U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

59–010 

" ! SENATE 

114TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

REPORT

2016

114–292 

Calendar No. 545 

ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE ACT OF 2016 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

TO ACCOMPANY

S. 2450 

TO AMEND TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE, TO ADDRESS 

ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, AND FOR 

OTHER PURPOSES 

JULY 6, 2016.—Ordered to be printed 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGE:\Seals\Congress.#13
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin, Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

BEN SASSE, Nebraska 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

CHRISTOPHER R. HIXON, Staff Director 

GABRIELLE D’ADAMO SINGER, Chief Counsel 

GABRIELLE A. BATKIN, Minority Staff Director 

JOHN P. KILVINGTON, Minority Deputy Staff Director 

MARY BETH SCHULTZ, Minority Chief Counsel 

JOHN A. KANE, Minority Senior Governmental Affairs Advisor 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Chief Clerk 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Calendar No. 545 

114TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 2d Session 114–292 

ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE ACT OF 2016 

JULY 6, 2016.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. JOHNSON, from the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 2450] 

The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, 

to which was referred the bill (S. 2450), to amend title 5, United 

States Code, to address administrative leave for Federal employees, 

and for other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an amendment in the nature of a substitute and 

recommends that the bill, as amended, do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

I. Purpose and Summary ............................................................................... 1 

II. Background and Need for the Legislation ................................................ 2 

III. Legislative History ...................................................................................... 8 

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis ........................................................................ 9 

V. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact ............................................................... 12 

VI. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ............................................. 12 

VII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ........................ 13 

I. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

S. 2450, the Administrative Leave Act of 2016, defines ‘‘administrative leave’’ for the first time in Federal statute, limits the broad 

variation of its use by Federal agencies, and encourages Federal 

agencies to use administrative leave only as a last resort by utilizing tools like temporary reassignment or telework arrangements 

where possible. Given the lack of uniformity of the use of administrative leave across the Federal Government and the cost to the 

taxpayers of its abuse by some agencies, this bill also requires 

agencies to keep better accounting of when they use administrative 

leave and other forms of non-duty paid leave. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

1GOV’T ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, GAO–15–79, FEDERAL PAID ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE: ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE NEEDED TO IMPROVE OPM DATA 3 (OCT. 2014), available at http:// 

www.gao.gov/assets/670/666566.pdf [hereinafter FEDERAL PAID ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE]. 2 Id. at 3–8. OPM has also claimed that authority to grant an excused absence derives from 

the inherent authority for heads of agencies to prescribe regulations for the government of their 

organizations under 5 U.S.C. §§ 301–302. See Pay & Leave, Fact Sheet: Administrative Leave, OPM.GOV, https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/leave-administration/fact-sheets/ 

administrative-leave/ (last visited June 29, 2016). 3FEDERAL PAID ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE at 13–14 (citing 5 U.S.C. §§ 6326, 6328, 6321 (military, law enforcement and firefighter funerals); 5 U.S.C. § 6327 (bone-marrow donors and organ 

donors); 5 U.S.C. § 6325 (employees injured by hostile action while serving abroad)). 4 5 C.F.R. § 630.206. 

5 5 C.F.R. § 610.301 et seq. 6 5 U.S.C. §§ 7513(a) and 7514; 5 C.F.R. §§ 752.404(b)(3) and 752.604(b)(2). 

7FEDERAL PAID ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE at 5; See Pay & Leave, Fact Sheet: Administrative 

Leave, OPM.GOV, https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/leave-administration/factsheets/administrative-leave/ (last visited June 29, 2016). 8See Pay & Leave, Fact Sheet: Administrative Leave, OPM.GOV, https://www.opm.gov/policydata-oversight/pay-leave/leave-administration/fact-sheets/administrative-leave/ (last visited June 

29, 2016). 

II. BACKGROUND AND THE NEED FOR LEGISLATION

Current law 

Administrative leave is the term used to describe a Federal employee’s excused absence from work that is typically without loss 

of pay, and without charge to other types of leave the employee is 

statutorily granted.1 There is no specific statutory authority for an 

agency to grant administrative leave; however, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has issued multiple forms of guidance 

on its use.2 In addition, in some cases, Congress has legislatively 

authorized certain types of non-duty paid leave.3

Federal regulations issued by OPM provide that paid leave may 

be permissible in situations where another type of leave, such as 

sick or annual leave, would be inappropriate like an absence for 

just an hour, as opposed to half a day; 4 where employees are 

granted excused absence from the agency; 5 and where an employee’s presence in the workplace is considered threatening to individuals or government property, or could otherwise jeopardize a legitimate government interest and an action—a removal or suspension—has been proposed against the employee.6

Additionally, OPM has issued guidance to agencies through 

memoranda and media that discuss appropriate circumstances for 

the use of administrative leave in broad terms. As summarized by 

the Government Accountability Office (GAO), 

OPM provides that the use of administrative leave 

should be limited to those circumstances in which the employee’s absence is not specifically prohibited by law and 

satisfies one or more of the following criteria: (1) it is directly related to the agency’s mission, (2) it is officially 

sponsored or sanctioned by the head of the agency, (3) it 

will clearly enhance professional development or skills of 

the employee in his or her current position, or (4) it is brief 

and determined to be in the interest of the agency.7

Some situations have been explicitly discussed and green-lighted 

by OPM in guidance. For example, OPM says agencies may count 

voting, donating blood, taking work-required examinations, or attending conventions as administrative leave.8 More recently, OPM 

issued guidance to agencies on the use of administrative leave that 

addressed administrative leave related to unacceptable performVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:08 Jul 12, 2016 Jkt 059010 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR292.XXX SR292

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

9 Id. 

10 Brown v. United States Postal Service, 64 M.S.P.R. 425, 431 (1994); Miller v. Dep’t of Defense, 45 M.S.P.R. 263, 266 (1990); To the Chairman, U.S. Civil Service Commission, 38 Comp. 

Gen. 203 (1958). 11 United States Dep’t of the Air Force & Sport Air Traffic Controllers Organization, 65 

F.L.R.A 387 (2010). 12OPM, Dealing with Workplace Violence: A Guide for Agency Planners 106 (1998), available at https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/worklife/reference-materials/workplaceviolence.pdf. 

