House Democrats threaten salaries of Interior staff who block interviews

[yortsed snacilbuper]

House Democrats are threatening the salaries of Interior Department staff if they block ongoing committee investigations.

House Oversight and Reform Chairman Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) sent letters Tuesday calling for eight current and former administration officials to provide information for two of the panel's investigations, cautioning that officials who block the interviews from taking place could see their salaries withheld.

"Please be advised that any official at the Department who 'prohibits or prevents' or 'attempts or threatens to prohibit or prevent' any officer or employee of the Federal Government from speaking with the Committee could have his or her salary withheld pursuant to section 713 of the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act," Cummings wrote in the letters.

The move is the latest in an escalating power struggle between the Trump administration and House Democrats over investigations. Tensions between the White House and congressional Democrats have amplified in recent weeks, with President Trump telling reporters last month that he plans to fight "all the subpoenas."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/house-democrats-threaten-salaries-of-interior-staff-who-block-interviews/ar-AAB2mgs?ocid=spartanntp

[malaise]

1. Now we're talking

Go Dems!

[SallyHemmings]

2. GAME ON!

[ProudMNDemocrat]

3. Withholding salaries speaks volumes. .......

The House should do that to Barr, those working for the Administration, withhold money for his stupid wars, his Wall, everything else.

[BigmanPigman]

4. This is a good start.

Cut off funds in all areas where obstruction is taking place.

[former9thward]

5. The House has no power to do this.

It would need agreement by the Senate and signed by Trump.

[ProudMNDemocrat]

7. The House controls the purse strings.....

Deny monies Trump wants for wars and walls.

Trump wants to play hardball and piss on the Constitution, the House can play hardball just as tough.

[former9thward]

12. No, my copy of the Constitution says both the House and Senate control the purse strings.

Other copies may differ....

[blueinredohio]

23. Are there different copies of the constitution? I thought there was only one constitution.

[former9thward]

29. There must be.

The poster I was replying to said the House had the power of the purse strings. Mine says something else. What does your's say?

[Control-Z]

35. Hey, 9thward!

Are you a lawyer? A constitutional scholar? I've noticed that you often insert your opinion into threads like this.

Honestly, I never know what to think when I read a reply by you because they almost always seem to deny any credibility whatsoever to the possibilities being discussed and questioned by the rest of us (without legal backgrounds).

I'd like to give you a vote of confidence but I am unable until further notice of your expertise.

Thanks!

[former9thward]

36. If you click on my profile you will see I have identified myself as an attorney.

I will not claim to be a "Constitutional scholar" because I see that term applied to many people it shouldn't be. This is a discussion board and my opinion is worth exactly the same as everyone else who posts. As far as confidence I would hold up on that. This is the internet and anyone can be anything they want.

[DeminPennswoods]

8. Apparently Cummings thinks he does have the authority

or he wouldn't have cited it.

Anyway, just the threat of losing a paycheck will get their attention. I learned during my fed civil service career, pay is one thing you never mess with.

[Chin music]

26. I always was taught the House controls the purse strings. It's our money, and we want it now.

Withhold the funds. Don't wait. Rich folk without money, become Democrats...fast.

[Igel]

11. I don't play the same game as others.

Who seem to say, "We're in charge, let's wag our you-know-what when we're in charge because, well, we're awesome." Then whines when somebody does something that we disagree with, and say, "But that's violating the separation of powers or executive discretion" or whatever.

Here's what the OP itself quotes:

Sec. 713. No part of any appropriation contained in this or any other Act shall be available for the payment of the salary of any officer or employee of the Federal Government, who—


(1) prohibits or prevents, or attempts or threatens to prohibit or prevent, any other officer or employee of the Federal Government from having any direct oral or written communication or contact with any Member, committee, or subcommittee of the Congress in connection with any matter pertaining to the employment of such other officer or employee or pertaining to the department or agency of such other officer or employee in any way, irrespective of whether such communication or contact is at the initiative of such other officer or employee or in response to the request or inquiry of such Member, committee, or subcommittee; or

(2) removes, suspends from duty without pay, demotes, reduces in rank, seniority, status, pay, or performance or efficiency rating, denies promotion to, relocates, reassigns, transfers, disciplines, or discriminates in regard to any employment right, entitlement, or benefit, or any term or condition of employment of, any other officer or employee of the Federal Government, or attempts or threatens to commit any of the foregoing actions with respect to such other officer or employee, by reason of any communication or contact of such other officer or employee with any Member, committee, or subcommittee of the Congress as described in paragraph (1).

Basically, if any member of any subcommittee asks the CIA director for a full list of all undercover agents in Venezuela--that's a matter "pertaining to the department or agency of such other officer or employee"--then the salary must be withheld. Security classification? Pshaw.

Now, whether or not the law would be found Constitutional, that's a different matter.

[marylandblue]

13. The employee could tell Congress it's classified info and he can't give it.

But he can't just refuse to show up.

