoubs/VAOIG-15-2997-526.pdf. 

Miller of Florida sent then-Acting Secretary Sloan Gibson a letter 

explicitly inquiring whether VA had the authority to rescind a 

bonus already issued to an employee. Mr. Gibson replied via letter 

on August 19, 2014, that ‘‘the Department does not have the authority to rescind performance awards issued in accordance with 

policies and paid to employees for performance ratings that are 

final.’’ 

The Committee believes that if a VA employee acts unbecoming 

of VA and its mission to veterans, as determined by the Secretary, 

then the Secretary should have the authority to rescind any bonus 

or performance award issued to that employee. This Section would 

authorize the recoupment of any bonus if the Secretary determines 

that the employee engaged in misconduct or poor performance and 

that the bonus would not have been paid to the employee had the 

Secretary been made aware of the misconduct or poor performance 

prior to the payment of the award. Under this Section, the employee would be provided pre-recoupment notice and an opportunity to respond to the Secretary’s recoupment order. This prerecoupment step, the Secretary’s review of the employee’s response, 

and the final decision would have to be completed within 15 business days from the initial notice of the proposed recoupment. Following the Secretary’s decision, the employee would have seven 

days to appeal such decision to another Federal Government agency or department. The head of such agency or department would 

be required to make a final decision on this appeal within 30 days 

of the filing of the appeal. In congruence with the previous Section, 

the Committee believes that the new procedures set up in this Section would provide the appropriate level of expediency while still 

maintaining a fair process for employees to dispute the 

recoupment. 

Section 6. Authority to recoup relocation expenses paid to or on behalf of employees of Department of Veterans Affairs 

Relocation incentives and expenses have long been considered as 

a positive benefit to relocate VA employees to locations that they 

would not otherwise be inclined to, and a way to defray the costs 

associated with this change of duty station. In its final report, entitled ‘‘Inappropriate Use of Position and the Misuse of the Relocation Program and Incentives,’’ the VAOIG concluded that two SES 

employees from VA’s Veterans Benefit Administration (VBA), Ms. 

Diana Rubens and Ms. Kimberly Graves, ‘‘. . . inappropriately 

used their positions of authority for personal and financial benefit 

when they participated personally and substantially in creating opportunities for their own transfers to positions they were interested 

in filling.’’ 15 In doing so, the VAOIG concluded that they orchestrated and financially benefitted from their moves and that VA 

should examine whether a bill of collection should be issued to Ms. 

Rubens and Ms. Graves for the relocation expenses associated with 

their moves. The amount of money that the VAOIG recommended 

VA collect from Ms. Rubens and Ms. Graves was $274,019 and 

$129,468, respectively. 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
8 

16 House Committee on Veterans Affairs, ‘‘Fact Check: An End of Year Review of Accountability at the Department of Veterans Affairs,’’ December 9, 2015. 17 House Committee on Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, ‘‘Legislative 

Hearing On: H.R. 748; H.R. 2551; H.R. 3286; H.R. 3419; H.R. 4138; And 4 Draft Bills,’’ April 

14, 2016. 

In its written response to the report, VA concurred with the 

VAOIG’s recommendation to determine whether bills of collection 

should be issued to recover unjustified relocation incentives paid to 

Ms. Rubens and Ms. Graves, but failed to take action to rescind 

any of the relocation expenses paid out to both of these SES employees. VA later claimed that there was never an attempt to recoup these funds, because, during the review process of potential 

disciplinary action against Ms. Rubens and Ms. Graves, then-VA 

Deputy Secretary Sloan Gibson concluded that he did not agree 

with the VAOIG’s assessment that either employee had misused 

their authority to orchestrate their own transfers for financial gain. 

During a December 9, 2015, Committee hearing entitled, ‘‘Fact 

Check: An End of Year Review of Accountability at the Department 

of Veterans Affairs,’’ Mr. Gibson did not make it clear if VA had 

the explicit authority to recoup relocation expenses paid to VA employees if it was determined that they received these taxpayerfunded expenses through ill-gotten means.16 The Committee received similarly vague and unclear statements from VA officials in 

subsequent follow-up requests for information and during questioning of a VA witness at an April 14, 2016, Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity legislative hearing in the 114th Congress on 

H.R. 4138, which contained language similar to that in this Section.17

To address VA’s uncertainty of its authority to recoup relocation 

expenses issued to a VA employee, this Section was proposed to 

give the Secretary the clear authority to recoup any taxpayer funds 

associated with a VA employee’s relocation when the Secretary 

deems it necessary. This Section would authorize the Secretary to 

recoup all, or a portion, of any funding provided for relocation expenses authorized under section 5724 or 5724a of title 5, U.S.C., if 

the Secretary determines that the expenses were not lawfully authorized or that the employee committed an act of fraud, waste, or 

malfeasance that influenced the authorization of such expenses. In 

a timeline that aligns with that provided for the recoupment of bonuses in Section 5 of this bill, employees would be entitled to notification of the proposed recoupment and an opportunity to respond 

to the Secretary’s recoupment order. Following the Secretary’s decision, the employee would have seven days to appeal such decision 

to another Federal Government agency or department. The head of 

such agency or department would be required to make a final decision on this appeal within 30 days of filing. The Committee believes that this Section would provide the Secretary with yet another needed tool to hold VA employees accountable while still providing appropriate levels of due process rights through the review 

by a third party entity to ensure that this authority is not abused. 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
9 

18Partnership for Public Service, ‘‘Best Places to Work Large Agency Rankings,’’ Accessed 

March 9, 2017. http://bestplacestowork.oru/BPTW/rankings/overall/large. 19 House Committee on Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Health and Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity Hearing, ‘‘Legislative Hearing on draft legislation to improve the authority 

of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to hire and retain physicians and other employees of the 

Department of Veterans Affairs,’’ March 16, 2016. 20 Ibid. 

Section 7. Time period for response to notice of adverse actions 

against supervisory employees who commit prohibited personnel 

actions 

Essential to the Committee’s oversight efforts, is the information 

it receives from veterans and VA employees who bring problems 

and concerns regarding the Department to the Committee’s attention. Unfortunately, as a result of VA employees’ anonymous or 

public allegations of wrongdoing, many individuals report retaliation at the hands of supervisors, senior managers, and other VA 

employees. This retaliation discourages employees from stepping 

forward to bring problems and concerns to light, leading to a pernicious and toxic environment where problems are disguised and 

not fully addressed. As a result, veterans suffer the consequences. 

The ‘‘Continuing Appropriations and Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017, and 

Zika Response and Preparedness Act’’ (P.L. 114–223) created section 733 of title 38, U.S.C., which authorized a new whistleblower 

process that provides an opportunity for whistleblowers to resolve 

issues at the lowest level but also prescribed a plan for swift resolution if lower-level attempts are not possible. As part of these new 

protections, language was inserted to provide for a swift accountability procedure for those who have retaliated against whistleblowers. This Section would amend section 733 of title 38, U.S.C., 

to match the pre-notification requirements and timelines with the 

pre-notification timelines that would be in place for discipline 

under Section 3 of this bill. 

Section 8. Direct hiring authority for medical center directors and 

VISN directors 

The Committee recognizes a need for stable, permanent leadership at VA medical centers (VAMCs), which have experienced high 

levels of turnover in recent years. For example, a March 2015 VA 

Fact Sheet claimed that, from June 2014 to March 2015, 91 percent 

of VA medical facilities had new leaders or leadership teams installed and an October 2015 CNN interview with then-VA Deputy 

Secretary, Sloan Gibson, claimed that more than half of Veterans 

Health Administration (VHA) senior leaders had turned over in the 

previous two years. Considering that VA continues to rank among 

the worst-performing large Federal agencies in terms of effective 

leadership and that approximately 60 percent of VA employees are 

over the age of 45, the Committee is concerned that VA lacks a dependable pipeline of emerging leaders and will continue to struggle 

to recruit high-performing employees to fill critical leadership 

roles.18 19 Furthermore, VA’s hiring and onboarding processes are 

notoriously slow, sometimes taking upwards of six months to bring 

on new hires, which can create and contribute to vacancies for 

VAMC and Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) director 

positions.20 An equally important step to building strong leadership 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
10 

21 Ibid. 

within the Department is to ensure that leaders are well-qualified. 

As of May 2016, only 16 of 140 VA medical center directors had 

clinical training.21 Without experienced, well-qualified leaders at 

the helm, facility and VISN staffs lack proper guidance and oversight when making decisions regarding hospital management, clinical operations, and patient care. To address these issues, Section 

8 of the bill would authorize VA to directly appoint individuals to 

VAMC and VISN Director positions if they have a demonstrated 

ability in the medical profession, health care administration, or 

health care fiscal management. 

Section 9. Time periods for review of adverse actions with respect 

to certain employees 

Title 38, U.S.C., authorizes special rules and regulations for hiring, paying, and disciplining certain medical professionals within 

VA. Section 7401(1) of title 38, U.S.C., specifies that these new 

rules apply to physicians, dentists, podiatrists, chiropractors, optometrists, registered nurses, physician assistants, and expandedfunction dental auxiliaries. Current law requires that if any of 

these employees face a major adverse action, defined as a removal, 

suspension, or demotion, that is the result of a question of professional conduct or competence, that employee has the right to either 

dispute this action through grievance procedures provided through 

collective bargaining agreements or through VA’s internal Disciplinary Appeals Board. 

In the interest of providing an equal procedure for all adverse actions, this Section would amend sections 7461, 7462 and 7463 of 

title 38, U.S.C., to match the process for disputing adverse actions 

under these sections to the pre-notification and response procedures provided in Section 3 of this bill for non-title 38 employees. 

