Report text available as:

(PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip?


                                                      Calendar No. 167
115th Congress      }                                   {       Report
                                 SENATE
 1st Session        }                                   {      115-127
_______________________________________________________________________

                                                     


                   STOP IMPROPER FEDERAL BONUSES ACT

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

                   COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND

                          GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                              to accompany

                                 S. 696

         TO AMEND TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE, TO APPROPRIATELY
       LIMIT THE AUTHORITY TO AWARD BONUSES TO FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                 July 11, 2017.--Ordered to be printed
                                   ______

                         U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 

69-010                         WASHINGTON : 2017 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
        COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

                    RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin, Chairman
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona                 CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio                    THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
RAND PAUL, Kentucky                  JON TESTER, Montana
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma             HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota
MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming             GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota            MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire
STEVE DAINES, Montana                KAMALA D. HARRIS, California

                  Christopher R. Hixon, Staff Director
                Gabrielle D'Adamo Singer, Chief Counsel
                       Courtney J. Allen, Counsel
               Margaret E. Daum, Minority Staff Director
               Stacia M. Cardille, Minority Chief Counsel
       Charles A. Moskowitz, Minority Senior Legislative Counsel
                 Katherine C. Sybenga, Minority Counsel
                     Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk

















                                                      Calendar No. 167
115th Congress      }                                   {       Report
                                 SENATE
 1st Session        }                                   {      115-127

======================================================================



 
                   STOP IMPROPER FEDERAL BONUSES ACT

                                _______
                                

                 July 11, 2017.--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. 696]

     [Including cost estimates of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs, to which was referred the bill (S. 696) to amend title 
5, United States Code, to appropriately limit the authority to 
award bonuses to Federal employees, having considered the same, 
reports favorably thereon with amendments 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..............................................5
 IV. Section-by-Section Analysis......................................5
  V. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact..................................6
 VI. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................6
VII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............7

                         I. Purpose and Summary

    The purpose of S. 696, the Stop Improper Federal Bonuses 
Act, is to prevent agencies from giving bonuses to employees 
that engage in serious misconduct. Specifically, this bill 
would prevent a Federal agency from awarding bonuses to an 
employee for five years after an adverse finding is made. An 
adverse finding is a finding that the employee violated a 
policy for which the employee could be terminated or suspended 
for at least fourteen days or violated a law for which the 
employee could be imprisoned for more than one year. An adverse 
finding may be based on information known by the employee's 
supervisor or human resources department, a Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) or Office of Inspector General 
(OIG) report, or any other source of information made available 
to the employee's chain of command. If a bonus had previously 
been awarded in the same year as an adverse finding is made, 
agency managers must attempt to recover that bonus, subject to 
a notice and opportunity for a hearing. The Merit System 
Protection Board (MSPB) can hear appeals about whether the 
misconduct fits the definition of ``adverse finding.''\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\On March 14, 2016, the Committee approved S. 742, the Stop 
Wasteful Federal Bonuses Act of 2015. That bill is almost identical to 
S. 696. Accordingly, this committee report is in large part a 
reproduction of Chairman Johnson's committee report for S. 742, S. Rep. 
No. 114-226 (2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