13FEDERAL PAID ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE at 7. 14 Report of Administrative Investigation for the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (Mar. 28, 2014), available at http://www.govexec.com/media/gbc/docs/ 

pdfs_edit/080514cc1.pdf. 15Lisa Rein, Embattled National Archives IG to retire after probe finds misconduct, WASH. POST (Aug. 4, 2014), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2014/08/04/embattlednational-archives-ig-to-retire-after-probe-finds-misconduct/. 16 Report of Administrative Investigation for the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (Mar. 28, 2014), available at http://www.govexec.com/media/gbc/docs/ 

pdfs_edit/080514cc1.pdf.; Letter from Charles E. Grassley, Darrell Issa, and Tom A. Coburn to 

The Honorable David S. Ferriero, Feb. 21, 2014. 

ance and misconduct. Like its regulation on administrative leave 

after an adverse action has been proposed, the guidance provides 

that an agency may place an employee in paid, non-duty status 

during an investigation ‘‘when the agency believes the employee 

poses a threat to his own safety or the safety of others, the agency 

mission, or Government systems or property while the investigation is pending,’’ and that ‘‘[w]here absences are for longer than 

brief periods, administrative leave is generally inappropriate.’’ 9

The Merit Systems Protection Board and the Federal Labor Relations Authority have similarly found that agency use of administrative leave should be a ‘‘short-term,’’ 10 brief, or occasional 11 solution. OPM has also provided guidance that, in the case of workplace violence, administrative leave may be necessary but should 

be ‘‘an immediate, temporary solution’’ and the agency should seek 

a ‘‘longer-term’’ action.12 The GAO has concluded that ‘‘administrative leave for lengthy periods of time is inappropriate unless it is 

in connection with furthering a function of the agency.’’ 13

Missing from current law, however, is detailed statutory direction on appropriate purposes for the use of administrative leave. 

Nor is there a statutory limit on the amount of time a Federal employee may be placed on administrative leave. In the absence of 

this congressional direction, these decisions have always been left 

to the discretion of the agency, are subject to abuse and wide variations in agency practice. 

Committee oversight 

Agency use of administrative leave is rarely public. However, in 

2012, the Inspector General for the National Archives, Paul 

Brachfeld, was placed on administrative leave by the Archivist in 

response to allegations of wrongdoing against him.14 Mr. Brachfeld 

remained on administrative leave for two years, stirring a conversation about the proper use of such leave.15 His prolonged paid 

leave cost taxpayers $300,000 in salary and several hundred thousand dollars in legal fees.16

This Committee, along with the Committee on Oversight and 

Government Reform in the House of Representatives and thenRanking Member of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

Charles Grassley wrote a letter to the Archivist in February 2014 

questioning the Archivist’s decision and raising concerns that the 

extended administrative leave threatened the inspector general’s 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 

17Letter from Charles E. Grassley, Darrell Issa, and Tom A. Coburn to The Honorable David 

S. Ferriero, Feb. 21, 2014 (on file with Comm. staff). 18S. 579, the Inspector General Empowerment Act of 2015 (114th Cong.). 19FEDERAL PAID ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE. 20 Id. 21GOV’T ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, GAO–16–342, ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE: EVALUATION OF

DHS’S NEW POLICY CAN HELP IDENTIFY PROGRESS TOWARD REDUCING LEAVE USE (MAR. 2016), 

available at http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/676011.pdf [hereinafter ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE: EVALUATION OF DHS]. 22Memorandum from Senate Judiciary Committee, Oversight and Investigations Staff for Senator Charles E. Grassley to the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, et. al 4–5 

(Nov. 30, 2015), available at http://www.grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/news/upload/ 

Use%20of%20Admin%20leave.pdf [hereinafter Senator Grassley Staff Administrative Leave 

Memorandum]. Inquiries to seventeen agencies were sent by Senators Grassley and Issa; two 

inquiries were sent by Senator Grassley. One agency, the Department of Defense, failed to respond and three additional agencies—the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and Energy— 

provided incomplete responses to our requests. 23FEDERAL PAID ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE at 15. 24 Id. at 31. 

independence from the agency.17 This work resulted in legislation 

in 2015, led by Senators Charles Grassley, Claire McCaskill, and 

Ron Johnson, to address the use of administrative leave as it relates to inspectors general.18

In 2013, then-Ranking Member of the Committee Tom Coburn, 

Senator Grassley, and then-Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Darrell Issa, asked the GAO to examine how agencies use paid administrative leave.19 As a result of 

that request, the GAO issued a public report on the use of administrative leave in October 2014.20 The GAO issued another report, 

this time focused just on the use of administrative leave at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in March 2016.21 In addition to the GAO’s reviews of administrative leave, Senator Grassley 

solicited responses from eighteen agencies with detailed information on their use of administrative leave, and issued a memorandum of his staff’s findings from those responses in November 

2015.22 The remainder of this Committee Report summarizes the 

findings of these reports and the responses from agencies and explains how S. 2450 addresses the issues raised therein. 

Lack of Documentation and Consistency The 2013 GAO report 

found that ‘‘agencies’’ policies on paid administrative leave differ,’’ 

including the way agencies record paid administrative leave.23 The 

inconsistent policies and varying data across agencies resulted in 

GAO concluding that the Federal Government’s use of administrative leave is inadequately documented, data on its use is ‘‘inaccurate and inconsistent,’’ and that ‘‘[a]s a result, OPM does not 

have an accurate measure on the use of paid administrative leave 

across federal agencies that can be used to inform decision makers 

on the use of paid administrative leave.’’ 24

Additionally, Senator Grassley’s staff report found that the lack 

of clear statutory limits and guidelines on the use of administrative 

leave has led to inconsistent practices at different agencies. 

For example, the VA permits employees to use administrative leave for labor organization and educational activities, while Interior uses it to enable teachers and educational support staff to be paid a prorated, consistent 

amount during school breaks. Some agencies, such as 

HUD and NASA, do not even use the term ‘‘administrative 

leave.’’ Instead, HUD issues ‘‘excused absence’’ and NASA 

grants employees ‘‘excused leave.’’ HUD’s policy notes that 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
5 

25Senator Grassley Staff Administrative Leave Memorandum at 6–7 (internal citations omitted). 26FEDERAL PAID ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE at 13–16. 27Senator Grassley Staff Administrative Leave Memorandum at 10–16. 28 Id. at 11. 29 Id. at 7. 30 Id. at 13. 

‘‘excused absence’’ is absence from duty that is administratively authorized, without loss of pay and without charge 

to leave. At NASA, ‘‘Center Directors or their designees 

may determine administratively other situations in which 

employees may be excused from duty without charge to 

leave.’’ These ‘‘other situations’’ include ‘‘plac[ing] employees on excused leave prior to affecting an adverse action to 

avoid workplace disruption during the interim period.’’ Although NASA and HUD do not use the term administrative leave, the function is the same. 