This would include a ten business day period prior to taking adverse action and a requirement that the Disciplinary Appeals 

Board complete its review of the employee’s appeal within 45 business days of its filing. In conjunction with Section 3, this Section 

would also eliminate the ability for bargaining unit employees to 

use any current grievance procedures to dispute these actions. Additionally, this Section would subject all disciplinary actions for 

title 38 employees related to professional conduct or competence 

through this expedited procedure regardless of if they are considered major adverse actions. The Committee believes that the health 

and safety of veterans should be paramount and that it is appropriate to have an expedited process for actions related to actions 

that directly impact patient care through professional conduct or 

competence. This expedited process also provides greater fairness 

for employees who have been wrongly accused of an egregious action so that they can return to their service to veterans if they are 

absolved of any wrongdoing. 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
11 

HEARINGS

There were no Subcommittee or full Committee hearings held in 

relation to H.R. 1259. 

SUBCOMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

There was no Subcommittee consideration of H.R. 1259. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On March 8, 2017, the full Committee met in open markup session, a quorum being present, and ordered H.R. 1259 be reported 

favorably to the House of Representatives by voice vote. During 

consideration of the bill, the following amendments were considered: 

An amendment offered by Representative Tim Walz of Minnesota, Ranking Member of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, that would have removed Sections 3 and 9 of the base 

text and replaced them with different and separate processes 

for removing both front line and SES employees. This process 

for SES employees would allow them to appeal any removal, 

reprimand, suspension, involuntary reassignment or demotion 

internally at VA but would not have a finite timeline on how 

long the individual has to respond to a proposed action and allows the Secretary to set up an internal grievance process for 

such disputes. Under this amendment, Secretary would have 

the authority to remove any other VA employee for performance or misconduct, but the performance would be limited to 

2-year window of the proposed disciplinary action, and would 

maintain the higher evidentiary standard of preponderance of 

the evidence to sustain the disciplinary action upon appeal for 

misconduct charges. Further, the timelines for processing disputes under this process would be open-ended, the necessity for 

performance improvement plans would remain in place, and 

the grievance process through collective bargaining agreements 

would also remain intact. The amendment was defeated by 

voice vote. 

An amendment in the nature of substitute, offered by Representative Ann McLane Kuster of New Hampshire, would 

have maintained the base text of the bill but would have reinserted the right to grieve any proposed actions through the 

collective bargaining agreements between VA and federal employee unions. The amendment would ensure that these grievance procedures would still be an option for collective bargaining unit employees to dispute removals, demotions, or suspensions. The amendment in the nature of a substitute was defeated by voice vote. 

An amendment in the nature of a substitute, offered by Representative Mark Takano of California, that would replace the 

base text of the bill with a new procedure that would authorize 

the Secretary to suspend an employee, with a subsequent option for removal, for any performance or misconduct that is a 

threat to public health or safety. This would be an additional 

authority to other disciplinary authorities in title 38, U.S.C., 

and title 5, U.S.C. Under this amendment in the nature of a 

substitute, the Secretary would be authorized to suspend withVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:02 Mar 11, 2017 Jkt 069006 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR034P1.XXX HR034P1

lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
12 

out pay an employee who is determined to be a threat to public 

health or safety and then would allow the Secretary to remove 

the employee, only after an investigation is completed during 

his or her suspension, which leads the Secretary to determine 

they are a threat. The employee would be entitled to, after his 

or her suspension, 30-days’ notice with the charges, and an additional 30 days to respond, which can be expanded if the 

charges are amended. There would be no timeline on the Secretary’s review or any change to an appeal process. The 

amendment in the nature of a substitute was defeated by voice 

vote. 

A motion by Representative Mike Coffman of Colorado to report 

H.R. 1259 favorably to the House of Representatives was agreed to 

by voice vote. 

COMMITTEE VOTES

In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, no recorded votes were taken on amendments or in connection with ordering H.R. 1259 reported to the 

House. 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
13 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 13 here HR34P1.001
14 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 14 here HR34P1.002
15 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause (2)(b)(1) 

of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee’s oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the 

descriptive portions of this report. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

In accordance with clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee’s performance goals and 

objectives are to provide new accountability procedures for employees at the Department of Veterans Affairs while maintaining their 

constitutional due process rights as Federal Government employees. 

EARMARKS AND TAX AND TARIFF BENEFITS

H.R. 1259 does not contain any Congressional earmarks, limited 

tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9 of rule 

XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. 

COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE

Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the Committee of the costs that would be incurred in carrying out this bill. 

However, clause 3(d)(3)(B) of that Rule provides that this requirement does not apply when the Committee has included in its report 

a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The Committee has requested 

but not received a cost estimate for this bill from the Director of 

the Congressional Budget Office. The Committee believes that enactment of this bill would result in no additional direct spending 

over the 2018–2022 period. Assuming the appropriation of authorized amounts, the Committee estimates that the legislation would 

also have a discretionary cost of $2 million over the 2018–2022 period. 

BUDGET AUTHORITY AND CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST

ESTIMATE

With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of 

the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect to requirements 

of clause (3)(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 

1974, the Committee has requested but not received a cost estimate 

for this bill from the Director of Congressional Budget Office. The 

Committee has requested but not received from the Director of the 

Congressional Budget Office a statement as to whether this bill 

contains any new budget authority, spending authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in revenues or tax expenditures. 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
16 

FEDERAL MANDATES STATEMENT

With respect to the requirements of Section 423 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act (as amended by Section 101(a)(2) of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act, P.L. 104–4), 

the Committee has requested but not received from the Director of 

the Congressional Budget Office a statement as to whether the provisions of the reported bill include unfunded mandates. 

ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act would be created by H.R. 1259. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Pursuant to Article I, section 8 of the United States Constitution, 

H.R. 1259 is authorized by Congress’ power to ‘‘provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.’’ 

APPLICABILITY TO LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

The Committee finds that H.R. 1259 does not relate to the terms 

and conditions of employment or access to public services or accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act. 

STATEMENT ON DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(5) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee finds that no provision of H.R. 

1259 establishes or reauthorizes a program of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of another Federal program, a program that was included in any report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public 

Law 111–139, or a program related to a program identified in the 

most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. 

DISCLOSURE OF DIRECTED RULEMAKING

Pursuant to section 3(i) of H. Res. 5, 115th Cong. (2017), H.R. 

1259 would require the Secretary of the Department of Veterans 

Affairs, in consultation with the Office of Personnel Management, 

to prescribe regulations that may provide for the payment to the 

spouse or children of any individual whose federal annuity may be 

reduced by Section 4 of the bill. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATION

Section I. Short title; Table of Contents 

Section 1 cites the short title of H.R. 1259, to be the ‘‘VA Accountability First Act of 2017’’ and provides the table of contents 

for the bill. 

Section 2. References to Title 38, United States Code 

Section 2 states that, except as otherwise expressly provided, 

whenever in this Act that there is an amendment to, or repeal of, 

a section or other provision, the reference shall be considered to be 

made to a section or other provision of title 38, U.S.C. 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
17 

Section 3. Removal, demotion, or suspension of employees based on 

performance or misconduct 

Section 3(a) would amend subchapter I of chapter 7 of title 38, 

U.S.C., to create a new section 719 entitled, ‘‘Employees: removal, 

demotion, or suspension based on performance or misconduct.’’ 

Sec. 719(a) would provide the Secretary with the authority to remove, demote, or suspend any VA employee for poor performance 

or misconduct. 

Sec. 719(b) would require that if an individual has been demoted 

under section 719(a), that his or her new annual rate of pay shall 

begin on the date of his or her demotion. The section would further 

require that if the individual appeals that demotion, he or she 

would not be allowed to remain on any category of paid leave during appeal. 

Sec. 719(c) would require the Secretary, by no later than thirty 

days after removing, demoting, or suspending an individual under 

section 719(a) or under chapter 74 of title 38, U.S.C., who is a employed in a senior executive position, to submit a written notification of the removal, demotion, or suspension to the House and Senate Committees on Veterans’ Affairs and to each Member of Congress representing a district in the State or territory where the facility in which the individual was employed immediately before 

being removed, demoted, or suspended. Sec. 719(c) would require 

that such notice include the job title of the individual, the location 

where the individual was employed immediately before being removed, demoted, or suspended, the proposed action, and the reason 

for such removal, demotion, or suspension. This section would also 

require that not later than 30 days after the last day of the fiscal 

year, that the Secretary submit a report to the House and Senate 

Committees on Veterans’ Affairs listing all removals, demotions, 

and suspensions under this section or under section 74 of title 38, 

U.S.C., for all other VA employees. 

Sec. 719(d) would require that the procedures set up by section 

7513(b) and chapter 43 of title 5, U.S.C., shall apply to any removal, demotion, or suspension under this section, except that the 

period for notice and response, which includes the advance notice 

period and the response period of section 7513 of title 5, U.S.C., 

shall not exceed a total of 10 business days. Sec. 719(d) would also 

not apply procedures under section 7121 of title 5, U.S.C., in respect to any removal, demotion, or suspension under this section. 

This section would also require the Secretary to issue a final decision with respect to a removal, demotion, or suspension under this 

section not later than five business days after receiving the individual’s response; or in the case of a proposed removal, demotion, or 

suspension to which the individual does not respond, not later than 

fifteen business days after the Secretary provides notice of such removal, demotion, or suspension authorized under this section. The 

procedures under chapter 43 of title 5, U.S.C., would not apply 

under this section. Sec. 719(d) would also authorize individuals to 

appeal their removal, demotion, or suspension to the MSPB under 

7701(b)(1) of title 5, U.S.C., only if they file such appeal within 

seven days of their removal, demotion, or suspension. 

Sec. 719(e) would set up an expedited process for reviewing appeals made by employees, who are removed, demoted, or suspended 

under subsection (d)(4)(a) of this section, to an administrative judge 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
18 

of the MSPB. Under this procedure the administrative judge would 

have 45 days to issue a decision after an appeal has been filed. 

Notwithstanding section 7701(c)(1)(B) of title 5, U.S.C., the administrative judge shall uphold the decision of the Secretary to remove, 

demote, or suspend an employee if the decision is supported by 

substantial evidence. If the decision is supported by substantial 

evidence, the administrative judge would not be allowed to mitigate 

the penalty by the Secretary. 