              II. Background and the Need for Legislation

    Federal law governs employee awards and incentives, and 
grants agencies authorities to help them manage their 
workforce. While performance awards can be a valuable tool for 
Federal managers to incentivize and reward good employees, they 
are inappropriate in cases where employees have engaged in 
serious misconduct or criminal behavior.
    The Committee is concerned that bonuses are being awarded 
to Federal employees even during periods in which those 
employees were engaging in misconduct. For example, an Internal 
Revenue Service (IRS) OIG report revealed that $2.8 million was 
awarded in bonuses to 2,800 employees with conduct violations 
between 2010 and 2012.\2\ Another OIG report found that, 
between 2008 and 2013, the IRS gave nearly $145,000 in bonuses 
to employees within one year of being disciplined for willful 
tax non-compliance.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\Treasury Inspector Gen. for Tax Admin.: The Awards Program 
Complied with Fed. Regulations but Some Emp. with Tax and Conduct 
Issues Received Awards, Ref. No. 2014-10-007 (Mar. 21, 2014), available 
at http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2014reports/
201410007fr.pdf.
    \3\Treasury Inspector Gen. for Tax Admin: Review of the Internal 
Revenue Service's Process to Address Violations of Tax Law by Its Own 
Employees, Ref. No. 2015-10-002 (Apr. 14, 2015), available at https://
www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2015reports/201510002fr.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While the amount of awards distributed to Federal employees 
has fluctuated or declined in recent years--awards reached $1.2 
billion in fiscal year 2016\4\--the scope of potentially 
improper award allocations is still broad.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\Information provided by the Office of Personnel Management to 
Committee staff (June 26, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The former Deputy Chief Business Officer for Purchased Care 
at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Patricia Gheen, 
retired in May 2012 after a VA OIG investigation found that she 
attempted to steer more than $2 million in contracts to a firm 
that employed her former boss.\5\ Gheen received nearly $35,000 
in bonuses while employed at the VA.\6\ Sheila Cullen, director 
of the VA's Sierra Pacific Network, received a $21,000 bonus 
the year the OIG found that she got the job by using a 
fabricated resume,\7\ and a $23,000 bonus the next year.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\Dep't of Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector Gen.: Review of 
Alleged Misuse of VA Funds to Develop the Health Care Claims Processing 
Sys., No. 14-00730-126 (Mar. 2, 2015), available at http://www.va.gov/
oig/pubs/VAOIG-14-00730-126.pdf.
    \6\Id.
    \7\Jim McElhatton, Resume-padding VA Employee Got Big Bonuses, 
Washington Times (June 16, 2014), available at http://
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/16/resume-padding-va-employee-
got-big-bonuses/.
    \8\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Bonuses awarded by the VA in fiscal years 2014 and 2015, 
with the agency plagued by scandals of systematic fraud and 
misconduct, indicate that the agency continues to pay bonuses 
to employees committing these violations.
    The VA distributed over $142 million in bonuses to 156,000 
VA employees in fiscal year 2014. One recipient was Dr. David 
Houlihan, the chief of staff of the Tomah VA Medical Center 
(Tomah VAMC) in Wisconsin. Despite a March 12, 2014 VA OIG 
report that found Dr. Houlihan's opioid prescription practices 
``raised potentially serious concerns'',\9\ he received a 
$4,000 bonus in December 2014.\10\ The Committee investigated 
the allegations of over-prescription of opiates and issued a 
359-page majority staff report on the systematic failures of 
the VA and VA OIG to identify and stop the over-prescription, 
veterans' deaths, abuse of authority, and whistleblower 
retaliation at the Tomah VAMC.\11\ During this 16-month long 
investigation, the Committee found that veterans nicknamed Dr. 
Houlihan the ``Candy Man'', because of his reputation for 
dispensing narcotics like candy.\12\ The Committee discovered 
this nickname for Dr. Houlihan was known to law enforcement 
agencies and executive branch agencies since at least 2009.\13\ 
Dr. Houlihan surrendered his medical license in January 2017 
pursuant to an agreement with Wisconsin state regulators to 
stop investigating his activities at the Tomah VAMC.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\Dep't of Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector Gen.: Tomah VA 
Medical Center Administrative Closure, MCI #2011-04212-HI-0267 (Mar. 
12, 2014), available at https://www.va.gov/oig/pubs/admin-reports/
VAOIG-11-04212-127.pdf.
    \10\Donovan Slack and Bill Theobald, Veterans Affairs Pays $142 
Million in Bonuses Amid Scandals, USA Today (Nov. 11, 2015), available 
at https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/11/11/veterans-
affairs-pays-142-million-bonuses-amid-scandals/75537586/.
    \11\The Systematic Failures and Preventable Tragedies at the Tomah 
VA Medical Center, Majority Staff Report of the Comm. on Homeland 
Security & Governmental Affairs, United States Senate (May 31, 2016), 
available at https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/
library?PageNum_rs=2&c;=114&type;=reports.
    \12\ Id. at 1.
    \13\Id. at vi.
    \14\Bill Glauber and Daniel Bice, Fired Tomah VA Chief to Surrender 
Medical License, USA Today (Jan. 18, 2017), available at http://
www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2017/01/18/fired-tomah-va-chief-
of-staff-surrender-medical-license/96724274/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Kimberly Graves, a VA benefits office director, also 
received a bonus for 2014, the year in which she improperly 
used her authority for personal and financial benefit, 
according to a VA OIG report.\15\ The VA OIG found that Graves 
``participated personally and substantially in creating [a 
position] vacancy and then volunteering for the vacancy.''\16\ 
The VA provided Graves over $129,000 in relocation expenses for 
taking this position that she created for herself.\17\ Yet, 
Graves also collected an $8,697 bonus for her performance 
during this time.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\Id. See also Dep't of Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector 
Gen.: Administrative Investigation: Inappropriate Use of Position and 
Misuse of Relocation Program and Incentives in the Veterans Benefits 
Administration (Sept. 28, 2015), available at https://www.va.gov/oig/
pubs/VAOIG-15-02997-526.pdf.