In addition, individual agencies’ policies on the appropriate length of time for administrative leave vary widely. 

Indeed, the vast majority of the agencies within our sample placed no specific time limit on the use of paid administrative leave pending an investigation or personnel action. Rather, those agencies that addressed such a circumstance noted that employees may be placed on administrative leave for whatever time is necessary to effect a 

personnel action or pending completion of an investigation.25

These inconsistent policies are troubling not just because it is difficult to conduct proper oversight over the use of paid administrative leave without accurate data, but because some agencies currently record leave that is otherwise authorized in statute by Congress—certain union activities, certain military activities, serving 

as an organ donor, and jury duty—as administrative leave.26 When 

agencies improperly record these types of leave as administrative 

leave, it is difficult for agency watchdogs—including Congress—to 

determine how much administrative leave is actually being used 

and to hold agencies accountable for its use. 

Senator Grassley’s staff report also found that agencies placed 

employees on paid administrative leave without providing adequate 

justification.27 The report stated that many agencies that used administrative leave did not articulate how the employees posed 

threats to themselves, other employees, or government resources.28

This was unsurprising given the report’s finding that few agencies 

had approval requirements for administrative leave greater than a 

certain time period.29 The Department of Justice, which had implemented guidance in 2002 requiring managers to explain the basis 

for placing an employee on administrative leave and to obtain authorization from the Department’s Chief Human Capital Officer for 

an extension beyond ten days, was relatively more successful in 

limiting extended administrative leave—i.e., leave for more than 

one year.30

In contrast, other agencies that had placed employees on administrative leave for extended periods of time could not justify the 

length of such leave nor why investigations or other actions took 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
6 

31 Id. at 16–18. 32 Id. at 16. 33Letter from Jason Briefel, Interim President of the Senior Executives Association, to the 

Honorable Ron Johnson, Chairman, and the Honorable Tom Carper, Ranking Member of the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (Feb. 9, 2016) (on file with Comm. 

staff). 34FEDERAL PAID ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE at 26. 35Senator Grassley Staff Administrative Leave Memorandum at 9, Fig. 1. 36 ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE: EVALUATION OF DHS at 8. 37 Id. at 11. 38 Id. at 8. 39 Id. 40See Dixon v. United States Postal Service, 69 M.S.P.R. 171 (1995). 

so long.31 In some cases, agencies reported that while misconduct 

investigations and disciplinary actions remain pending, their hands 

are tied; yet, it was not clear why such lengthy periods of time 

were required to investigate alleged misconduct or the extent to 

which alternatives—such as reassignment or indefinite suspension—had been considered in conjunction with investigators.32 The 

lack of documentation inhibits proper oversight. 

Cost to the Taxpayers and the Employee of Extended Leave As 

noted by the Senior Executives Association, ‘‘[t]he manner in which 

administrative leave has sometimes been abused by federal agencies has been unfair to employees, agencies, and American taxpayers.’’ 33

Although GAO’s data were incomplete, the 2013 report concluded 

that between fiscal years (FY) 2011 and 2013, at least 263 employees were on administrative leave for one to three years, costing the 

American taxpayer—paying both salaries and benefits for the employees who were forbidden to work—approximately $31 million.34

Employees placed on leave due to ongoing investigations for alleged misconduct have—in some cases—stayed on the Federal Government payroll for years. In FY2014, DHS and the Department of 

Veterans Affairs alone spent more than $40 million in estimated 

salaries for employees on administrative leave for one month or 

more.35

GAO’s recent review of DHS’s uses of administrative leave concluded that from FY 2011 to FY 2015, 116 DHS employees were 

on administrative leave for at least one year, costing American taxpayers $19.8 million.36 The vast majority of these individuals were 

eventually separated from the agency.37 One example highlighted 

in the report is that of a law enforcement agent who had been on 

administrative leave for over three years while under investigation.38 This individual alone cost taxpayers $455,000 in salary and 

benefits.39

Unlike an agency decision to remove or suspend an employee, 

however, an agency decision to place an employee on administrative leave is not an appealable action.40 Accordingly, employees 

such as the law enforcement agent on leave for more than three 

years at DHS, have no way to contest a decision to place them on 

indefinite administrative leave. This is especially problematic as 

there is reason to believe that administrative leave could be abused 

by an agency to retaliate against a whistleblower. While the employee receives pay, he or she faces significant uncertainty about 

the future of their career. Employees may wait years while their 

career languishes because their agencies have not proposed or determined whether to take an adverse personnel action. According 

to the Professional Managers Association, administrative leave 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
7 

41Letter from Thomas R. Burger, Executive Director, to the Honorable Ron Johnson, Chairman, and the Honorable Tom Carper, Ranking Member of the Committee on Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs (Feb. 9, 2016) (on file with Comm. staff). 42 Information Sheet No. 11, Enforced Leave, U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, available 

at http://www.mspb.gov/MSPBSEARCH/viewdocs.aspx?docnumber=367904&version=368537& 

application=HTML. 

‘‘has been used by agencies to drag out investigations, leaving 

workers in limbo for unreasonable periods of time.’’ 41

S. 2450 Provisions—Administrative leave reform 

S. 2450 establishes in statute for the first time a definition of administrative leave that is separate from other forms of paid leave 

or excused absence already authorized and limits the use of administrative leave to five consecutive days at a time. This will reduce 

the wide variation as to what is categorized as administrative leave 

throughout the Federal Government and reduce its potential for 

abuse. 

It also provides a separate authorization for leave that becomes 

necessary as a result of weather or safety issues. As has been agency practice, the bill allows agencies to use excused absences for an 

employee or group of employees who cannot safely travel to or from 

work. This covers circumstances such as inclement weather, communicable disease exposure, and chemical spills, among others. 

Consistent with OPM guidance and the Telework Enhancement Act 

of 2010, the use of telework is encouraged to support continuity of 

operations and continued productivity even when Federal offices 

are closed. 

Separate from the maximum five-day administrative leave, the 

bill establishes two new forms of leave for excused absences due to 

personnel matters: investigative and notice leave. Before using investigative leave or notice leave, however, agencies must first determine whether the continued presence of the employee may pose 

a threat to the employee or others, result in the destruction of evidence relevant to an investigation, result in loss of or damage to 

government property, or otherwise jeopardize legitimate government interests. These criteria codify existing OPM regulations, as 

discussed above. This ‘‘threat determination’’ is a personnel action 

under section 2302, which means that employees can challenge it 

if made for retaliatory, discriminatory, or other enumerated improper purposes. Otherwise, consistent with current case law, the 

placement on investigative leave or notice leave is not an adverse 

action. 