The decision of the administrative judge may be appealed to the 

MSPB, only if such an appeal is made not later than seven business days after the date of the decision of the administrative judge. 

In any case in which the administrative judge cannot issue a decision in accordance with the 45-day requirement, the MSPB shall, 

not later than fourteen business days after the expiration of the 45- 

day period, submit to the House and Senate Committees on Veterans’ Affairs, a report that explains the reasons why a decision 

was not issued in accordance with the requirement. A decision of 

the MSPB may also be appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit pursuant to section 7703 of title 5, 

U.S.C. An appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the 

Federal Circuit may only be made if such appeal is made not later 

than seven business days after the date of the decision of the 

MSPB. 

Sec. 719(e) would also require any decision by the Court to be in 

compliance with section 7462(f)(2) of title 38, U.S.C., and would not 

allow the MSPB to stay any removal or demotion under this section. This subsection would also not allow any individual to receive 

any pay, awards, bonuses, incentives, allowances, differentials, student loan repayments, special payments, or benefits related to the 

employment of the individual by the Department from the beginning date of his or her appeal of removal from civil service through 

the date that the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal 

Circuit issues a final decision. 

This subsection would also require the Secretary, to the maximum extent practicable, to provide the MSPB such information 

and assistance as may be necessary to ensure an appeal under this 

subsection is expedited and would require that the employee is entitled to back pay if the employee prevails on appeal. 

Sec. 719(e) would also require that this subsection supersede any 

collective bargaining agreement to the extent that such an agreement conflicts with this subsection. 

Sec. 719(f) would preclude VA from removing, demoting, or suspending an individual under this section if the individual is seeking corrective action from the Office of Special Counsel based on alleged prohibited personnel practices as described in section 2302(b) 

of title 5, U.S.C., without the approval of the Special Counsel under 

section 1214(f) of title 5, U.S.C. This subsection would also not 

allow the Secretary to remove, demote, or suspend any individual 

who has filed a whistleblower complaint, as is defined in section 

731 of title 38, U.S.C., until a final decision with respect to the 

whistleblower complaint has been made. 

Sec. 719(g) would, notwithstanding any other provision of law, 

authorize the Special Counsel to terminate an investigation of a 

prohibited personnel practices alleged by a VA employee or former 

VA employee once the Special Counsel provides a written stateVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:02 Mar 11, 2017 Jkt 069006 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR034P1.XXX HR034P1

lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
19 

ment explaining the reasons for the termination of the investigation. Such written statement would not be admissible as evidence 

in any judicial or administrative proceeding without the consent of 

the employee or former employee. 

Sec. 719(h) would require the Secretary, to the maximum extent 

feasible, to fill the vacancy arising as a result of such removal or 

demotion under subsection (a). 

Sec. 719(i) would provide definitions of terms used in the new 

section 719. 

Section 3(b) would repeal section 713 of title 38, U.S.C. 

Section 3(c) would make clerical and conforming amendments. 

Section 3(d) would provide a temporary exemption from certain 

limitations on initiation from removal from the Senior Executive 

Service. Section 3(d) would allow for, during the 120-day period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, an action to remove 

an individual from the Senior Executive Service at the Department 

of Veterans of Affairs notwithstanding section 3592(b) of title 5, 

U.S.C. 

Section 4. Reduction of benefits for Department of Veterans Affairs 

employees convicted of certain crimes 

Section 4(a) would amend subchapter I of chapter 7 of title 38, 

U.S.C., to create a new section 721, entitled ‘‘Reduction of benefits 

of employees convicted of certain crimes.’’ 

Sec. 721(a) would allow the Secretary to reduce any VA employee’s annuity if the employee is removed from his or her position for 

performance or misconduct, and the Secretary determines that the 

individual is convicted of a felony that influenced the individual’s 

performance while employed at VA. Before such order is made, the 

individual would be afforded a notice of the proposed order; an opportunity to respond to the proposed order not later than 10 business days following receipt of the notice; and an issuance of a final 

order by the Secretary not later than 5 business days after the Secretary receives the response of the individual. The individual would 

also have an opportunity to appeal the Secretary’s final order to 

the Director of the Office of Personnel Management within 7 days 

of the final issuance by the Secretary. The Director of the Office of 

Personnel Management would be required to make a final decision 

with respect to the appeal within 30 business days of receiving the 

appeal. 

Sec. 721(b) would apply the same procedures as prescribed in 

subsection 721(a) for the reduction of a VA employee’s annuity 

upon conviction of certain crimes if the individual leaves or retires 

from employment at the Department prior to the issuance of a final 

decision with respect to a removal for performance of misconduct. 

Sec. 721(c) would require the Director of the Office of Personnel 

Management to recalculate an individual’s annuity not later than 

37 days after the Secretary issues a final order under subsections 

721(a) or (b). 

Sec. 721(d) would entitle an individual whose annuity is reduced 

under subsections 721(a) or (b) to be paid so much of the individual’s lump-sum credit as is attributable to the period of covered 

service. 

Sec. 721(e) would require the Secretary, in consultation with the 

Office of Personnel Management, to prescribe regulations that may 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
20 

provide for the payment to the spouse or children of any individual 

referred to in subsections 721(a) or (b) of any amounts that (but for 

this subsection) would otherwise have been non-payable by reason 

of such subsections. 

Sec. 721(f) would prescribe definitions for this new section 721. 

Section 4(b) would apply to any action of removal of an employee 

of the Department of Veterans Affairs under section 719 or 7461 

of title 38, U.S.C., commencing on or after the date of enactment. 

Section 5. Authority to recoup bonuses or awards paid to employees 

of the Department of Veterans Affairs 

Section 5(a) would amend subchapter I of chapter 7 of title 38, 

U.S.C., to create a new section 723 entitled, ‘‘Recoupment of bonuses or awards paid to employees of Department.’’ 

Sec. 723(a) would allow the Secretary to issue an order directing 

a VA employee to repay the amount, or portion of the amount, of 

any award or bonus paid to the employee under title 5, U.S.C., including chapters 45 of 53 of such title, if the Secretary determines 

that the individual engaged in misconduct or poor performance 

prior to the payment of the award or bonus, and that such award 

or bonus would not have been paid, in whole or in part, had the 

misconduct or poor performance been known prior to payment of 

the award. Prior to repayment of the award, the employee would 

be afforded notice of the proposed order and an opportunity to respond not later than 10 business days after receiving the order. 

The Secretary would be required to issue a final decision not later 

than 5 business days after receiving the individual’s response. 

Sec. 723(b) would provide the individual with the opportunity to 

appeal the order to another department or agency of the Federal 

Government within 7 days of receiving the final issuance of the 

Secretary. 

Sec. 723(c) would require the head of the applicable department 

or agency of the Federal Government to make a final decision with 

respect to the appeal within 30 business days after receiving the 

appeal. 

Section 5(b) would make a clerical amendment to add this new 

section to the table of sections at the beginning of such chapter. 

Section 5(c) would require that subsection 723 of title 38, U.S.C., 

as added by subsection (a), shall apply with respect to an award 

or bonus paid by the Secretary to an employee of the Department 

of Veterans Affairs on or after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Section 5(d) would declare that nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act may be construed to modify the certification issued by the Office of Personnel Management and the Office of Management and Budget regarding the performance appraisal system of the Senior Executive Service of the Department 

of Veterans Affairs. 

Section 6. Authority to recoup relocation expenses paid to or on behalf of employees of Department of Veterans Affairs 

Section 6(a) would amend subchapter I of chapter 7 to create a 

new section 725 entitled, ‘‘Recoupment of Relocation Expenses Paid 

on Behalf of employees of Department.’’ 

Sec. 725(a) would allow the Secretary, notwithstanding any other 

provision of law, to issue an order directing an employee of the DeVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:02 Mar 11, 2017 Jkt 069006 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR034P1.XXX HR034P1

lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
21 

partment to repay the amount, or portion of the amount, paid to 

or on behalf of the employee under title 5, U.S.C., for relocation expenses, including any expenses under section 5724 or 5724(A) of 

such title, if the Secretary determines that the relocation expenses 

were not lawfully authorized or that the employee committed an 

act of fraud, waste, or malfeasance that influenced the authorization of the relocation expenses. Prior to repayment of the award, 

the employee would be afforded notice of the proposed order and 

an opportunity to respond not later than 10 business days after receiving the order. The Secretary would be required to issue a final 

decision not later than 5 business days after receiving the individual’s response. 

Sec. 725(b) would provide the individual with the opportunity to 

appeal the order to another department or agency of the Federal 

Government within 7 days of receiving the final issuance of the 

Secretary. 

Sec. 725(c) would require the head of the applicable department 

or agency of the Federal Government to make a final decision with 

respect to the appeal within 30 business days after receiving the 

appeal. 

Section 6(b) would make a clerical amendment to add this new 

section to the table of sections at the beginning of such chapter. 

Section 6(c) would require that subsection 725 of title 38, U.S.C., 

as added by subsection (a), shall apply with respect to an amount 

paid by the Secretary to or on behalf of an employee for relocation 

expenses on or after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Section 7. Time period for response to notice of adverse actions 

against supervisory employees who commit prohibited personnel 

actions 

Section 7 would amend section 733(a)(2)(B) of title 38, U.S.C., by 

striking ‘‘14 days’’ in clause (i) and inserting ‘‘10 days’’ and by 

striking ‘‘14-day period’’ in clause (ii) and inserting ‘‘10-day period.’’ 

Section 8. Direct hiring authority for medical center director and 

VISN directors 

Section 8(a) would amend section 7401 of title 38, U.S.C., by adding at the end the following new paragraph: ‘‘Medical center directors and directors of Veterans Integrated Service Networks with 

demonstrated ability in the medical profession, in health care administration, or in health care fiscal management.’’ 

Section 8(b) would provide for a conforming amendment to 

amend section 7401(a)(1) of title 38, U.S.C., by inserting ‘‘and 

7401(4)’’ after ‘‘7306.’’ 