    \16\ Id.
    \17\ Id.
    \18\Donovan Slack and Bill Theobald, supra note 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In fiscal year 2015, the VA awarded more than $177 million 
in bonuses to more than half of the agency's employees.\19\ VA 
employees receiving these bonuses included Dr. Darren Deering, 
the former chief of staff at the Phoenix VA Health Care System, 
who received a $5,000 bonus just four months before being fired 
for ``negligent performance of duties and failure to provide 
effective oversight.''\20\ Another bonus recipient, Jack 
Hetrick, a VA official at the Cincinnati VA Medical Center, 
retired within weeks of collecting a $12,075 bonus after 
receiving a notice of pending removal.\21\ The VA proposed 
firing Hetrick after a review found that Barbara Temeck, the 
acting chief of staff at the Cincinnati VA Medical Center, was 
prescribing medications and providing other medical care to 
Hetrick's family without a proper license.\22\ Temeck also 
received a bonus of $5,000 in January 2016.\23\ Temeck was 
later suspended from employment and indicted on three felony 
charges of writing drug prescriptions outside the scope of her 
government licensing.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\Bill Theobald, More bonuses for VA employees despite ongoing 
problems at the agency, USA Today (Oct. 28, 2016), available at https:/
/www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/10/28/more-bonuses-va-
employees-despite-ongoing-problems-agency/92837218/.
    \20\Id.
    \21\Id.
    \22\Id. See also Dep't of Veterans Affairs, VA Takes Action on 
Allegations of Wrongdoing in Cincinnati (Feb. 25, 2016), available at 
https://www.va.gov/opa/pressrel/includes/viewPDF.cfm?id=2750.
    \23\Id.
    \24\Ann Saker, Suspended Cincinnati VA Leader Indicted on Federal 
Drug Charges, Cincinnati Enquirer (May 4, 2017), available at http://
www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2017/05/04/suspended-cincinnati-va-
leader-indicted-federal-drug-charges/101289568/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The VA is not the only agency to fail to take into account 
serious allegations or investigations against employees before 
paying them bonuses. In February 2017, the Bureau of Prisons 
agreed to a $20 million settlement in a class-action Equal 
Employment Opportunity complaint filed by more than 500 female 
employees of a Federal prison in Florida.\25\ This complaint 
alleged that ``the [BOP] created a hostile work environment 
when it failed to correct known egregious sexual harassment 
perpetrated by inmates at Federal Correctional Complex (FCC) 
Coleman since February 6, 2011.''\26\ Despite this complaint by 
hundreds of FCC Coleman employees that was filed in 2011,\27\ 
four senior executives at FCC Coleman during the course of 
these allegations received some of the largest bonuses paid by 
the BOP in 2015.\28\ Among them, the then-warden of FCC Coleman 
received $34,500 in bonuses during the past two years.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\Jeff Deal, $20 Million to be Paid to Women Claiming Sexual 
Harassment, Cover-up at Florida Prison, WFTV9 (Feb. 13, 2017), 
available at http://www.wftv.com/news/local/20-million-to-be-paid-to-
women-claiming-sexual-harassment-coverup-at-florida-prison/493884499.
    \26\Taronica White, et al., v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, EEOC Case No. 
510-2012-00077X (2013), available at http://www.mcclatchydc.com/latest-
news/article24192091.ece/BINARY/Class%20Certification%20Decision%20on 
%20Sexual%20Harassment.
    \27\Id.
    \28\Kevin Johnson, Execs at Troubled Federal Prisons Received 
Bonuses Totaling in the Millions, USA Today (Apr. 9, 2017), available 
at https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/04/09/federal-
prison-execs-got-thousands-bonuses-despite-ongoing-problems/
100072938./.
    \29\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Further illustrating the disconnect between bonuses and 
actual performance is an OIG report finding that large numbers 
of Patent and Trademark Office employees did not do any work at 
all for weeks at a time and still received bonuses.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\See generally Abuse of USPTO's Telework Program: Ensuring 
Oversight, Accountability and Quality: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on 
Oversight & Gov't Reform & H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 113th Cong. 
(2013) (statement of the Honorable Todd J. Zinzer), available at 
https://www.oig.doc.gov/OIGPublications/OIG-15-009-T.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Some agencies have internal policies related to bonuses for 
employees involved in serious misconduct. The Drug Enforcement 
Agency (DEA), for example, prohibits employees from receiving 
promotions or performance awards for three years after being 
disciplined for misconduct or while an investigation is 
pending.\31\ However, the DEA did not follow this policy when 
it awarded bonuses and time-off awards to employees who were 
disciplined for patronizing prostitutes, visiting a brothel 
overseas, sexually harassing a Foreign Service National, and 
attending sex parties.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\Dep't of Justice Office of Inspector Gen.: Bonuses and Other 
Favorable Personnel Actions for Drug Enforcement Administration 
Employees Involved in Alleged Sexual Misconduct Incidents (Mar. 2015), 
available at https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2015/e1601.pdf#page=1.
    \32\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This example in particular illustrates that some Federal 
managers award bonuses to employees whom they know to have 
engaged in serious misconduct. A performance award or bonus 
should be reserved for employees who excel at their work for 
the American people.
    S. 696 would help address the most extreme of these 
systemic problems by barring employees who commit serious 
misconduct from receiving bonuses and would provide a mechanism 
to recover previously awarded bonuses when the agency learns of 
misconduct after the bonus has already been awarded. An 
amendment allows employees to utilize a repayment plan for 
returning improper bonuses awards to agencies. The provisions 
of this bill are triggered if the head of an agency makes an 
``adverse finding'' that the employee either violated an agency 
policy that would warrant removal or suspension of not less 
than fourteen days, or violated a law for which the employee 
could be imprisoned for more than one year. An adverse finding 
may be based on, among other things, information, 
investigations, or findings of an OIG, the Comptroller General 
of the United States, or another senior ethics official of an 
agency.