[bluestarone]

16. BUT they could call them back EVERYDAY right?

This would be OK!

[StarfishSaver]

21. This isn't correct

You're right that the House and Senate must pass appropriation bills and they must be signed by the president in order to become law. But that's not at issue here.

Cummings is relying on Section 713 of the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act provides, in part:

No part of any appropriation contained in this or any other Act shall be available for the payment of the salary of any officer or employee of the Federal Government, who—

(1) prohibits or prevents, or attempts or threatens to prohibit or prevent, any other officer or employee of the Federal Government from having any direct oral or written communication or contact with any Member, committee, or subcommittee of the Congress in connection with any matter pertaining to the employment of such other officer or employee or pertaining to the department or agency of such other officer or employee in any way, irrespective of whether such communication or contact is at the initiative of such other officer or employee or in response to the request or inquiry of such Member, committee, or subcommittee

The non-partisan Government Accountability Office ruled a few years ago appropriated funds CANNOT be used to pay the salaries of any employee described in Section 713 and departments can be instructed to withhold salaries from such employees. That does not require an act of Congress, consent of the Senate or signature of the president. https://www.gao.gov/assets/680/676341.pdf

Of course, as we've seen, it's possible that the political leadership of a department will instruct the employees responsible for processing paychecks to pay the employees anyway. However, that would be illegal and any career employee disciplined for following the law would have legal protection.

But that's down the road. The key issue right now is that the House does have the authority to declare that these employees fall within Section 713 and to instruct their departments to withhold their salaries, with failure to do so subject to criminal penalties.

FYI - it will be interesting to see how the Republican House Members respond to this since the last time this section was invoked, it was invoked by Jason Chaffetz, Cummings' predecessor as chair of House Oversight, in an effort to withhold the salaries of Obama officials.

[Chin music]

27. Ka-blam. Once again.

[former9thward]

30. "The non-partisan Government Accountability Office ruled"

Wrong. The GAO does not have the power to rule anything. Get back to me when someone actually loses a paycheck. It won't happen.

[StarfishSaver]

34. I provided you a link with the GAO opinion that I referenced

You may find it interesting if you're inclined to read it.

[pangaia]

6. EVERYTHING has to be spread far and wide in the media..

a 'propaganda' campaign of the truth !!!!!

"WE" need to hire someone(s) to oversee and do this !!!

[gibraltar72]

9. Every means necessary!!

[shanti]

10. That's all they understand, it appears

Do it, Dems!

[Hulk]

14. Won't phase them....

They aren't in it for the money. They are in it to disassemble the American government. The Ed whore has more money the the US treasury. mNuchin is a dolt from Wall Street, and he couldn't care less about his $100k pittance salary that they hand him in these four years. They are after destroying the country. It's like the "carpetbaggers" after the Civil War. They swoop in and try to strip the country bare. It is going to take us decades to recover from this violent raping.

[MySideOfTown]

31. True, but Munch can't do anything

without ordering a subordinate to do it. Hence the subordinate doesn't get paid. See?

[Honeycombe8]

15. Whoa. Chairman Cummings is playing hardball. Trump's game. GOOD FOR HIM...and us! nt

[Evolve Dammit]

17. This is important. Thanks you Congressman Cummings.

[a kennedy]

18. Damn right.......this deny shit has GOT TO BE DEFEATED.

[Pepsidog]

19. That's more like it. F'em

[yaesu]

20. Yes, finally, they have the power of the purse, cut their allowance when they are naughty!!! nt

[dixiegrrrrl]

22. YESSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!! n/t

[mcar]

24. GOOD!

[Skittles]

25. playing hardball

FINALLY

[LonePirate]

28. This needs to be expanded beyond the Department of Interior to all agencies and departments.

Granted, this will have little to no effect on people like Mnuchin and Ross; but it sure might change the minds of people underneath them.

[onenote]

39. If someone down the chain refuses a request based on a direct order from a senior agency official

the GAO will not invoke Section 713 against the staff employee.

[spooky3]

32. Clearly someone's staff has done and is doing a great job looking for ways to

stop the misbehaving Republicans. This is exactly what must be done.

[lindysalsagal]

33. AND FIRE THEIR ASSES!!!

All of these refusals to comply are inciting riot: If he doesn't have to do anything he doesn't want to do, neither do WE!!

[onenote]

37. The House has no authority to "fire" an executive branch employee.

[onenote]

38. There is a process for doing this, but it is slow and uncertain to work

The examples cited by Cummings in his letter reflect the fact that whether a violation of Section 713 has occurred is determined not directly by the House but by GAO, which may or may not agree with the House's referral of the matter. If GAO does agree, it notifies the agency to seek reimbursement of the relevant portion of the compensation paid to the relevant official. Once the agency notifies the employee, there are additional procedures and opportunities for appeal. In short, there are any number of opportunities for Trump-appointed officials to delay or frustrate the implementation of Section 713. (In one of the referenced examples, a demand for reimbursement was made in 2017 relating to a violation that occurred in 2013).