If the agency determines that the employee poses such a threat, 

the agency must consider other options before using investigative 

or notice leave, including: assigning the employee to duties in 

which the employee is no longer a threat, requiring the employee 

to telework, allowing the employee to voluntarily take another type 

of leave, and curtailing the notice period. No authority is established to permit agencies to require employees to take accrued 

leave, which would amount to a constructive suspension.42

If an agency determines it must use investigative leave after conducting the aforementioned determinations, it may place an employee on investigative leave for up to ten days (i.e., two weeks of 

time) while the agency or other investigative entity investigates the 

matter. If an agency needs to use more than ten days, it must go 

through a more rigorous approval process to ensure fairness, transVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:08 Jul 12, 2016 Jkt 059010 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR292.XXX SR292

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
8 

43Provisions of this bill are to be read consistent with the Privacy Act. 5 U.S.C. § 552a. 

parency, and accountability. To that end, the agency’s Chief 

Human Capital Officer (or his or her designee), with input from the 

investigator conducting the relevant investigation, may grant extensions of up to 30 days each beyond the first ten days for a total 

of no more than 120 days of investigative leave, or approximately 

six months. In most cases, an agency should be able to conduct an 

efficient investigation within this time and it is important that an 

individual be returned to work or have their case resolved as soon 

as possible. 

Further extensions of investigative leave are permitted in 60-day 

increments and for an unlimited total amount of time, but only for 

the first six years after enactment of the bill, and only with review 

by OPM and notice to Congress. The sponsors of the bill chose to 

use a six-year sunset on extensions beyond the first 120 days of investigative leave to: (1) give agencies sufficient time to develop 

more efficient policies for conducting investigations; (2) to give 

GAO time to conduct a study on the extent to which further extensions beyond 120 days are necessary and make recommendations 

to Congress; and (3) to give Congress sufficient time to legislate 

any adjustments to these policies, if necessary. 

At the conclusion of authorized use of investigative leave an 

agency must either return the employee to working status in some 

capacity or, if warranted, take an adverse action to keep an employee out of the workplace. While agencies may continue to investigate, agencies are not permitted to keep employees in an extended indeterminate status—they must make a decision to return 

the employee to work status or take an adverse action, thus providing a forum with due process protections where an employee can 

challenge the agency. 

Agencies may use notice leave to effectuate a removal or suspension action if such an action has been proposed. 

Finally, the bill improves the way that agencies record and keep 

track of administrative leave to ensure improved accountability and 

ability for the agency, Congress, GAO, and others to conduct oversight.43 First, it requires agencies to record other forms of legislatively authorized excused absence separately from administrative 

leave. Agencies will have two years from enactment to prepare for 

any necessary changes to recording practices. The legislation directs OPM to conduct an initial study to identify existing agency 

practices to grant administrative leave for more than five days 

where such leave is not already authorized in law. This will ensure 

that Congress is aware of circumstances in which administrative 

leave has been granted in excess of five days to legislatively authorize such leave, if warranted. 

III. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

Senator Jon Tester (D–MT) introduced S. 2450 on February 10, 

2016 with Senators Chuck Grassley (R–IA), Ron Johnson (R–WI), 

and Tom Carper (D–DE). The bill was referred to the Committee 

on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Senators James 

Lankford (R–OK) and Claire McCaskill (D–MO) joined as cosponsors on February 8, 2016, and February 9, 2016, respectively. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
9 

The Committee considered S. 2450 at a business meeting on February 10, 2016. During the business meeting, a substitute amendment was offered by Senators Tester, Johnson, and Carper, that 

made improvements to the bill. The bill, as amended by the substitute amendment, was ordered reported favorably by voice vote en 

bloc. Senators Johnson, McCain, Portman, Paul, Lankford, Ayotte, 

Ernst, Sasse, Carper, McCaskill, Tester, Baldwin, Heitkamp, Booker, and Peters were present for the vote. 

III. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE BILL, AS REPORTED

Section 1. Short title 

This section supplies the short title of the bill, the Administrative Leave Act of 2016. 

Section 2. Sense of Congress 

This section states Congress’s views that agencies have excessively used administrative leave—oftentimes recording paid time 

off as administrative leave when in fact there is another more appropriate leave that should be used—and declares its intent that 

administrative leave be used sparingly, as a last resort, and while 

expeditiously working to resolve any related investigation so that 

the employee can either return to duty or the agency can initiate 

a personnel action. 

Section 3. Administrative leave 

This section amends subchapter II of chapter 63 of Title 5, 

United States Code, by adding a new section 6330 and defining the 

terms ‘‘administrative leave’’, ‘‘agency’’, and ‘‘employee.’’ This section limits an agency from placing an employee on administrative 

leave for a period of more than five consecutive days. This definition and authority to use administrative leave is intended to codify 

the excused absence that agencies had previously been granting as 

an exercise of agency discretion and that agencies justified as pursuant to historical practice or authority granted by 5 U.S.C. §§ 301– 

302. This period of five days is not a cap on the amount of total 

excused absence an agency may grant to employees, as longer periods may be used in the case of investigative and notice leave, detailed below, or other forms of statutorily authorized paid leave. 

However, agencies will not be permitted to provide for excused absence as an exercise of agency discretion under 5 U.S.C. §§ 301–302 

or otherwise outside of that which is authorized by this bill or 

other authority provided by statute. Moreover, agencies should not 

circumvent the five-day limit by putting an employee on leave for 

five days, taking the employee off of leave, and then placing the 

employee on leave again. 

This section also requires agencies to record administrative leave 

separately from leave authorized under any other provision of law. 

It further requires the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to 

prescribe regulations to carry out this section, and prescribe regulations that provide guidance to agencies regarding acceptable uses 

of administrative leave and the proper recording of administrative 

leave and other leave authorized by law. To the extent that Congress authorizes additional forms of excused absence, agencies 

should record those separately. Agencies have one year after the 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
10 

44With respect to investigations in connection with the suspension or revocation of a security 

clearance, agencies may use administrative leave where the continued presence of the employee 

in the workplaces ‘‘otherwise jeopardizes legitimate government interests.’’ 

date upon which OPM has prescribed regulations to revise and implement their internal policies to conform to the requirements of 

this section and thus implement the provisions of this bill. 