                        III. Legislative History

    S. 696, the Stop Improper Federal Bonuses Act, was 
introduced on March 22, 2017, by Senator Deb Fischer, Ranking 
Member Claire McCaskill, and Senator Dean Heller. The bill was 
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs. The Committee considered S. 696 at a business meeting 
on May 17, 2017.
    During the business meeting, Senator Tom Carper offered an 
amendment requiring agencies to allow an employee to repay a 
bonus under a repayment plan. The Committee adopted the 
amendment by voice vote and ordered the bill, as amended, 
reported favorably by voice vote en bloc with Senators Johnson, 
McCain, Portman, Paul, Lankford, Enzi, Hoeven, Daines, 
McCaskill, Tester, Heitkamp, Peters, Hassan, and Harris 
present. Consistent with CommitteeRule 11, the Committee 
reports the bill with a technical amendment by mutual agreement of the 
Chairman and Ranking Member.

        IV. Section-by-Section Analysis of the Bill, as Reported


Section 1. Short title

    This section establishes the short title of the bill as the 
``Stop Improper Federal Bonuses Act.''

Section 2. Bonuses

    This section provides definitions for ``adverse finding'', 
``agency'', ``bonus'', and ``employee''.
    Under this section, the head of an agency shall not award a 
bonus to an employee of the agency for a period of five years 
after the head of an agency makes a qualifying adverse finding 
against that employee. An adverse finding is a finding that the 
employee violated a policy of the agency for which the employee 
may be removed or suspended for at least fourteen days, or that 
the employee violated a law for which the employee could be 
imprisoned for longer than one year.
    This section also lists some sources of information that 
may be the basis for such a finding, including reports prepared 
by the GAO, OIG, and senior ethics officials. This is not 
intended to be an exhaustive list.
    This section further requires the head of an agency to 
recover bonuses already paid to an employee in a fiscal year in 
which an adverse finding is made, after notice and opportunity 
for a hearing, in addition to appeal rights before the MSPB. An 
agency will also be required to allow a bonus to be repaid 
under a repayment plan.
    Finally, this section requires that as a condition of 
receiving a bonus awarded after the date of enactment, a 
Federal employee must sign a certification stating that the 
employee will repay the bonus if so compelled under this 
section.

                   V. 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.

             VI. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

                                                     June 21, 2017.
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. 696, the Stop 
Improper Federal Bonuses Act.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Dan Ready.
            Sincerely,
                                                        Keith Hall.
    Enclosure.

