The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) provides a range of benefits and services to veterans. The VA carries out its programs nationwide through three administrations and the Board of Veterans Appeals (BVA). The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) is responsible for, among other things, providing compensation, pensions, and education assistance. The National Cemetery Administration (NCA) is responsible for maintaining national veterans' cemeteries; providing grants to states for establishing, expanding, or improving state veterans' cemeteries; and providing headstones and markers for the graves of eligible persons, among other things. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is responsible for health care services and medical and prosthetic research programs. In FY2014, the Department of Veterans Affairs employed approximately 323,016 full time equivalent (FTE) personnel. Of this figure a majority of employees, approximately 287,179 FTEs, worked for the VHA. The rest of the FTEs were distributed among VBA, NCA, BVA, and various other staff offices including the Office of Information Technology and the Office of the Inspector General (OIG). The VA Accountability of 2015 ( H.R. 1994 ) was introduced by Representative Jeff Miller, the chairman of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, on April 23, 2015. In a statement regarding the bill, Chairman Miller said: "... our focus remains on giving the VA Secretary more tools to ensure corrupt and incompetent executives face serious consequences for mismanagement and malfeasance that harms veterans." During committee markup of H.R. 1994 , an amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 1994 was offered by Chairman Miller, and an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 1994 that would authorize travel expenses for VA employees who testify before Congress was offered by Representative Tim Huelskamp. The committee agreed to the Miller amendment in the nature of a substitute and the Huelskamp amendment to it. A substitute for the Miller amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 1994 offered by Representative Mark Takano was not adopted. On July 28, 2015, the House Committee on Rules reported to the House a closed rule, H.Res. 388 , that would permit floor debate on H.R. 1994 as reported by the House Committee on Veterans Affairs and two amendments. One amendment sponsored by Representative Dan Benisheck and Representative Kyrsten Sinema would require the VA Inspector General (IG) to submit a copy of an IG report relating to employee misconduct to the House and Senate Committees on Veterans Affairs when submitting it to the Secretary; explain in that copy changes that the Secretary recommended to the report while it was being prepared; require the IG to identify managers responsible for correcting problems; and deny bonuses to managers who fail to rectify them. The other amendment sponsored by Representative Mark Takano would be a substitute to the bill reported by the Committee on Veterans Affairs. It would provide for immediate suspension without pay of any employee whose performance or misconduct threatens health or safety; ensure back pay for whistleblowers unfairly terminated; limit administrative leave to 14 days; and make the effective date of the back pay provision October 1, 2015. The Office of Management and Budget on July 28, 2015, issued a Statement of Administration Policy (SAP) expressing strong opposition to H.R. 1994 as amended by the House Committee on Veterans Affairs. It asserted that the removal authority granted in Section 2 may not provide adequate due process protections to VA employees and that the limited right to appeal a removal to an administrative judge of the Merit Systems Protection Board may contravene the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, Article II, § 2. The SAP stated that if H.R. 1994 should be reported to the President in the form reported by the committee, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto it. On July 29, 2015, the House agreed to H.Res. 388 , the rule for considering H.R. 1994 , by a vote of 243 to 183. The House passed H.R. 1994 by a vote of 256 to 170 after adopting the Benishek-Sinema amendment adding Section 11 by voice vote. The House rejected the Takano substitute amendment by a vote of 191 to 233, and a motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on Veterans Affairs with an amendment relating to removing whistleblowers by a vote of 184 to 241. This report provides a brief discussion of due process considerations. It then describes sections of the VA Accountability of Act of 2015 as passed by the House on July 29, 2015. To get a better understanding of some provisions in H.R. 1994 as reported, acknowledging the significance of due process in civil service employment is fundamental. The Supreme Court has held that a federal employee has a property interest in continued employment. The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution provides that property may not be deprived without due process of law. Due process rights are provided to many federal employees covered by Title 5 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) at 5 U.S.C. Section 7513 and Chapter 43, which relate to adverse actions and performance appraisals, respectively. The Court has held that to provide due process, an agency that proposes to remove an employee must give a charged employee notice and an opportunity to respond to charges, as well as a hearing either before or after removal. The Court also has required that if a hearing is granted after removal, it must be provided at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. This act may be cited as the VA Accountability Act of 2015. Section 2 would amend Title 38 of the U.S.C by adding a new Section 715. It would authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to remove or demote an individual who occupies a position in the VA if the Secretary determines that the individual's performance or misconduct warrants removal or demotion. The Secretary could remove the individual from the civil service or demote the individual by reducing the grade or annual rate of pay to a grade or pay rate that the Secretary determines to be appropriate. Beginning on the date of a demotion, any demoted individual would receive the annual rate of pay applicable to the position to which he or she was demoted notwithstanding any other provision of law. An individual who is demoted may not be placed on administrative leave or any other category of paid leave while an appeal (if any) is ongoing, and may only receive pay if the individual reports for duty. If a demoted individual does not report for duty, he or she would not receive pay or other benefits including awards, bonuses, or student loan repayments. Not later than 30 days after removing or demoting an individual, the Secretary would have to submit to the House and Senate Committees on Veterans Affairs notice of the removal or demotion and the reasons for the removal or demotion. Procedures under Section 7513(b) and Chapter 43 of Title 5 of the U.S.C. would not apply to a removal or demotion under 38 U.S.C. Section 715. These procedures provide for notice, an opportunity to respond, to be represented by an attorney or other representative, and to receive a written agency decision. A removal or demotion under H.R. 1994 could be appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB or Board) if filed not later than 7 days after the removal or demotion. The Board would be required to refer an appeal to an administrative judge who would have to expedite it and issue a decision not later than 45 days after the appeal date. The decision of an administrative judge would be final and not subject to any further appeal. If an administrative judge could not issue a decision within 45 days, the removal or demotion would be final. In such a case, the Board, within 14 days after a removal or demotion is final, would have to submit to Congress and the House and Senate Committees on Veterans Affairs a report that explains why a decision on an appeal was not issued. During an appeal period, an individual who was removed could not receive any pay, awards, bonuses, incentives, allowances, differentials, student loan repayments, special payments, or benefits. To the maximum extent practicable, the Secretary would be required to provide the Board and any administrative judge to whom an appeal is referred, such information and assistance as may be necessary to ensure expediting an appeal. The Secretary could not remove or demote an individual who is seeking corrective action for whistleblowing (or on whose behalf corrective action is being sought) from the Office of Special Counsel based on an alleged prohibited personnel practice described in 5 U.S.C. Section 2302(b) without the approval of the Special Counsel under 5 U.S.C. Section 1214(f). The Secretary could not remove or demote an individual who has filed a whistleblower complaint until the central whistleblower office has made a final decision with respect to that complaint. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Special Counsel could terminate an investigation of a prohibited personnel practice alleged by an employee or former employee after the Special Counsel provides to the employee or former employee a written statement of the reasons for terminating the investigation. This statement would not be admissible as evidence in any judicial or administrative proceeding without the consent of such employee or former employee. The authority provided in 38 U.S.C. Section 715, as added by H.R. 1994 , would be in addition to Subchapter V of Chapter 75 of Title 5 of the U.S.C., relating to adverse actions against career members of the Senior Executive Service, and Chapter 43 of Title 5 of the U.S.C., relating to performance appraisal. Definitions are provided for an "individual" to whom this authority applies, "grade," and "misconduct." This authority would not apply to an individual defined in 38 U.S.C.