Section 9. Time periods for review of adverse actions with respect 

to certain employees 

Section 9(a) would amend section 7461(b)(2) of title 38, U.S.C., 

to read as follows: ‘‘(2) In any case other than a case described in 

paragraph (1) that involved or includes a question of professional 

conduct or competence in which a major adverse action was not 

taken, such an appeal shall be made through Department grievance procedures under section 7463 of title 38, U.S.C.’’ 

Section 9(b) would amend section 7462 of title 38, U.S.C., by 

striking ‘‘at least 30’’ and inserting ‘‘Ten business’’ in section 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
22 

7462(b)(1)(A) of title 38, U.S.C.; and by striking ‘‘a reasonable time, 

but not less than seven days’’ and inserting ‘‘The opportunity, within the ten-day notice period’’ and by striking ‘‘orally and’’ in section 

7462(b)(1)(B) of title 38, U.S.C. Section 9(b) would also amend 

7462(b)(3)(A) by striking ‘‘(A) If a proposed adverse action covered 

by this section is not withdrawn’’ and inserting ‘‘After considering 

the employee’s answer, if any’’; by striking ‘‘21 days’’ and inserting 

‘‘5 business days’’; by striking ‘‘answer. The decision shall include 

a statement of’’ and inserting ‘‘answer stating’’; and by striking 

subparagraph (B). Section 9(b) would also amend section 7462(b)(4) 

of title 38, U.S.C., by striking ‘‘(A) The Secretary’’ and all that follows through ‘‘(B) The Secretary’’ and inserting ‘‘The Secretary’’; 

and by striking ‘‘30 days’’ and inserting ‘‘7 business days’’. Section 

9(b) would also amend section 7462(c)(3) of title 38, U.S.C., by inserting ‘‘the hearing must be concluded not later than 30 business 

days after the date on which the appeal is filed, and’’ after ‘‘If such 

a hearing is held,’’ and would amend section 7462(c)(4) of title 38, 

U.S.C., by striking ‘‘45 days’’ and inserting ‘‘15 business days’’; and 

by striking ‘‘120 days’’ and inserting ‘‘45 business days’’. Section 

9(b) would also amend section 7462(d)(1) of title 38, U.S.C., by 

striking ‘‘90 days’’ and inserting ‘‘15 business days’’. 

Section 9(c) would amend section 7463 of title 38, U.S.C., by 

striking subsection (b) and re-designating subsections (c) through 

(e) as subsection (b) through (d), respectively. Section 9(c) would 

also amend section 7462(b)(2) of title 38, U.S.C., as so re-designated, by striking ‘‘an advance’’ and inserting ‘‘ten business days’’ 

in subparagraph (A) and by striking ‘‘a reasonable time’’ and inserting ‘‘the opportunity, within the ten business day notice period,’’ in subparagraph (B) and by striking ‘‘orally and’’ in the same 

subparagraph. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, 

and existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in 

roman): 

TITLE 38, UNITED STATES CODE 

* * * * * * * 

PART I—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

* * * * * * * 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
23 

CHAPTER 7—EMPLOYEES 

SUBCHAPTER I —GENERAL EMPLOYEE MATTERS 

Sec. 

701. Placement of employees in military installations. 

* * * * * * * 

ø713. Senior executives: removal based on performance or misconduct.¿ 

715. Congressional testimony by employees: treatment as official duty. 

717. Limitation on administrative leave. 

719. Employees: removal, demotion, or suspension based on performance or misconduct. 

721. Reduction of benefits of employees convicted of certain crimes. 

723. Recoupment of bonuses or awards paid to employees of Department. 

725. Recoupment of relocation expenses paid to or on behalf of employees of Department. 

* * * * * * * 

SUBCHAPTER I—GENERAL EMPLOYEE MATTERS 

* * * * * * * 

ø§ 713. Senior executives: removal based on performance or 

misconduct 

ø(a) IN GENERAL.—(1) The Secretary may remove an individual 

employed in a senior executive position at the Department of Veterans Affairs from the senior executive position if the Secretary determines the performance or misconduct of the individual warrants 

such removal. If the Secretary so removes such an individual, the 

Secretary may— 

ø(A) remove the individual from the civil service (as defined 

in section 2101 of title 5); or 

ø(B) in the case of an individual described in paragraph (2), 

transfer the individual from the senior executive position to a 

General Schedule position at any grade of the General Schedule for which the individual is qualified and that the Secretary 

determines is appropriate. 

ø(2) An individual described in this paragraph is an individual 

who— 

ø(A) previously occupied a permanent position within the 

competitive service (as that term is defined in section 2102 of 

title 5); 

ø(B) previously occupied a permanent position within the excepted service (as that term is defined in section 2103 of title 

5); or 

ø(C) prior to employment in a senior executive position at 

the Department of Veterans Affairs, did not occupy any position within the Federal Government. 

ø(b) PAY OF TRANSFERRED INDIVIDUAL.—(1) Notwithstanding any 

other provision of law, including the requirements of section 3594 

of title 5, any individual transferred to a General Schedule position 

under subsection (a)(2) shall, beginning on the date of such transfer, receive the annual rate of pay applicable to such position. 

ø(2) An individual so transferred may not be placed on administrative leave or any other category of paid leave during the period 

during which an appeal (if any) under this section is ongoing, and 

may only receive pay if the individual reports for duty. If an indiVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:02 Mar 11, 2017 Jkt 069006 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR034P1.XXX HR034P1

lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
24 

vidual so transferred does not report for duty, such individual shall 

not receive pay or other benefits pursuant to subsection (e)(5). 

ø(c) NOTICE TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 30 days after removing or transferring an individual from a senior executive position 

under subsection (a), the Secretary shall submit to the Committees 

on Veterans’ Affairs of the Senate and House of Representatives 

notice in writing of such removal or transfer and the reason for 

such removal or transfer. 

ø(d) PROCEDURE.—(1) The procedures under section 7543(b) of 

title 5 shall not apply to a removal or transfer under this section. 

ø(2)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B) and subsection (e), any removal or transfer under subsection (a) may be appealed to the 

Merit Systems Protection Board under section 7701 of title 5. 

ø(B) An appeal under subparagraph (A) of a removal or transfer 

may only be made if such appeal is made not later than seven days 

after the date of such removal or transfer. 

ø(e) EXPEDITED REVIEW BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE.—(1) Upon receipt of an appeal under subsection (d)(2)(A), the Merit Systems 

Protection Board shall refer such appeal to an administrative judge 

pursuant to section 7701(b)(1) of title 5. The administrative judge 

shall expedite any such appeal under such section and, in any such 

case, shall issue a decision not later than 21 days after the date 

of the appeal. 

ø(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including section 7703 of title 5, the decision of an administrative judge under 

paragraph (1) shall be final and shall not be subject to any further 

appeal. 

ø(3) In any case in which the administrative judge cannot issue 

a decision in accordance with the 21-day requirement under paragraph (1), the removal or transfer is final. In such a case, the Merit 

Systems Protection Board shall, within 14 days after the date that 

such removal or transfer is final, submit to Congress and the Committees on Veterans’ Affairs of the Senate and House of Representatives a report that explains the reasons why a decision was not 

issued in accordance with such requirement. 

ø(4) The Merit Systems Protection Board or administrative judge 

may not stay any removal or transfer under this section. 

ø(5) During the period beginning on the date on which an individual appeals a removal from the civil service under subsection (d) 

and ending on the date that the administrative judge issues a final 

decision on such appeal, such individual may not receive any pay, 

awards, bonuses, incentives, allowances, differentials, student loan 

repayments, special payments, or benefits. 

ø(6) To the maximum extent practicable, the Secretary shall provide to the Merit Systems Protection Board, and to any administrative judge to whom an appeal under this section is referred, such 

information and assistance as may be necessary to ensure an appeal under this subsection is expedited. 

ø(f) RELATION TO TITLE 5.—(1) The authority provided by this 

section is in addition to the authority provided by section 3592 or 

subchapter V of chapter 75 of title 5. 

ø(2) Section 3592(b)(1) of title 5 does not apply to an action to 

remove or transfer an individual under this section. 

ø(g) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

ø(1) The term ‘‘individual’’ means— 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
25 

ø(A) a career appointee (as that term is defined in section 3132(a)(4) of title 5); or 

ø(B) any individual who occupies an administrative or 

executive position and who was appointed under section 

7306(a) or section 7401(1) of this title. 

ø(2) The term ‘‘misconduct’’ includes neglect of duty, malfeasance, or failure to accept a directed reassignment or to accompany a position in a transfer of function. 

ø(3) The term ‘‘senior executive position’’ means— 

ø(A) with respect to a career appointee (as that term is 

defined in section 3132(a)(4) of title 5), a Senior Executive 

Service position (as such term is defined in section 

3132(a)(2) of title 5); and 

ø(B) with respect to an individual appointed under section 7306(a) or section 7401(1) of this title, an administrative or executive position.¿ 

* * * * * * * 

§ 719. Employees: removal, demotion, or suspension based on 

performance or misconduct 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may remove, demote, or suspend 

an individual who is an employee of the Department if the Secretary 

determines the performance or misconduct of the individual warrants such removal, demotion, or suspension. If the Secretary so removes, demotes, or suspends such an individual, the Secretary 

may— 

(1) remove the individual from the civil service (as defined in 

section 2101 of title 5); 

(2) demote the individual by means of a reduction in grade 

for which the individual is qualified, that the Secretary determines is appropriate, and that reduces the annual rate of pay 

of the individual; or 

(3) suspend the individual. 

(b) PAY OF CERTAIN DEMOTED INDIVIDUALS.—(1) Notwithstanding 

any other provision of law, any individual subject to a demotion 

under subsection (a)(2) shall, beginning on the date of such demotion, receive the annual rate of pay applicable to such grade. 