S. 696--Stop Improper Federal Bonuses Act

    S. 696 would prohibit federal agencies from awarding a 
bonus to an employee for five years after an adverse finding 
against the employee. The bill defines an adverse finding as a 
determination that an employee violated agency policy for which 
the employee could be removed or suspended from employment for 
14 or more days or that the employee violated the law and could 
be imprisoned for more than 1 year. Additionally, any bonuses 
given to an employee in the same year as an adverse finding 
would be returned to the agency.
    Under current law, there are no restrictions on awarding 
bonuses to federal employees. Information from the Office of 
Personnel Management indicates that some employees with conduct 
and performance issues have received bonuses. However, while 
the legislation would slightly diminish the pool of people 
eligible for bonuses, CBO expects it would not change the total 
amount of bonus money that could be awarded. Therefore, CBO 
estimates that implementing S. 696 would not have a significant 
effect on the federal budget.
    Enacting S. 696 could affect direct spending by some 
agencies (such as the Tennessee Valley Authority) because they 
are authorized to use receipts from the sale of goods, fees, 
and other collections to cover their operating costs; 
therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. Because most of 
those agencies can make adjustments to the amounts collected 
and because CBO does not expect a significant number of 
returned bonuses, any net changes in direct spending by those 
agencies would likely not be significant. Enacting the bill 
would not affect revenues.
    Enacting S. 696 would not increase net direct spending or 
on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive 10-year 
period beginning in 2028.
    S. 696 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and 
would impose no costs on 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.

       VII. 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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE 5--GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


PART III--EMPLOYEES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



SUBPART C--EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



CHAPTER 45--INCENTIVE AWARDS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



                           Table of sections.

            Subchapter I--Awards for Superior Accomplishments

     * * * * * * *

              Subchapter IV--Limitations on Bonus Authority

4531. Certain forms of misconduct.
     * * * * * * *

Subchapter IV--Limitations on Bonus Authority

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 4531. CERTAIN FORMS OF MISCONDUCT.

    (a) Definitions.--In this section:
          (1) Adverse finding.--
                  (A) In general.--The term `adverse finding' 
                means a determination by the head of the agency 
                employing an employee that the conduct of the 
                employee--
                          (i) violated a policy of the agency 
                        for which the employee may be removed 
                        or suspended for a period of not less 
                        than 14 days; or
                          (ii) violated a law for which the 
                        employee may be imprisoned for more 
                        than 1 year.
                  (B) Basis.--A determination described in 
                subparagraph (A) may be based on an 
                investigation by, determination of, or 
                information provided by the Inspector General 
                or another senior ethics official of an agency 
                or the Comptroller General of the United 
                States, as part of carrying out an activity, 
                authority, or function of the Inspector 
                General, senior ethics official, or Comptroller 
                General, respectively, under a provision of law 
                other than this section.
          (2) Agency.--The term `agency' has the meaning given 
        that term under section 551.
          (3) Bonus.--The term `bonus' means any performance 
        award or cash award under--
                  (A) section 4505a;
                  (B) section 5384; or
                  (C) section 5754.
    (b) Prohibition.--The head of an agency shall not award a 
bonus to an employee of the agency until 5 years after the end 
of the fiscal year during which the head of an agency makes an 
adverse finding relating to the employee.
    (c) After Bonus Awarded.--
          (1) In general.--For a bonus awarded to an employee 
        after the date of enactment of this section, if the 
        head of the agency employing the employee makes an 
        adverse finding relating to the employee during the 
        fiscal year during which the bonus is awarded, the head 
        of the agency, after notice and an opportunity for a 
        hearing, shall issue an order directing the employee to 
        repay the amount of the bonus.
          (2) Repayment plan.--An agency shall allow an 
        employee who is required to repay a bonus under 
        paragraph (1) to repay that bonus using a repayment 
        plan.
          (3) Hearings.--A hearing under this paragraph shall 
        be conducted in accordance with regulations relating to 
        hearings promulgated by the head of the agency under 
        chapter 75.
    (d) Condition of Receipt.--As a condition of receiving a 
bonus awarded after the enactment of this section, an employee 
shall sign a certification stating that the employee shall 
repay the bonus in accordance with a final order issued under 
subsection (c).
    (e) Appeal.--An employee determined to be ineligible for a 
bonus under subsection (b) or against whom an order is issued 
under subsection (c) may submit an appeal to the Merit Systems 
Protection Board under section 7701.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                                  [all]