Mark Takano: “The quotation was from that letter. I want to clarify that letter from the Office of Special Counsel was in support of…”

“The quotation was from that letter. I want to clarify that letter from the Office of Special Counsel was in support of Mrs. Kirkpatrick's amendment, not in support of the entire bill H.R. 5620, and I am pleased that the majority joins us in support of that amendment. My colleague, Chairman Miller, mentioned that we have already covered our concerns in the Choice Act, and President Obama lauded the Choice Act when signing it into law. I will remind the chairman that the court--not Congress and not the President or the VA--determine whether a law meets constitutional muster. I am concerned that the strict and arbitrary time limits in section 3 of H.R. 5620 violate constitutional due process and notions of basic fairness. The lack of any clear standard of misbehavior by a VA employee that would trigger the Secretary's new firing authority also concerns me. Courts have allowed less notice if the behavior of a civil servant threatens the safety of others, but due process may not be limited simply to make it more convenient for Federal managers to get rid of employees they don't like. That is why my amendment would pass constitutional muster and achieve the chairman's stated policy outcome more effectively than section 3 of H.R. 5620. It would give the Secretary a brand new authority to immediately remove, without pay, any VA employee whose behavior threatens veterans.…”