Finally, this section provides for OPM, in consultation with Federal agencies, unions, and other relevant stakeholders, to provide 

a study to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee identifying agency practices of placing an employee on administrative leave for more than five consecutive days 

when the placement was not specifically authorized under law. 

Section 4. Investigative leave and notice leave 

This section defines the terms ‘‘agency’’, ‘‘Chief Human Capital 

Officer’’, ‘‘committees of jurisdiction’’, ‘‘Director’’, ‘‘employee,’’ ‘‘investigative leave’’, ‘‘notice leave’’, and ‘‘notice period.’’ 

This section creates new forms of paid leave under Section 

6330a, subchapter II of chapter 63, Title 5, by providing leave for 

employees under investigation or in a notice period. The section 

states that an agency may not place an employee on investigative 

leave or notice leave unless the continued presence of the employee 

in the workplace during an investigation or notice period (a) poses 

a threat to the employee or other employees; (b) results in the destruction of evidence; (c) results in the loss of or damage to government property; or (d) otherwise jeopardizes legitimate government 

interests.44

After making a determination with respect to an employee, and 

before placing an employee on investigative or notice leave, this 

section requires agencies to consider taking one or more of the following actions: (a) assigning the employee to duties in which an 

employee no longer poses a threat; (b) allowing the employee to 

take leave for which they are eligible; (c) requiring the employee 

to telework under section 6502(c); (d) should the employee become 

absent without approved leave, carrying the employee in absence 

without leave status; (e) for an employee who is subject to a notice 

period, curtailing the notice period if there is reasonable cause to 

believe the employee has committed a crime for which a sentence 

of imprisonment may be imposed. 

This section limits the initial period of investigative leave to ten 

days. Extensions, each lasting not more than 30 days, may be 

granted should the Chief Human Capital Officer of an agency, or 

the designee of the Chief Human Capital Officer, approve the extension after consulting with the investigator responsible for the investigation. Such extensions, taken together, may not exceed 110 

days (for a total of 120 days when the initial ten days is included). 

For employees of an Office of the Inspector General, the Inspector 

General or the designee of the Inspector General, approves the extension of investigative leave for an employee. Should the Inspector 

General make the request, the head of an agency is eligible to designate an official to approve an extension of such leave. This section requires the Chief Human Capital Officers Council and the 

Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency to 

issue guidance on appropriate designations under this section. DesVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:08 Jul 12, 2016 Jkt 059010 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR292.XXX SR292

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
11 

45 Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) have statutory protections greater than those provided 

to other Federal employees—including prohibition on an adverse action without a finding of 

good cause by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), 5 U.S.C. § 7521, and prohibition on 

the performance of duties inconsistent with the duties and responsibilities as ALJs, 5 U.S.C. 

§ 3105. The provisions of this bill apply to ALJs and the Committee intends for agencies to use 

notice leave pending the good cause determination by the MSPB with respect to an ALJ whose 

continued presence in the workplace may pose a threat to the employee or others, result in the 

destruction of evidence relevant to an investigation, result in loss of or damage to government 

property, or otherwise jeopardize legitimate government interests. This will enable S. 2450 to 

be read consistent with existing law governing ALJs; the legislation controls to the extent it is 

inconsistent with existing regulations governing the placement of ALJs on leave. See, e.g., 5 

CFR. § 930.211(b) (allowing ALJs to be placed on administrative leave status ‘‘when there are 

circumstances in which the retention of an [ALJ] in his or her position is detrimental to the 

interests of the Federal Government’’). 

ignations must be at a sufficiently high level within the agency to 

ensure an impartial and independent determination is made with 

respect to the extension. High-level agency attention and oversight 

have proven effective in limiting the amount of paid leave and any 

designation should not be delegated to a level that is insufficient 

to ensure such scrutiny. 

Further extensions of 60 days of investigative leave may be 

granted by the head of an agency (or the inspector general) before 

the extension period expires when the agency submits reasons of 

the further extension to the Congressional committees of jurisdiction. Such extensions are subject to OPM review. After six years, 

agencies may no longer grant 60-day extensions, and will instead 

be capped at the 30-day extensions totaling no more than 110 days 

(extensions beyond a total of 120 days granted prior to the statutory expiration of the authority are valid, but no more may be 

granted). This section requires the Government Accountability Office to evaluate the implementation of investigative leave and the 

applicable extensions prior to the six-year sunset. Among other topics, the GAO study must address agencies’ placement of employees 

on administrative leave because of a determination that the continued presence of the employee may jeopardize legitimate Government interests to ensure agencies are not abusing this authority. 

This section also states that the placement of an employee on notice leave shall be for a period of not longer than the duration of 

the notice period.45

Agencies are required to provide the employee on investigative or 

notice leave a written explanation of the leave. Agencies are also 

required to, not later than the day after the last day of a period 

of investigative leave: (a) return the employee to regular duty status; (b) take one or more of the actions previously stated; (c) propose or initiate an adverse action against the employee; or (d) extend the period of investigative leave accorded by the bill. 

To improve communication between investigators and agency 

personnel who are responsible for making decisions about the necessity of placing employees on investigative leave, this section requires the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Special 

Counsel, to issue guidance on best practices for consultation between an investigator and the agency. The guidance is intended to 

encourage communication between investigative entities and agencies, to the extent possible, so that agencies do not assume the necessity of paid leave just because an investigation is ongoing. OPM 

is also required to provide guidance to agencies on the use of investigative leave and notice leave; how such leave and other statuVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:08 Jul 12, 2016 Jkt 059010 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR292.XXX SR292

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
12 

torily authorized forms of leave are to be properly recorded; and 

baseline factors that agencies must consider when making a 

‘‘threat determination.’’ Recognizing that each situation presents a 

unique set of facts and circumstances, OPM guidance will help ensure that agencies are assessing similar factors when determining 

whether an employee should be on non-duty paid status pending an 

investigation or notice period. OPM must also prescribe procedures 

and criteria for how agencies should approve of extensions of investigative and notice leave under this section, including how agencies 

should submit extension requests to the Director for review. 

This section also allows an agency to require an employee to 

telework under the provisions of section 6502 of title 5, if the continued presence of an employee in the workplace during an investigation or when the employee is in a notice period, poses one or 

more of the threats described in the previous section. 

Section 5. Leave for weather and safety issues 

This section amends subchapter II of chapter 63, Title 5 to include a new section, 6330b, for ‘‘weather and safety leave’’. Agencies may approve paid leave without loss or reduction in pay for an 

employee or group of employees if they are prevented from safely 

traveling to or performing work due to an act of God, terrorist attack, or another condition that prevents them from safely traveling 

to or performing work at an approved location. This section also requires agencies to record such leave separately from leave already 

authorized under law. 