(2) An individual so demoted may not be placed on administrative leave during the period during which an appeal (if any) under 

this section is ongoing, and may only receive pay if the individual 

reports for duty or is approved to use accrued unused annual, sick, 

family medical, military, or court leave. If an individual so demoted 

does not report for duty or receive approval to use accrued unused 

leave, such individual shall not receive pay or other benefits pursuant to subsection (e)(5). 

(c) NOTICE TO CONGRESS.—(1) Not later than 30 days after removing, demoting, or suspending an individual employed in a senior executive position under subsection (a) or after removing, demoting, or suspending an individual under chapter 74 of this title, the 

Secretary shall submit to the Committees on Veterans’ Affairs of the 

Senate and House of Representatives and to each Member of Congress representing a district in the State or territory where the facility where the individual was employed immediately before being removed, demoted, or suspended is located notice in writing of such 

removal, demotion, or suspension. Such notice shall include the job 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
26 

title of the individual, the location where the individual was employed immediately before being removed, demoted, or suspended, 

the proposed action, and the reason for such removal, demotion, or 

suspension. 

(2) Not later than 30 days after the last day of a fiscal year, the 

Secretary shall submit to the Committees on Veterans’ Affairs of the 

Senate and House of Representatives a report listing all removals, 

demotions, and suspensions under this section or under chapter 74 

of this title during such fiscal year. Each such report shall include 

the job title of each individual removed, demoted, or suspended, the 

location where the individual was employed immediately before 

being so removed, demoted or suspended, the proposed action, and 

the reason for such removal, demotion, or suspension. 

(3) In this subsection, the term ‘‘senior executive position’’ means, 

with respect to a career appointee (as that term is defined in section 

3132(a)(4) of title 5), a Senior Executive Service position (as such 

term is defined in section 3132(a)(2) of title 5). 

(d) PROCEDURE.—(1) Subsection (b) of section 7513 of title 5 shall 

apply with respect to a removal, demotion, or suspension under this 

section, except that the period for notice and response, which includes the advance notice period required by paragraph (1) of such 

subsection and the response period required by paragraph (2) of 

such subsection, shall not exceed a total of 10 business days. Subsection (c) of such section and section 7121 of such title shall not 

apply with respect to such a removal, demotion, or suspension. 

(2) The Secretary shall issue a final decision with respect to a removal, demotion, or suspension under this section— 

(A) in the case of a proposed removal, demotion, or suspension to which an individual responds under paragraph (1), not 

later than five business days after receiving the response of the 

individual; or 

(B) in the case of a proposed removal, demotion, or suspension to which an individual does not respond, not later than 15 

business days after the Secretary provides notice to the individual under paragraph (1). 

(3) The procedures under chapter 43 of title 5 shall not apply to 

a removal, demotion, or suspension under this section. 

(4)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B) and subsection (e), any removal, demotion, or suspension under subsection (a) may be appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board, which shall refer 

such appeal to an administrative judge pursuant to section 

7701(b)(1) of title 5. 

(B) An appeal under subparagraph (A) of a removal, demotion, or 

suspension may only be made if such appeal is made not later than 

7 days after the date of such removal, demotion, or suspension. 

(e) EXPEDITED REVIEW.—(1) Upon receipt of an appeal under subsection (d)(4)(A), the administrative judge shall expedite any such 

appeal under such section and, in any such case, shall issue a final 

and complete decision not later than 45 business days after the date 

of the appeal. 

(2) Notwithstanding section 7701(c)(1)(B) of title 5, the administrative judge shall uphold the decision of the Secretary to remove, 

demote, or suspend an employee under subsection (a) if the decision 

is supported by substantial evidence. If the decision of the Secretary 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
27 

is supported by substantial evidence, the administrative judge shall 

not mitigate the penalty prescribed by the Secretary. 

(3)(A) The decision of the administrative judge under paragraph 

(1) may be appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board. 

(B) An appeal under subparagraph (A) of a decision of an administrative judge may only be made if such appeal is made not later 

than 7 business days after the date of the decision of the administrative judge. 

(4) In any case in which the administrative judge cannot issue a 

decision in accordance with the 45-day requirement under paragraph (1), the Merit Systems Protection Board shall, not later than 

14 business days after the expiration of the 45-day period, submit 

to the Committees on Veterans’ Affairs of the Senate and House of 

Representatives a report that explains the reasons why a decision 

was not issued in accordance with such requirement. 

(5)(A) A decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board under 

paragraph (3) may be appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit pursuant to section 7703 of title 5. 

(B) An appeal under subparagraph (A) of a decision of the Merit 

Systems Protection Board may only be made if such appeal is made 

not later than 7 business days after the date of the decision of the 

Board. 

(C) Any decision by such Court shall be in compliance with section 7462(f)(2) of this title. 

(6) The Merit Systems Protection Board may not stay any removal, demotion, under this section. 

(7) During the period beginning on the date on which an individual appeals a removal from the civil service under subsection (d) 

and ending on the date that the United States Court of Appeals for 

the Federal Circuit issues a final decision on such appeal, such individual may not receive any pay, awards, bonuses, incentives, allowances, differentials, student loan repayments, special payments, 

or benefits related to the employment of the individual by the Department. 

(8) To the maximum extent practicable, the Secretary shall provide to the Merit Systems Protection Board such information and 

assistance as may be necessary to ensure an appeal under this subsection is expedited. 

(9) If an employee prevails on appeal under this section, the employee shall be entitled to backpay (as provided in section 5596 of 

title 5). 

(10) This subsection shall supercede any collective bargaining 

agreement to the extent that such an agreement conflicts with this 

subsection. 

(f) WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION.—(1) In the case of an individual seeking corrective action (or on behalf of whom corrective action is sought) from the Office of Special Counsel based on an alleged prohibited personnel practice described in section 2302(b) of 

title 5, the Secretary may not remove, demote, or suspend such individual under subsection (a) without the approval of the Special 

Counsel under section 1214(f) of title 5. 

(2) In the case of an individual who has filed a whistleblower 

complaint, as such term is defined in section 731 of this title, the 

Secretary may not remove, demote, or suspend such individual 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
28 

under subsection (a) until a final decision with respect to the whistleblower complaint has been made. 

(g) TERMINATION OF INVESTIGATIONS BY OFFICE OF SPECIAL

COUNSEL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Special 

Counsel (established by section 1211 of title 5) may terminate an investigation of a prohibited personnel practice alleged by an employee 

or former employee of the Department after the Special Counsel provides to the employee or former employee a written statement of the 

reasons for the termination of the investigation. Such statement may 

not be admissible as evidence in any judicial or administrative proceeding without the consent of such employee or former employee. 

(h) VACANCIES.—In the case of an individual who is removed or 

demoted under subsection (a), to the maximum extent feasible, the 

Secretary shall fill the vacancy arising as a result of such removal 

or demotion. 

(i) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

(1) The term ‘‘individual’’ means an individual occupying a 

position at the Department but does not include— 

(A) an individual appointed pursuant to section 7306, 

7401(1), or 7405 of this title; 

(B) an individual who has not completed a probationary 

or trial period; or 

(C) a political appointee. 

(2) The term ‘‘suspend’’ means the placing of an employee, for 

disciplinary reasons, in a temporary status without duties and 

pay for a period in excess of 14 days. 

(3) The term ‘‘grade’’ has the meaning given such term in section 7511(a) of title 5. 

(4) The term ‘‘misconduct’’ includes neglect of duty, malfeasance, or failure to accept a directed reassignment or to accompany a position in a transfer of function. 

(5) The term ‘‘political appointee’’ means an individual who 

is— 

(A) employed in a position described under sections 5312 

through 5316 of title 5 (relating to the Executive Schedule); 

(B) a limited term appointee, limited emergency appointee, or noncareer appointee in the Senior Executive 

Service, as defined under paragraphs (5), (6), and (7), respectively, of section 3132(a) of title 5; or 

(C) employed in a position of a confidential or policy-determining character under schedule C of subpart C of part 

213 of title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations. 

§ 721. Reduction of benefits of employees convicted of certain 

crimes 

(a) REDUCTION OF ANNUITY FOR REMOVED EMPLOYEE.—(1) The 

Secretary shall order that the covered service of an employee of the 

Department removed from a position for performance or misconduct 

under section 719 or 7461 of this title or any other provision of law 

shall not be taken into account for purposes of calculating an annuity with respect to such individual under chapter 83 or chapter 84 

of title 5, if— 

(A) the Secretary determines that the individual is convicted 

of a felony that influenced the individual’s performance while 

employed in the position; 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
29 

(B) before such order is made, the individual is afforded— 

(i) notice of the proposed order; and 

(ii) an opportunity to respond to the proposed order by 

not later than ten business days following receipt of such 

notice; and 

(C) the Secretary issues the order— 

(i) in the case of a proposed order to which an individual 

responds under subparagraph (B)(ii), not later than five 

business days after receiving the response of the individual; 

or 

(ii) in the case of a proposed order to which an individual does not respond, not later than 15 business days 

after the Secretary provides notice to the individual under 

subparagraph (B)(i). 

(2) Upon the issuance of an order by the Secretary under paragraph (1), the individual shall have an opportunity to appeal the 

order to the Director of the Office of Personnel Management before 

the date that is seven business days after the date of such issuance. 

(3) The Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall 

make a final decision with respect to an appeal under paragraph 

(2) within 30 business days of receiving the appeal. 

(b) REDUCTION OF ANNUITY FOR RETIRED EMPLOYEE.—(1) The 

Secretary may order that the covered service of an individual who 

is removed for performance or misconduct under section 719 or 7461 

of this title or any other provision of law but who leaves employment 

at the Department prior to the issuance of a final decision with respect to such action shall not be taken into account for purposes of 

calculating an annuity with respect to such individual under chapter 83 or chapter 84 of title 5, if— 

(A) the Secretary determines that the individual is convicted 

of a felony that influenced the individual’s performance while 

employed in the position; 

(B) before such order is made, the individual is afforded— 

(i) notice of the proposed order; and 

(ii) opportunity to respond to the proposed order by not 

later than ten business days following receipt of such notice; and 

(C) the Secretary issues the order— 

(i) in the case of a proposed order to which an individual 

responds under subparagraph (B)(ii), not later than five 

business days after receiving the response of the individual; 

or 

(ii) in the case of a proposed order to which an individual does not respond, not later than 15 business days 

after the Secretary provides notice to the individual under 

subparagraph (B)(i). 

