HR-492-119
ASSUMING FIRST SPONSORSHIP - Mr. Walkinshaw asked unanimous consent that he may hereafter be considered as the first sponsor of H.R. 492, a bill originally introduced by Representative Connolly, for the purpose of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII. Agreed to without objection.
What it does
This bill would prohibit executive branch agencies from moving federal employees out of the competitive civil service into the excepted service (or between excepted service schedules) unless specific conditions are met. It would block any recreation of a "Schedule F"-style category — the classification created by a 2020 executive order that would have stripped civil service protections from a broad category of policy-related federal jobs. Employees in the competitive service could not be moved to the excepted service without their own consent, and agencies could not transfer occupied positions into Schedule C without Office of Personnel Management approval.
Who benefits
Federal employees currently in the competitive service (roughly 2 million workers) who would retain job protections, including notice requirements and appeal rights before adverse actions. The Office of Personnel Management, which would gain a formal gatekeeping role over position transfers. Federal employee unions, whose bargaining power depends on members holding competitive service protections. Members of the public who argue that a stable, merit-based civil service produces more consistent government services.
Who is hurt
The executive branch (the President and agency heads), who would lose flexibility to reclassify policy-related positions and more easily remove or replace employees in those roles. Future administrations of either party seeking to restructure agency workforces or align policy-implementing staff with presidential priorities. Advocates of executive branch reorganization who argue the current system makes it difficult to hold federal employees accountable or implement new policy directions efficiently.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the competitive civil service is a cornerstone of merit-based, nonpartisan government that has served the country since the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act of 1883. They contend that reclassifying large numbers of career employees into the excepted service — particularly under a Schedule F-style order — would effectively convert those positions into at-will jobs, exposing career professionals to removal based on political loyalty rather than job performance. They argue this would undermine the institutional expertise and continuity that agencies depend on to function effectively across administrations, and that codifying these protections in statute — rather than leaving them to executive orders that can be reversed — is the only durable way to preserve them. They further argue that employee consent requirements and OPM oversight are reasonable procedural safeguards, not barriers to legitimate management.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the President, as head of the executive branch, has a constitutional responsibility to ensure that the people carrying out federal policy are accountable to elected leadership, and that this bill would improperly entrench a workforce that can resist or slow presidential directives. They contend that positions of a policy-determining or policy-advocating character are fundamentally different from purely administrative roles, and that the President needs meaningful authority over those employees to fulfill the mandate voters gave the executive. They argue that blocking Schedule F or equivalent classifications by statute would tie the hands of future administrations of either party, and that existing civil service protections already provide ample safeguards against arbitrary dismissal — making additional legislative restrictions an unnecessary constraint on executive management authority.
Constitutional context
The bill sits at the intersection of the Appointments Clause (Art. II, Sec. 2), which gives Congress authority to vest appointment of inferior officers in the President or department heads, and the broader separation of powers doctrine governing presidential control over the executive branch. The Supreme Court's decisions in Seila Law v. CFPB (2020) and Collins v. Yellen (2021) reinforced presidential removal power over executive officers. The major questions doctrine (West Virginia v. EPA, 2022) and the end of Chevron deference (Loper Bright v. Raimondo, 2024) are relevant because courts would now independently assess whether statutory language clearly authorizes or limits executive workforce actions. The Necessary and Proper Clause and Congress's explicit statutory authority over the civil service (5 U.S.C. § 7511 et seq.) provide the legislative foundation for the bill.
Checks and balances
This bill would shift authority toward the Legislative Branch and the Office of Personnel Management (an executive agency operating under statutory constraints) and away from the President and individual agency heads. By codifying classification rules in statute, Congress would remove the President's ability to alter civil service categories through executive order alone, requiring future changes to go through the full legislative process. This represents a direct congressional check on executive workforce management authority.
Historical precedent
The Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act (1883) first established merit-based competitive civil service protections. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 created the modern framework, including the Senior Executive Service and the current schedule system. President Trump's October 2020 Schedule F executive order, subsequently revoked by President Biden in January 2021, is the direct legislative trigger for this bill.