Section 6. Additional oversight 

This section provides for the Director of OPM to complete a review of agency policies to determine whether agencies have complied with the requirements of this bill no later than three years 

after enactment. These findings are then to be submitted, in report 

form, to Congress 90 days after completion. 

IV. EVALUATION OF REGULATORY IMPACT

Pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of 

the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee has considered 

the regulatory impact of this bill and determined that the bill will 

have no regulatory impact within the meaning of the rules. The 

Committee agrees with the Congressional Budget Office’s statement that the bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 

mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

V. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

MARCH 23, 2016. 

Hon. RON JOHNSON, Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 2450, the Administrative 

Leave Act of 2016. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
13 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Dan Ready, who can be 

reached at 226–2880. 

Sincerely, 

KEITH HALL. 

Enclosure. 

S. 2450—Administrative Leave Act of 2016 

S. 2450 would create three new types of leave for agencies to use 

in lieu of administrative leave in specific circumstances. Two of the 

new types of leave—investigative leave and notice leave—would be 

available for removing an employee from the workplace while an 

agency is investigating misconduct or taking adverse action against 

that employee. The third new type of leave would be for weather 

and safety issues, when an agency determines employees cannot 

travel safely to or from work. S. 2450 would restrict the length of 

time an agency can place an employee on administrative leave, investigative leave, or notice leave and would require nearly all executive branch agencies to keep records related to the use of administrative leave and the three new types of leave. 

In addition, S. 2450 would require the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to prescribe regulations to implement the new 

leave categories and to report on current practices regarding administrative leave. Finally, the Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) would have to write a report on the bill’s implementation 

five years after enactment. 

Adding the new types of leave would not change the amounts 

that agencies would pay an employee. In addition, because agencies 

already record several different types of leave and keep records related to personnel actions, CBO expects they should be able to integrate the new categories relatively easily. On the basis of information from OPM and GAO, CBO estimates that implementing the 

legislation would have no significant effect on the budget. 

Because S. 2450 would not affect direct spending or revenues, 

pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. Enacting S. 2450 would not 

increase net direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four 

consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2027. 

S. 2450 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would 

not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Dan Ready. The estimate was approved by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

VI. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the bill, as 

reported, are shown as follows: (existing law proposed to be omitted 

is enclosed in brackets, new matter is printed in italic, and existing 

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

UNITED STATES CODE 

* * * * * * * 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
14 

TITLE 5—GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND 

EMPLOYEES 

* * * * * * * 

PART III—EMPLOYEES 

* * * * * * * 

Subpart A—General Provisions 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 23—MERIT SYSTEM PRINCIPLES 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 2302. ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(A) * * * 

(i) 

* * * * * * * 

(xi) the implementation or enforcement of any nondisclosure policy, form, or agreement; øand¿ 

(xii) a determination made by an agency under section 6330a(c)(1) that the continued presence of an employee in the workplace during an investigation of the 

employee or while the employee is in a notice period, if 

applicable, may— 

(I) pose a threat to the employee or others; 

(II) result in the destruction of evidence relevant 

to an investigation; 

(III) result in loss of or damage to Government 

property; or (IV) otherwise jeopardize legitimate 

Government interests; and 

ø(xii)¿ (xiii) any other significant change in duties, 

responsibilities, or working conditions; 

* * * * * * * 

Subpart E—Attendance and Leave 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 63—LEAVE 

* * * * * * * 

Subchapter II—Other Paid Leave 

6321. * * * 

* * * * * * * 

6330. Administrative Leave. 

6330a. Investigative and Notice Leave. 

6330b. Weather and Safety Leave. 

SEC. 6330. ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE. 

(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section— 

(1) the term ‘administrative leave’ means leave— 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
15 

(A) without loss of or reduction in— 

(i) pay; 

(ii) leave to which an employee is otherwise entitled 

under law; or 

(iii) credit for time or service; and 

(B) that is not authorized under any other provision of 

law; 

(2) the term ‘agency’— 

(A) means an Executive agency (as defined in section 105 

of this title); and 

(B) does not include the Government Accountability Office; and 

(3) the term ‘employee’— 

(A) has the meaning given the term in section 2105; and 

(B) does not include an intermittent employee who does 

not have an established regular tour of duty during the administrative work week. 

(b) ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE.— (1) IN GENERAL.—An agency may place an employee in administrative leave for a period of not more than 5 consecutive 

days. 

(2) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in paragraph (1) shall 

be construed to limit the use of leave that is— 

(A) specifically authorized under law; and 

(B) not administrative leave. 

(3) RECORDS.—An agency shall record administrative leave 

separately from leave authorized under any other provision of 

law. 

(c) REGULATIONS.— (1) OPM REGULATIONS.—Not later than 1 year after the date 

of enactment of this section, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall— 

(A) prescribe regulations to carry out this section; and 

(B) prescribe regulations that provide guidance to agencies regarding— 

(i) acceptable agency uses of administrative leave; 

and 

(ii) the proper recording of— 

(I) administrative leave; and 

(II) other leave authorized by law. 

(2) AGENCY ACTION.—Not later than 1 year after the date on 

which the Director of the Office of Personnel Management prescribes regulations under paragraph (1), each agency shall revise and implement the internal policies of the agency to meet 

the requirements of this section. 

(d) RELATION TO OTHER LAWS.—Notwithstanding subsection (a) of 

section 7421 of title 38, this section shall apply to an employee described in subsection (b) of that section. 

SEC. 6330a. INVESTIGATIVE LEAVE AND NOTICE LEAVE. 

(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section— 

(1) the term ‘agency’— 

(A) means an Executive agency (as defined in section 105 

of this title); and 

(B) does not include the Government Accountability Office; 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
16 

(2) the term ‘Chief Human Capital Officer’ means— 

(A) the Chief Human Capital Officer of an agency designated or appointed under section 1401; or 

(B) the equivalent; 

(3) the term ‘committees of jurisdiction’, with respect to an 

agency, means each committee in the Senate and House of Representatives with jurisdiction over the agency; 

(4) the term ‘Director’ means the Director of the Office of Personnel Management; 

(5) the term ‘employee’— 

(A) has the meaning given the term in section 2105; and 

(B) does not include— 

(i) an intermittent employee who does not have an established regular tour of duty during the administrative workweek; or 

(ii) the Inspector General of an agency; 

(6) the term ‘investigative leave’ means leave— 

(A) without loss of or reduction in— 

(i) pay; 

(ii) leave to which an employee is otherwise entitled 

under law; or 

(iii) credit for time or service; 

(B) that is not authorized under any other provision of 

law; and 

(C) in which an employee who is the subject of an investigation is placed; 

(7) the term ‘notice leave’ means leave— 

(A) without loss of or reduction in— 

(i) pay; 

(ii) leave to which an employee is otherwise entitled 

under law; or 

(iii) credit for time or service; 

(B) that is not authorized under any other provision of 

law; and 

(C) in which an employee who is in a notice period is 

placed; and 

(8) the term ‘notice period’ means a period beginning on the 

date on which an employee is provided notice required under 

law of a proposed adverse action against the employee and ending on the date on which an agency may take the adverse action. 