(2) Upon the issuance of an order by the Secretary under paragraph (1), the individual shall have an opportunity to appeal the 

order to the Director of the Office of Personnel Management before 

the date that is seven business days after the date of such issuance. 

(3) The Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall 

make a final decision with respect to an appeal under paragraph 

(2) within 30 business days of receiving the appeal. 

(c) ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS.—Not later than 37 business 

days after the Secretary issues a final order under subsection (a) or 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
30 

(b), the Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall recalculate the annuity of the individual. 

(d) LUMP-SUM ANNUITY CREDIT.—Any individual with respect to 

whom an annuity is reduced under subsection (a) or (b) shall be entitled to be paid so much of such individual’s lump-sum credit as 

is attributable to the period of covered service. 

(e) SPOUSE OR CHILDREN EXCEPTION.—The Secretary, in consultation with the Office of Personnel Management, shall prescribe regulations that may provide for the payment to the spouse or children 

of any individual referred to in subsection (a) or (b) of any amounts 

which (but for this subsection) would otherwise have been nonpayable by reason of such subsections. Any such regulations shall be 

consistent with the requirements of sections 8332(o)(5) and 

8411(l)(5) of title 5, as the case may be. 

(f) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

(1) The term ‘‘covered service’’ means, with respect to an individual subject to a removal for performance or misconduct 

under section 719 or 7461 of this title or any other provision of 

law, the period of service beginning on the date that the Secretary determines under such applicable provision that the individual engaged in activity that gave rise to such action and 

ending on the date that the individual is removed from or 

leaves a position of employment at the Department prior to the 

issuance of a final decision with respect to such action. 

(2) The term ‘‘lump-sum credit’’ has the meaning given such 

term in section 8331(8) or section 8401(19) of title 5, as the case 

may be. 

(3) The term ‘‘service’’ has the meaning given such term in 

section 8331(12) or section 8401(26) of title 5, as the case may 

be. 

§ 723. Recoupment of bonuses or awards paid to employees of 

Department 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 

Secretary may issue an order directing an employee of the Department to repay the amount, or a portion of the amount, of any award 

or bonus paid to the employee under title 5, including under chapter 

45 or 53 of such title, or this title if— 

(1) the Secretary determines that the individual engaged in 

misconduct or poor performance prior to payment of the award 

or bonus, and that such award or bonus would not have been 

paid, in whole or in part, had the misconduct or poor performance been known prior to payment; 

(2) before such repayment, the employee is afforded— 

(A) notice of the proposed order; and 

(B) an opportunity to respond to the proposed order by 

not later than ten business days after the receipt of such notice; and 

(3) the Secretary issues the order— 

(A) in the case of a proposed order to which an individual responds under paragraph (2)(B), not later than five 

business days after receiving the response of the individual; 

or 

(B) in the case of a proposed order to which an individual does not respond, not later than 15 business days 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
31 

after the Secretary provides notice to the individual under 

paragraph (2)(A). 

(b) APPEALS.—Upon the issuance of an order by the Secretary 

under subsection (a), the individual shall have an opportunity to 

appeal the order to another department or agency of the Federal 

Government before the date that is seven business days after the 

date of such issuance. 

(c) FINAL DECISIONS.—The head of the applicable department or 

agency of the Federal Government shall make a final decision with 

respect to an appeal under subsection (b) within 30 business days 

after receiving such appeal. 

§ 725. Recoupment of relocation expenses paid on behalf of 

employees of Department 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 

Secretary may issue an order directing an employee of the Department to repay the amount, or a portion of the amount, paid to or 

on behalf of the employee under title 5 for relocation expenses, including any expenses under section 5724 or 5724a of such title, or 

this title if— 

(1) the Secretary determines that relocation expenses were not 

lawfully authorized or that the employee committed an act of 

fraud, waste, or malfeasance that influenced the authorization 

of the relocation expenses; 

(2) before such repayment, the employee is afforded— 

(A) notice of the proposed order; and 

(B) an opportunity to respond to the proposed order not 

later than ten business days following the receipt of such 

notice; and 

(3) the Secretary issues the order— 

(A) in the case of a proposed order to which an individual responds under paragraph (2)(B), not later than five 

business days after receiving the response of the individual; 

or 

(B) in the case of a proposed order to which an individual does not respond, not later than 15 business days 

after the Secretary provides notice to the individual under 

paragraph (2)(A). 

(b) APPEALS.—Upon the issuance of an order by the Secretary 

under subsection (a), the individual shall have an opportunity to 

appeal the order to another department or agency of the Federal 

Government before the date that is seven business days after the 

date of such issuance. 

(c) FINAL DECISIONS.—The head of the applicable department or 

agency of the Federal Government shall make a final decision with 

respect to an appeal under subsection (b) within 30 days after receiving such appeal. 

SUBCHAPTER II—WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINTS 

* * * * * * * 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
32 

§ 733. Adverse actions against supervisory employees who 

commit prohibited personnel actions relating to 

whistleblower complaints 

(a) IN GENERAL.—(1) In accordance with paragraph (2), the Secretary shall carry out the following adverse actions against supervisory employees (as defined in section 7103(a) of title 5) whom the 

Secretary, an administrative judge, the Merit Systems Protection 

Board, the Office of Special Counsel, an adjudicating body provided 

under a union contract, a Federal judge, or the Inspector General 

of the Department determines committed a prohibited personnel 

action described in subsection (c): 

(A) With respect to the first offense, an adverse action that 

is not less than a 12-day suspension and not more than removal. 

(B) With respect to the second offense, removal. 

(2)(A) An employee against whom an adverse action under paragraph (1) is proposed is entitled to written notice. 

(B)(i) An employee who is notified under subparagraph (A) of 

being the subject of a proposed adverse action under paragraph (1) 

is entitled to ø14 days¿ 10 days following such notification to answer and furnish evidence in support of the answer. 

(ii) If the employee does not furnish any such evidence as described in clause (i) or if the Secretary determines that such evidence is not sufficient to reverse the determination to propose the 

adverse action, the Secretary shall carry out the adverse action following such ø14-day period¿ 10-day period. (C) Paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (b) of section 7513 of 

title 5, subsection (c) of such section, paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (b) of section 7543 of such title, and subsection (c) of such 

section shall not apply with respect to an adverse action carried out 

under paragraph (1). 

(b) LIMITATION ON OTHER ADVERSE ACTIONS.—With respect to a 

prohibited personnel action described in subsection (c), if the Secretary carries out an adverse action against a supervisory employee, the Secretary may carry out an additional adverse action 

under this section based on the same prohibited personnel action 

if the total severity of the adverse actions do not exceed the level 

specified in subsection (a). 

(c) PROHIBITED PERSONNEL ACTION DESCRIBED.—A prohibited 

personnel action described in this subsection is any of the following 

actions: 

(1) Taking or failing to take a personnel action in violation 

of section 2302 of title 5 against an employee relating to the 

employee— 

(A) filing a whistleblower complaint in accordance with 

section 732 of this title; 

(B) filing a whistleblower complaint with the Inspector 

General of the Department, the Special Counsel, or Congress; 

(C) providing information or participating as a witness 

in an investigation of a whistleblower complaint in accordance with section 732 or with the Inspector General of the 

Department, the Special Counsel, or Congress; 

(D) participating in an audit or investigation by the 

Comptroller General of the United States; 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
33 

(E) refusing to perform an action that is unlawful or prohibited by the Department; or 

(F) engaging in communications that are related to the 

duties of the position or are otherwise protected. 

(2) Preventing or restricting an employee from making an action described in any of subparagraphs (A) through (F) of paragraph (1). 

(3) Conducting a negative peer review or opening a retaliatory investigation because of an activity of an employee that is 

protected by section 2302 of title 5. 

(4) Requesting a contractor to carry out an action that is prohibited by section 4705(b) or section 4712(a)(1) of title 41, as 

the case may be. 

* * * * * * * 

PART V—BOARDS, ADMINISTRATIONS, AND 

SERVICES 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 74—VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION - 

PERSONNEL 

* * * * * * * 

SUBCHAPTER I—APPOINTMENTS 

§ 7401. Appointments in Veterans Health Administration 

There may be appointed by the Secretary such personnel as the 

Secretary may find necessary for the health care of veterans (in addition to those in the Office of the Under Secretary for Health appointed under section 7306 of this title), as follows: 

(1) Physicians, dentists, podiatrists, chiropractors, optometrists, registered nurses, physician assistants, and expandedfunction dental auxiliaries. 

(2) Scientific and professional personnel, such as microbiologists, chemists, and biostatisticians. 

(3) Audiologists, licensed hearing aid specialists, speech pathologists, and audiologist-speech pathologists, biomedical engineers, certified or registered respiratory therapists, dietitians, 

licensed physical therapists, licensed practical or vocational 

nurses, nurse assistants, medical instrument technicians, medical records administrators or specialists, medical records technicians, medical technologists, dental hygienists, dental assistants, nuclear medicine technologists, occupational therapists, 

occupational therapy assistants, kinesiotherapists, orthotistprosthetists, pharmacists, pharmacy technicians, physical therapy assistants, prosthetic representatives, psychologists, diagnostic radiologic technologists, therapeutic radiologic technologists, social workers, marriage and family therapists, licensed professional mental health counselors, blind rehabilitation specialists, blind rehabilitation outpatient specialists, and 

such other classes of health care occupations as the Secretary 

considers necessary for the recruitment and retention needs of 

the Department subject to the following requirements: 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
34 

(A) Such other classes of health care occupations— 

(i) are not occupations relating to administrative, 

clerical, or physical plant maintenance and protective 

services; 

(ii) would otherwise receive basic pay in accordance 

with the General Schedule under section 5332 of title 

5; 

(iii) provide, as determined by the Secretary, direct 

patient care services or services incident to direct patient services; and 

(iv) would not otherwise be available to provide 

medical care or treatment for veterans. 

