PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Dec 19, 2012
Government Employee Accountability Act - Sets forth investigative leave requirements for federal employees in the competitive service and Senior Executive Service (SES) career employees. Defines "investigative leave" as a temporary absence without duty for disciplinary reasons, for up to 90 days.
Authorizes a federal agency to place an employee on investigative leave: (1) without loss of pay and without charge to annual or sick leave only for misconduct, neglect of duty, malfeasance, or misappropriation of funds; or (2) without pay if such employee's conduct is determined to be serious or flagrant.
Requires an agency head to: (1) review the investigation into an employee's misconduct, neglect of duty, malfeasance, or misappropriation of funds at the end of each 45-day investigative period; (2) report on such review to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs not later than 5 business days after the end of each 45-day period; and (3) remove, suspend without pay, or reinstate or restore such employee to duty at the end of the investigative leave period. Allows an agency to extend a period of investigative leave for an additional period not to exceed 90 days.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Entitles an employee, before being placed on investigative leave, to: (1) at least 30-days' advance written notice, stating specific reasons for the proposed action, unless there is reasonable cause to believe that the employee has committed a crime for which a sentence of imprisonment can be imposed or unless the agency head determines that the employee's conduct is serious or flagrant; (2) a reasonable time, but not less than 7 days, to answer orally and in writing and to furnish affidavits and other evidence in support of the answer; (3) be represented by an attorney or other representative; and (4) a written decision with specific reasons at the earliest practicable date.
Entitles an employee who is placed on administrative leave to appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).
Includes misappropriation of funds as a ground in suspending or reinstating an SES employee or placing such employee in another civil service position.
People & committees
Rep. Kelly, Mike [R-PA-3] · R–PA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 402 - 2 (Roll no. 638). (text: CR H7324-7325)
House roll call 638 · Individual votesMotion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 402 - 2 (Roll no. 638).(text: CR H7324-7325)
House roll call 638 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H7329)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 6016.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H7324-7326)
Mr. Farenthold moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 497.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. H. Rept. 112-686.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. H. Rept. 112-686.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.6016 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.6016 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.6016 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.6016 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.