(b) LEAVE FOR EMPLOYEES UNDER INVESTIGATION OR IN A NOTICE

PERIOD.— 

(1) Authority.—An agency may, in accordance with paragraph (2), place an employee in— 

(A) investigative leave if the employee is the subject of an 

investigation; 

(B) notice leave if the employee is in a notice period; or 

(C) notice leave following a placement in investigative 

leave if, not later than the day after the last day of the period of investigative leave— 

(i) the agency proposes or initiates an adverse action 

against the employee; and 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
17 

(ii) the agency determines that the employee continues to meet 1 or more of the criteria described in 

subsection (c)(1). 

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—An agency may place an employee in 

leave under paragraph (1) only if the agency has— 

(A) made a determination with respect to the employee 

under subsection (c)(1); 

(B) considered the available options for the employee 

under subsection (c)(2); and 

(C) determined that none of the available options under 

subsection (c)(2) is appropriate. 

(c) EMPLOYEES UNDER INVESTIGATION OR IN A NOTICE PERIOD.— 

(1) DETERMINATIONS.—An agency may not place an employee 

in investigative leave or notice leave under subsection (b) unless 

the continued presence of the employee in the workplace during 

an investigation of the employee or while the employee is in a 

notice period, if applicable, may— 

(A) pose a threat to the employee or others; 

(B) result in the destruction of evidence relevant to an investigation; 

(C) result in loss of or damage to Government property; 

or 

(D) otherwise jeopardize legitimate Government interests. 

(2) AVAILABLE OPTIONS FOR EMPLOYEES UNDER INVESTIGA- TION OR IN A NOTICE PERIOD.—After making a determination 

under paragraph (1) with respect to an employee, and before 

placing an employee in investigative leave or notice leave under 

subsection (b), an agency shall consider taking 1 or more of the 

following actions: 

(A) Assigning the employee to duties in which the employee is no longer a threat to— 

(i) safety; 

(ii) the mission of the agency; 

(iii) Government property; or 

(iv) evidence relevant to an investigation. 

(B) Allowing the employee to take leave for which the employee is eligible. 

(C) Requiring the employee to telework under section 

6502(c). 

(D) If the employee is absent from duty without approved 

leave, carrying the employee in absence without leave status. 

(E) For an employee subject to a notice period, curtailing 

the notice period if there is reasonable cause to believe the 

employee has committed a crime for which a sentence of 

imprisonment may be imposed. 

(3) DURATION OF LEAVE.— 

(A) INVESTIGATIVE LEAVE.—Subject to extensions of a period of investigative leave for which an employee may be eligible under subsections (d) and (e), the initial placement of 

an employee in investigative leave shall be for a period not 

longer than 10 days. 

(B) NOTICE LEAVE.—Placement of an employee in notice 

leave shall be for a period not longer than the duration of 

the notice period. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
18 

(4) EXPLANATION OF LEAVE.— (A) IN GENERAL.—If an agency places an employee in 

leave under subsection (b), the agency shall provide the employee a written explanation of the leave placement and the 

reasons for the leave placement. 

(B) EXPLANATION.—The written notice under subparagraph (A) 

shall describe the limitations of the leave placement, including— 

(i) the applicable limitations under paragraph (3); 

and (ii) in the case of a placement in investigative 

leave, an explanation that, at the conclusion of the period of leave, the agency shall take an action under 

paragraph (5). 

(5) AGENCY ACTION.—Not later than the day after the last day 

of a period of investigative leave for an employee under subsection (b)(1), an agency shall— 

(A) return the employee to regular duty status; 

(B) take 1 or more of the actions authorized under paragraph (2), meaning— 

(i) assigning the employee to duties in which the employee is no longer a threat to— 

(I) safety; 

(II) the mission of the agency; 

(III) Government property; or 

(IV) evidence relevant to an investigation; 

(ii) allowing the employee to take leave for which the 

employee is eligible; 

(iii) requiring the employee to telework under section 

6502(c); 

(iv) if the employee is absent from duty without approved leave, carrying the employee in absence without 

leave status; or 

(v) for an employee subject to a notice period, curtailing the notice period if there is reasonable cause to 

believe the employee has committed a crime for which 

a sentence of imprisonment may be imposed; 

(C) propose or initiate an adverse action against the employee as provided under law; or 

(D) extend the period of investigative leave under subsections (d) and (e). 

(6) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in paragraph (5) shall 

be construed to prevent the continued investigation of an employee, except that the placement of an employee in investigative 

leave may not be extended for that purpose except as provided 

in subsections (d) and (e). 

(d) INITIAL EXTENSION OF INVESTIGATIVE LEAVE.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (4), if the Chief 

Human Capital Officer of an agency, or the designee of the 

Chief Human Capital Officer, approves such an extension after 

consulting with the investigator responsible for conducting the 

investigation to which an employee is subject, the agency may 

extend the period of investigative leave for the employee under 

subsection (b) for not more than 30 days. 

(2) MAXIMUM NUMBER OF EXTENSIONS.—The total period of 

additional investigative leave for an employee under paragraph 

(1) may not exceed 110 days. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
19 

(3) DESIGNATION GUIDANCE.—Not later than 1 year after the 

date of enactment of this section, the Chief Human Capital Officers Council shall issue guidance to ensure that if the Chief 

Human Capital Officer of an agency delegates the authority to 

approve an extension under paragraph (1) to a designee, the 

designee is at a sufficiently high level within the agency to 

make an impartial and independent determination regarding 

the extension. 

(4) EXTENSIONS FOR OIG EMPLOYEES.— 

(A) APPROVAL.—In the case of an employee of an Office 

of Inspector General— 

(i) the Inspector General or the designee of the Inspector General, rather than the Chief Human Capital 

Officer or the designee of the Chief Human Capital Officer, shall approve an extension of a period of investigative leave for the employee under paragraph (1); or 

(ii) at the request of the Inspector General, the head 

of the agency within which the Office of Inspector General is located shall designate an official of the agency 

to approve an extension of a period of investigative 

leave for the employee under paragraph (1). 