(B) Not later than 45 days before the Secretary appoints 

any personnel for a class of health care occupations that 

is not specifically listed in this paragraph, the Secretary 

shall submit to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs of the 

Senate, the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs of the House 

of Representatives, and the Office of Management and 

Budget notice of such appointment. 

(C) Before submitting notice under subparagraph (B), 

the Secretary shall solicit comments from any labor organization representing employees in such class and include 

such comments in such notice. 

(4) Medical center directors and directors of Veterans Integrated Service Networks with demonstrated ability in the medical profession, in health care administration, or in health care 

fiscal management. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 7404. Grades and pay scales 

(a)(1) The annual rates or ranges of rates of basic pay for positions provided in section 7306 and 7401(4) of this title shall be prescribed from time to time by Executive order as authorized by 

chapter 53 of title 5 or as otherwise authorized by law. 

(b) The grades for positions provided for in paragraph (1) of section 7401 of this title shall be as follows. The annual ranges of 

rates of basic pay for those grades shall be prescribed from time 

to time by Executive order as authorized by chapter 53 of title 5 

or as otherwise authorized by law: 

PHYSICIAN AND DENTIST SCHEDULE 

Physician grade. 

Dentist grade. 

NURSE SCHEDULE 

Nurse V. 

Nurse IV. 

Nurse III. 

Nurse II. 

Nurse I. 

CLINICAL PODIATRIST, CHIROPRACTOR, AND OPTOMETRIST SCHEDULE 

Chief grade. 

Senior grade. 

Intermediate grade. 

Full grade. 

Associate grade. 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
35 

(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 7425(a) of this title, 

a person appointed under section 7306 of this title who is not eligible for pay under subchapter III shall be deemed to be a career appointee for the purposes of sections 4507 and 5384 of title 5. 

(d) Except as provided under subsection (e), subchapter III, and 

section 7457 of this title, pay for positions for which basic pay is 

paid under this section may not be paid at a rate in excess of the 

rate of basic pay authorized by section 5316 of title 5 for positions 

in Level V of the Executive Schedule. 

(e) The position of Chief Nursing Officer, Office of Nursing Services, shall be exempt from the provisions of section 7451 of this 

title and shall be paid at a rate determined by the Secretary, not 

to exceed the maximum rate established for the Senior Executive 

Service under section 5382 of title 5. 

* * * * * * * 

SUBCHAPTER V—DISCIPLINARY AND GRIEVANCE 

PROCEDURES 

§ 7461. Adverse actions: section 7401(1) employees 

(a) Whenever the Under Secretary for Health (or an official designated by the Under Secretary for Health) brings charges based 

on conduct or performance against a section 7401(1) employee and 

as a result of those charges an adverse personnel action is taken 

against the employee, the employee shall have the right to appeal 

the action. 

(b)(1) If the case involves or includes a question of professional 

conduct or competence in which a major adverse action was taken, 

such an appeal shall be made to a Disciplinary Appeals Board 

under section 7462 of this title. 

ø(2) In any other case, such an appeal shall be made— 

ø(A) through Department grievance procedures under section 

7463 of this title, in any case that involves or includes a question of professional conduct or competence in which a major adverse action was not taken or in any case of an employee who 

is not covered by a collective bargaining agreement under 

chapter 71 of title 5; or 

ø(B) through grievance procedures provided through collective bargaining under chapter 71 of title 5 or through Department grievance procedures under section 7463 of this title, as 

the employee elects, in the case of an employee covered by a 

collective bargaining agreement under chapter 71 of title 5 

that does not involve or include a question of professional conduct or competence.¿ 

(2) In any case other than a case described in paragraph (1) that 

involves or includes a question of professional conduct or competence in which a major adverse action was not taken, such an appeal shall be made through Department grievance procedures under 

section 7463 of this title. 

(c) For purposes of this subchapter— 

(1) Section 7401(1) employees are employees of the Department employed on a full-time basis under a permanent appointment in a position listed in section 7401(1) of this title 

(other than interns and residents appointed pursuant to section 7406 of this title). 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
36 

(2) A major adverse action is an adverse action which includes any of the following: 

(A) Suspension. 

(B) Transfer. 

(C) Reduction in grade. 

(D) Reduction in basic pay. 

(E) Discharge. 

(3) A question of professional conduct or competence is a 

question involving any of the following: 

(A) Direct patient care. 

(B) Clinical competence. 

(d) An issue of whether a matter or question concerns, or arises 

out of, professional conduct or competence is not itself subject to 

any grievance procedure provided by law, regulation, or collective 

bargaining and may not be reviewed by any other agency. 

(e) Whenever the Secretary proposes to prescribe regulations 

under this subchapter, the Secretary shall publish the proposed 

regulations in the Federal Register for notice-and-comment not less 

than 30 days before the day on which they take effect. 

§ 7462. Major adverse actions involving professional conduct 

or competence 

(a)(1) Disciplinary Appeals Boards appointed under section 7464 

of this title shall have exclusive jurisdiction to review any case— 

(A) which arises out of (or which includes) a question of professional conduct or competence of a section 7401(1) employee; 

and 

(B) in which a major adverse action was taken. 

(2) The board shall include in its record of decision in any mixed 

case a statement of the board’s exclusive jurisdiction under this 

subsection and the basis for such exclusive jurisdiction. 

(3) For purposes of paragraph (2), a mixed case is a case that includes both a major adverse action arising out of a question of professional conduct or competence and an adverse action which is not 

a major adverse action or which does not arise out of a question 

of professional conduct or competence. 

(b)(1) In any case in which charges are brought against a section 

7401(1) employee which arises out of, or includes, a question of professional conduct or competence which could result in a major adverse action, the employee is entitled to the following: 

(A) øAt least 30¿ Ten business days advance written notice 

from the Under Secretary for Health or other charging official 

specifically stating the basis for each charge, the adverse actions that could be taken if the charges are sustained, and a 

statement of any specific law, regulation, policy, procedure, 

practice, or other specific instruction that has been violated 

with respect to each charge, except that the requirement for 

notification in advance may be waived if there is reasonable 

cause to believe that the employee has committed a crime for 

which the employee may be imprisoned. 

(B) øA reasonable time, but not less than seven days¿ The 

opportunity, within the ten-day notice period, to present an answer øorally and¿ in writing to the Under Secretary for Health 

or other deciding official, who shall be an official higher in 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
37 

rank than the charging official, and to submit affidavits and 

other documentary evidence in support of the answer. 

(2) In any case described in paragraph (1), the employee is entitled to be represented by an attorney or other representative of the 

employee’s choice at all stages of the case. 

(3)ø(A) If a proposed adverse action covered by this section is not 

withdrawn¿ After considering the employee’s answer, if any, the deciding official shall render a decision in writing within ø21 days¿ 

5 business days of receipt by the deciding official of the employee’s 

øanswer. The decision shall include a statement of¿ answer stating 

the specific reasons for the decision with respect to each charge. If 

a major adverse action is imposed, the decision shall state whether 

any of the charges sustained arose out of a question of professional 

conduct or competence. If any of the charges are sustained, the notice of the decision to the employee shall include notice of the employee’s rights of appeal. 

ø(B) Notwithstanding the 21-day period specified in subparagraph (A), a proposed adverse action may be held in abeyance if the 

employee requests, and the deciding official agrees, that the employee shall seek counseling or treatment for a condition covered 

under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Any such abeyance of a proposed action may not extend for more than one year.¿ 

(4)ø(A) The Secretary may require that any answer and submission under paragraph (1)(B) be submitted so as to be received within 30 days of the date of the written notice of the charges, except 

that the Secretary shall allow the granting of extensions for good 

cause shown.¿ 

ø(B) The Secretary¿ The Secretary shall require that any appeal 

to a Disciplinary Appeals Board from a decision to impose a major 

adverse action shall be received within ø30 days¿ 7 business days 

after the date of service of the written decision on the employee. 

(c)(1) When a Disciplinary Appeals Board convenes to consider an 

appeal in a case under this section, the board, before proceeding to 

consider the merits of the appeal, shall determine whether the case 

is properly before it. 

(2) Upon hearing such an appeal, the board shall, with respect 

to each charge appealed to the board, sustain the charge, dismiss 

the charge, or sustain the charge in part and dismiss the charge 

in part. If the deciding official is sustained (in whole or in part) 

with respect to any such charge, the board shall— 

(A) approve the action as imposed; 

(B) approve the action with modification, reduction, or exception; or 

(C) reverse the action. 

(3) A board shall afford an employee appealing an adverse action 

under this section an opportunity for an oral hearing. If such a 

hearing is held, the hearing must be concluded not later than 30 

business days after the date on which the appeal is filed, and the 

board shall provide the employee with a transcript of the hearing. 

(4) The board shall render a decision in any case within ø45 

days¿ 15 business days of completion of the hearing, if there is a 

hearing, and in any event no later than ø120 days¿ 45 business 

days after the appeal commenced. 

(d)(1) After resolving any question as to whether a matter involves professional conduct or competence, the Secretary shall 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
38 

cause to be executed the decision of the Disciplinary Appeals Board 

in a timely manner and in any event in not more than ø90 days¿ 

15 business days after the decision of the Board is received by the 

Secretary. Pursuant to the board’s decision, the Secretary may 

order reinstatement, award back pay, and provide such other remedies as the board found appropriate relating directly to the proposed action, including expungement of records relating to the action. 

(e) The Secretary may designate an employee of the Department 

to represent management in any case before a Disciplinary Appeals 

Board. 

(f)(1) A section 7401(1) employee adversely affected by a final 

order or decision of a Disciplinary Appeals Board (as reviewed by 

the Secretary) may obtain judicial review of the order or decision. 

(2) In any case in which judicial review is sought under this subsection, the court shall review the record and hold unlawful and set 

aside any agency action, finding, or conclusion found to be— 

(A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise 

not in accordance with law; 

(B) obtained without procedures required by law, rule, or 

regulation having been followed; or 

(C) unsupported by substantial evidence. 

§ 7463. Other adverse actions 

(a) The Secretary shall prescribe by regulation procedures for the 

consideration of grievances of section 7401(1) employees arising 

from adverse personnel actions in which each action taken either— 

(1) is not a major adverse action; or 

(2) does not arise out of a question of professional conduct or 

competence. 

Disciplinary Appeals Boards shall not have jurisdiction to review 

such matters, other than as part of a mixed case (as defined in section 7462(a)(3) of this title). 

ø(b) In the case of an employee who is a member of a collective 

bargaining unit under chapter 71 of title 5, the employee may seek 

review of an adverse action described in subsection (a) either under 

the grievance procedures provided through regulations prescribed 

under subsection (a) or through grievance procedures determined 

through collective bargaining, but not under both. The employee 

shall elect which grievance procedure to follow. Any such election 

may not be revoked.¿ 

ø(c)¿ (b)(1) In any case in which charges are brought against a 

section 7401(1) employee which could result in a major adverse action and which do not involve professional conduct or competence, 

the employee is entitled to the same notice and opportunity to answer with respect to those charges as provided in subparagraphs 

(A) and (B) of section 7462(b)(1) of this title. 

(2) In any other case in which charges are brought against a section 7401(1) employee, the employee is entitled to— 

(A) øan advance¿ ten business days written notice stating the 

specific reason for the proposed action, and 

(B) øa reasonable time¿ the opportunity, within the ten business day notice period, to answer øorally and¿ in writing and 

to furnish affidavits and other documentary evidence in support of the answer. 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
39 

ø(d)¿ (c) Grievance procedures prescribed under subsection (a) 

shall include the following: 

(1) A right to formal review by an impartial examiner within 

the Department of Veterans Affairs, who, in the case of an adverse action arising from a question of professional conduct or 

competence, shall be selected from the panel designated under 

section 7464 of this title. 

(2) A right to a prompt report of the findings and recommendations by the impartial examiner. 

(3) A right to a prompt review of the examiner’s findings and 

recommendations by an official of a higher level than the official who decided upon the action. That official may accept, 

modify, or reject the examiner’s recommendations. 

ø(e)¿ (d) In any review of an adverse action under the grievance 

procedures prescribed under subsection (a), the employee is entitled 

to be represented by an attorney or other representative of the employee’s choice at all stages of the case. 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE 

* * * * * * * 

PART III—EMPLOYEES 

* * * * * * * 

SUBPART C—EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 43—PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL 

* * * * * * * 

SUBCHAPTER I—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

* * * * * * * 

§ 4303. Actions based on unacceptable performance 

(a) Subject to the provisions of this section, an agency may reduce in grade or remove an employee for unacceptable performance. 

(b)(1) An employee whose reduction in grade or removal is proposed under this section is entitled to— 

(A) 30 days’ advance written notice of the proposed action 

which identifies— 

(i) specific instances of unacceptable performance by the 

employee on which the proposed action is based; and 

(ii) the critical elements of the employee’s position involved in each instance of unacceptable performance; 

(B) be represented by an attorney or other representative; 

(C) a reasonable time to answer orally and in writing; and 

(D) a written decision which— 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
40 

(i) in the case of a reduction in grade or removal under 

this section, specifies the instances of unacceptable performance by the employee on which the reduction in grade 

or removal is based, and 

(ii) unless proposed by the head of the agency, has been 

concurred in by an employee who is in a higher position 

than the employee who proposed the action. 

(2) An agency may, under regulations prescribed by the head of 

such agency, extend the notice period under subsection (b)(1)(A) of 

this section for not more than 30 days. An agency may extend the 

notice period for more than 30 days only in accordance with regulations issued by the Office of Personnel Management. 

(c) The decision to retain, reduce in grade, or remove an employee— 

(1) shall be made within 30 days after the date of expiration 

of the notice period, and 

(2) in the case of a reduction in grade or removal, may be 

based only on those instances of unacceptable performance by 

the employee— 

(A) which occurred during the 1-year period ending on 

the date of the notice under subsection (b)(1)(A) of this section in connection with the decision; and 

(B) for which the notice and other requirements of this 

section are complied with. 

(d) If, because of performance improvement by the employee during the notice period, the employee is not reduced in grade or removed, and the employee’s performance continues to be acceptable 

for 1 year from the date of the advance written notice provided 

under subsection (b)(1)(A) of this section, any entry or other notation of the unacceptable performance for which the action was proposed under this section shall be removed from any agency record 

relating to the employee. 

(e) Any employee who is— 

(1) a preference eligible; 

(2) in the competitive service; or 

(3) in the excepted service and covered by subchapter II of 

chapter 75, 

and who has been reduced in grade or removed under this section 

is entitled to appeal the action to the Merit Systems Protection 

Board under section 7701. 

(f) This section does not apply to— 

(1) the reduction to the grade previously held of a supervisor 

or manager who has not completed the probationary period 

under section 3321(a)(2) of this title, 

(2) the reduction in grade or removal of an employee in the 

competitive service who is serving a probationary or trial period under an initial appointment or who has not completed 1 

year of current continuous employment under other than a 

temporary appointment limited to 1 year or less, øor¿ 

(3) the reduction in grade or removal of an employee in the 

excepted service who has not completed 1 year of current continuous employment in the same or similar positionsø.¿, or 

(4) any removal or demotion under section 719 of title 38. 

* * * * * * * 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(41) 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

We have serious concerns over H.R. 1259, particularly sections 3 

and 9. We believe this bill, although claiming to provide additional 

means of accountability to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) 

would, in practice, make it more difficult to achieve substantive accountability while exacerbating VA’s culture of whistleblower retaliation and a toxic work environment that allows poorly performing 

managers to retaliate against frontline VA employees. Sections 3 

and 9 would strip VA employees of some of their very basic protections under collective bargaining agreements that ensure all employees are treated fairly by management. This would allow for the 

disparate treatment of VA employees compared to other federal 

employees, aggravating VA’s recruitment and retention challenge. 

Almost one third of VA employees are veterans, and it is unfair to 

treat them differently that other federal employees. With an employee shortage of over 47,000, the Committee’s work should be focused on creating an environment that attracts talented, hardworking, employees passionate about delivering care and benefits 

to our veterans. In addition, we dissent over the failure of this 

Committee to consider this bill under regular order, and the rush 

to bring this bill to a full Committee markup with only 48 hours 

to review the legislation. 

We strongly agree with the need for greater accountability at the 

VA, and VA’s inability to follow its own laws and policies to discipline employees is unacceptable. If managers are making poor decisions or failing, they need to be held accountable instead of being 

able to shift blame to hard-working frontline employees. The VA 

employees we have subpoenaed before this Committee that VA has 

failed to hold accountable due to process-fouls were not assisted by 

unions or permitted to use collective bargaining grievance procedures. 

Section 3 of H.R. 1259, covering VA employees under title 5 federal employment law, would remove employees’ union-negotiated 

alternative dispute resolution mechanisms and grievance procedures with respect to removal, demotion or suspension greater than 

14-days. It would only permit VA employees to use statutory procedures that would reduce the time period for an employee to respond to allegations of poor performance or misconduct, and reduce 

the time period to appeal a disciplinary action before the Merit 

Systems Protection Board. It would also supersede any collective 

bargaining agreement-negotiated grievance or review procedures 

provided for federal employees under the law—reducing employees’ 

due process rights. In effect, without collective bargaining procedures to protect rank and file employees, bad managers would be 

emboldened to use these new statutory procedures as weapons 

against the employees who dare to speak up or blow the whistle, 

knowing that those employees would have few protections. 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
42 

Section 9 would strip VA healthcare providers of the ability to 

elect collective bargaining-negotiated grievance procedures in all 

cases involving a question of professional conduct or competence— 

no matter how minor. Currently under VA’s own title 38 employment laws, healthcare providers are permitted to grieve disciplinary actions under collective bargaining procedures in minor cases, 

and in major cases subject to removal, demotion, or suspension if 

the case does not involve a question of professional conduct or competence. Section 9 would strip away these rights from the frontline 

providers charged with the vital mission of providing healthcare to 

veterans. 

Furthermore, this bill was not considered through regular order, 

and rushed to a full Committee markup. The Majority missed a key 

opportunity to develop bipartisan legislation that will truly bring 

accountability to the VA. This legislation significantly departed 

from ‘‘accountability’’ legislation considered last congress. Committee members were given only 48 hours to review the legislation. 

It did not receive a legislative hearing. Without input from stakeholders and who would be responsible for implementing the procedures under this bill, we were denied an opportunity to understand 

some of the potentially unforeseen consequences of enacting such 

legislation into law. 

This is why we supported three amendments during the full 

Committee markup that would have given us additional opportunities to hold poorly performing employees accountable and continue 

to protect frontline employees’ collective bargaining rights. One 

amendment would have given the VA an additional tool to hold employees accountable under bipartisan legislation vetted by Veteran 

Service Organizations, the VA, and other important stakeholders 

last congress. Another amendment would have restored key protections for frontline employees. The last amendment would have allowed the VA to immediately remove an employee from the workplace who threatens the public health and safety of veterans, allowing us more time to work together as a Committee to develop bipartisan accountability legislation. Unfortunately, the Majority rejected these common-sense, pragmatic proposals to increase accountability quickly at the VA. We remain committed to working 

together to ensure veterans come first. 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ. 

JULIA BROWNLEY. 

MARK TAKANO. 

KATHLEEN M. RICE. 

ANN M. KUSTER. 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY. 

Æ 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS