Stop Government Abuse Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LYNCH. I thank the gentleman from Maryland for yielding.

I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2879, the so-called ``Stop Government Abuse Act.'' This legislation is simply a rehash of the three attacks on Federal workers that were incorporated in the bills that the Republican leadership abruptly pulled from the suspension calendar yesterday due to a lack of support from the required two-thirds majority of this House.

The fact that these anti-Federal worker suspension bills have now been reconstituted into a single anti-Federal worker bill does not make this legislation any less misguided or any less harmful to our Federal workers than it was yesterday. After all, H.R. 2879 is based on the same message that has been continually reflected in a series of Republican legislative attacks on our Federal workers throughout this Congress. That message from the Republican leadership has been that our hardworking Federal employees cannot be trusted, and they are the primary source of our deficit burden.

On the heels of repeated attempts to freeze Federal employee pay beyond the current 3 years, efforts to increase Federal pension contributions and slash our Federal workforce across the board, we are now considering legislation that would only add insult to injure by depriving Federal employees of their constitutional rights to due process of law.

In particular, I'm deeply concerned about the expedited termination provisions in H.R. 2879. These provisions would give agency heads broad discretion, without limitation, to immediately fire senior executives accused of misconduct without notifying the employees of the charges against them and without giving them a reasonable opportunity to defend themselves. Instead, it places the burden on the employee, after they fire them, to prove that their reinstatement is required. This ``ready, fire, aim'' approach by my Republican colleagues, where they fire the employee first and ask questions later, flies in the face of the rights guaranteed to all Americans under our Constitution.

The ``guilty until proven innocent'' framework violates the due process protections envisioned by James Madison and guaranteed under the Constitution. In 1985, in Loudermill v. Cleveland Board of Education, the United States Supreme Court held that public employees, Federal employees, who are facing discipline are entitled to certain due process rights. The U.S. Supreme Court held that public servants had a property right in the jobs that they held and in continued employment, and that such employment could not be denied to employees unless they were given a meaningful opportunity to have notice of the allegations against them, to have a fair hearing and an opportunity to respond against the charges against them. Notably, that must occur prior to being deprived of their right to employment. The court stated:

An essential principle of due process is that a deprivation of life, liberty, or property be preceded by notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case.

The court goes on further and it says:

This principle requires some kind of a hearing prior to discharge of an employee who has a constitutionally protected property interest in his employment.

Now, this is unconstitutional. This provision is flatly unconstitutional, and there's a long line of Federal cases under the Supreme Court that declares it so. The one saving grace, in my opinion, in this bill is that there's no severability clause, and that after this provision is struck down by the Supreme Court, these employees will all be reinstated with back pay. And the whole bill that they're offering will be struck down because of the lack of a severability clause in the bill.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LYNCH. I thank the gentleman.

Look, this Nation was founded on the principle that every person, every man and woman is entitled to due process before he or she is deprived of life, liberty, or property. Our Supreme Court in the Loudermill case understood the injustice of depriving a person of their livelihood, and I hope that my colleagues understand that H.R. 2879 unfortunately would do just that.

Due process demands that we oppose H.R. 2879. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no'' on this legislation.

I thank the ranking member for his advocacy and his courtesy.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source