(B) GUIDANCE.—Not later than 1 year after the date of 

enactment of this section, the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency shall issue guidance to ensure that if the Inspector General or the head of an agency, 

at the request of the Inspector General, delegates the authority to approve an extension under subparagraph (A) to 

a designee, the designee is at a sufficiently high level within the Office of Inspector General or the agency, as applicable, to make an impartial and independent determination 

regarding the extension. 

(e) FURTHER EXTENSION OF INVESTIGATIVE LEAVE.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—After reaching the limit under subsection 

(d)(2), an agency may further extend a period of investigative 

leave for an employee for a period of not more than 60 days if, 

before the further extension begins, the head of the agency or, 

in the case of an employee of an Office of Inspector General, the 

Inspector General submits a notification that includes the reasons for the further extension to the— 

(A) committees of jurisdiction; 

(B) Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 

Affairs of the Senate; and 

(C) Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of 

the House of Representatives. 

(2) NO LIMIT.—There shall be no limit on the number of further extensions that an agency may grant to an employee under 

paragraph (1). 

(3) OPM REVIEW.—An agency shall request from the Director, 

and include with the notification required under paragraph (1), 

the opinion of the Director— 

(A) with respect to whether to grant a further extension 

under this subsection, including the reasons for that opinion; and 

(B) which shall not be binding on the agency. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
20 

(4) SUNSET.—The authority provided under this subsection 

shall expire on the date that is 6 years after the date of enactment of this section. 

(f) CONSULTATION GUIDANCE.—Not later than 1 year after the 

date of enactment of this section, the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, in consultation with the Attorney 

General and the Special Counsel, shall issue guidance on best practices for consultation between an investigator and an agency on the 

need to place an employee in investigative leave during an investigation of the employee, including during a criminal investigation, 

because the continued presence of the employee in the work place 

during the investigation may— 

(1) pose a threat to the employee or others; 

(2) result in the destruction of evidence relevant to an investigation; 

(3) result in loss of or damage to Government property; or 

(4) otherwise jeopardize legitimate Government interests. 

(g) REPORTING AND RECORDS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—An agency shall keep a record of the placement of an employee in investigative leave or notice leave by the 

agency, including— 

(A) the basis for the determination made under subsection (c)(1); 

(B) an explanation of why an action under subsection 

(c)(2) was not appropriate; 

(C) the length of the period of leave; 

(D) the amount of salary paid to the employee during the 

period of leave; 

(E) the reasons for authorizing the leave, including, if applicable, the recommendation made by an investigator 

under subsection (d)(1); and 

(F) the action taken by the agency at the end of the period 

of leave, including, if applicable, the granting of any extension of a period of investigative leave under subsection (d) 

or (e). 

(2) AVAILABILITY OF RECORDS.—An agency shall make a 

record kept under paragraph (1) available— 

(A) to any committee of Congress, upon request; 

(B) to the Office of Personnel Management; and 

(C) as otherwise required by law, including for the purposes of the Administrative Leave Act of 2016 and the 

amendments made by that Act. 

(h) REGULATIONS.— 

(1) OPM ACTION.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this section, the Director shall prescribe regulations 

to carry out this section, including guidance to agencies regarding— 

(A) acceptable purposes for the use of— 

(i) investigative leave; and 

(ii) notice leave; 

(B) the proper recording of— 

(i) the leave categories described in subparagraph 

(A); and (ii) other leave authorized by law; 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
21 

(C) baseline factors that an agency shall consider when 

making a determination that the continued presence of an 

employee in the workplace may— 

(i) pose a threat to the employee or others; 

(ii) result in the destruction of evidence relevant to 

an investigation; 

(iii) result in loss or damage to Government property; 

or 

(iv) otherwise jeopardize legitimate Government interests; and 

(D) procedures and criteria for the approval of an extension of a period of investigative leave under subsection (d) 

or (e). 

(2) AGENCY ACTION.—Not later than 1 year after the date on 

which the Director prescribes regulations under paragraph (1), 

each agency shall revise and implement the internal policies of 

the agency to meet the requirements of this section. 

(i) RELATION TO OTHER LAWS.—Notwithstanding subsection (a) of 

section 7421 of title 38, this section shall apply to an employee described in subsection (b) of that section.’ 

SEC. 6330b. WEATHER AND SAFETY LEAVE. 

(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section— 

(1) the term ‘agency’— 

(A) means an Executive agency (as defined in section 105 

of this title); and 

(B) does not include the Government Accountability Office; and 

(2) the term ‘employee’— 

(A) has the meaning given the term in section 2105; and 

(B) does not include an intermittent employee who does not have 

an established regular tour of duty during the administrative work 

week. 

(b) LEAVE FOR WEATHER AND SAFETY ISSUES.—An agency may 

approve the provision of leave under this section to an employee or 

a group of employees without loss of or reduction in the pay of the 

employee or employees, leave to which the employee or employees are 

otherwise entitled, or credit to the employee or employees for time 

or service only if the employee or group of employees is prevented 

from safely traveling to or performing work at an approved location 

due to— 

(1) an act of God; 

(2) a terrorist attack; or 

(3) another condition that prevents the employee or group of 

employees from safely traveling to or performing work at an approved location. 

(c) RECORDS.—An agency shall record leave provided under this 

section separately from leave authorized under any other provision 

of law. 

(d) REGULATIONS.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this section, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall prescribe regulations to carry out this section, including— 

(1) guidance to agencies regarding the appropriate purposes 

for providing leave under this section; and 

(2) the proper recording of leave provided under this section. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
22 

(e) RELATION TO OTHER LAWS.—Notwithstanding subsection (a) of 

section 7421 of title 38, this section shall apply to an employee described in subsection (b) of that section. 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 65—TELEWORK 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 6502. EXECUTIVE AGENCIES TELEWORK REQUIREMENT 

(a) * * * 

(b) * * * 

(c) REQUIRED TELEWORK.—If an agency determines under section 

6330a(c)(1) that the continued presence of an employee in the workplace during an investigation of the employee or while the employee 

is in a notice period, if applicable, may pose 1 or more of the threats 

described in that section and the employee is eligible to telework 

under subsections (a) and (b) of this section, the agency may require 

the employee to telework for the duration of the investigation or the 

notice period, if applicable. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING