[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 149 (Thursday, September 15, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H7848-H7857]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PREVENTING A PATRONAGE SYSTEM ACT OF 2021
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House
Resolution 1339, I call up the bill (H.R. 302) to impose limits on
excepting competitive service positions from the competitive service,
and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1339, the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Oversight and Reform, printed in the bill, is adopted and the bill, as
amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 302
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Preventing a Patronage
System Act of 2021'' or the ``PPSA Act of 2021''.
SEC. 2. LIMITATIONS ON EXCEPTION OF COMPETITIVE SERVICE
POSITIONS.
(a) In General.--No position in the competitive service (as
defined under section 2102 of title 5, United States Code)
may be excepted from the competitive service unless such
position is placed--
(1) in any of the schedules A through E as described in
section 6.2 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, as in
effect on September 30, 2020; and
(2) under the terms and conditions under part 6 of such
title as in effect on such date.
(b) Subsequent Transfers.--No position in the excepted
service (as defined under section 2103 of title 5, United
States Code) may be placed in any schedule other than a
schedule described in subsection (a)(1).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, is debatable for 1
hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Oversight and Reform or their respective
designees.
The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney) and the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Comer) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
General Leave
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and
extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials on the bill before
us.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 302, the Preventing a
Patronage System Act, introduced by Government Operations Subcommittee
Chair Gerry Connolly along with Representative Brian Fitzpatrick.
This straightforward bill affirms Congress' role in making major
changes to the civil service system and ensures that no President can
do so unilaterally.
Now, that may sound simple, but this is critical to upholding the
merit system principles that have been in place for almost 140 years
and fortify the civil service of America.
Career Federal workers serve both Democratic and Republican
administrations. They do their jobs guided by their expertise and best
judgment, not by allegiance to any political agenda.
In 2020, former President Trump issued an executive order creating a
new Federal employee classification in the excepted service called
schedule F. Employees transferred to schedule F would have been
stripped of workplace protections and converted to at-will employees.
If the order had been fully implemented, it could have harmed tens of
thousands of Federal employees.
Agencies were directed to identify civil service positions with a
policymaking function to convert to schedule F who would be more easily
removed from their jobs for not rubberstamping the President's
political agenda. Presumably, those positions could then be filled with
people who would be more loyal to the President.
Fortunately, one of the first things that President Biden did upon
taking office was to revoke the schedule F executive order. But the
order still shocked the Federal workforce.
Such an attack against the integrity of the civil service should
shock us all, particularly as Members of Congress. We depend on the
Federal workforce to serve impartially and in accordance with the law.
Schedule F would have instead put immense pressure on Federal workers
to bend to the political whims of the President, even if it meant
violating the law or Federal regulations.
But this bill is not just about the past. It applies the lessons we
learned from schedule F to prevent similar efforts to undermine the
Federal workforce in the future, whether from a Republican or
Democratic President.
There are some who are ready and waiting to reinstitute a system like
schedule F if given the opportunity. We must prevent that, and we can
take a big step toward that today by passing the Preventing a Patronage
System Act.
Mr. Speaker, I commend Chairman Connolly for his leadership on this
bill and for making it a bipartisan bill.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
support it, and I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H7849]]
{time} 1230
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is apparently Groundhog Day in the U.S. House of
Representatives.
Today, just like the last day we debated a bill in the Oversight and
Reform Committee's jurisdiction, Americans continue to face sky-high
inflation, painfully high gas prices, and supply chain shortages.
Americans continue to face the consequences of a broken border that
allow fentanyl shipments to flood in and kill our teens, along with a
host of other urgent problems. They continue to look to this Congress
for help with these real and pressing crises.
Yet, what are Democrats prioritizing instead of addressing these
issues during one of the last legislative weeks of this session?
Another bill that insulates Federal bureaucracy from accountability.
This time the bill is Representative Connolly's Preventing a Patronage
System Act.
This is just another Democrat bill that has nothing to do with the
American people's priorities. What is the problem the bill tries to
address? The Democrats' bill seeks to prevent future Presidents making
Federal employees more accountable to the American people whom they
serve.
Our Founding Fathers never envisioned a massive, unelected,
unaccountable Federal Government with the power to create policies that
impact Americans' everyday lives. But that is currently the state of
today's Federal bureaucracy.
President Trump sought to take on this bureaucracy and restore power
to the people by draining the swamp. He issued an executive order in
October 2020 to help make Federal bureaucrats who have the ability to
create and implement policy more accountable for their actions.
We should all be in favor of policies making it easier to remove
civil servants who refuse to follow the will of the voters. That is
what President Trump's executive order did.
Democrats are beholden to the Federal bureaucracy--a workforce who
thinks they know better than the American people. They are wrong.
Democrats have made every effort to preserve bureaucrats' ability to
thwart the policies of any President who tries to implement policies to
reign in the expansive influence of the Federal Government over the
daily lives of Americans.
This bill is contrary to the American way of government--of the
people, by the people, and for the people.
The bill's sponsors allege it is a bill that prevents a return to the
patronage system instituted in the 19th century. That is simply not
true. President Trump never attempted to return to a patronage system.
Just the opposite.
Instead of instituting a new patronage system, President Trump simply
made it easier to discipline or remove civil service officials in our
government's policymaking roles.
These influential Federal employees should not be allowed to
chronically underperform or actively undermine the work of their
politically accountable superiors.
If you support an efficient and effective executive branch that is
accountable to the American voters, then you must oppose H.R. 302.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume to respond to my colleagues who mentioned a
problem with poor performers in the Federal workforce. Federal managers
have tools now to remove poor performers when appropriate. In fact,
over 10,000 Federal employees were removed last year from their jobs
for poor performance.
This bill does not change the removal process for employees who are
not performing their jobs well, and schedule F was never about removing
employees who are performing poorly. That policy was designed to
intimidate and remove career employees who dared to provide impartial
advice that may be perceived as contrary to an administration's
political agenda. Civil servants are supposed to help administrations
follow the law.
So let's set the record straight about schedule F. It was intended to
punish Federal employees doing their jobs ethically and legally.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Connolly), the chairman of the Government Operations
Subcommittee, and the author and sponsor of this bill.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the chairwoman of
the full committee, for yielding.
I have to say, when he cites that our Founders never envisioned a
large government, that is true--there were 13 colonies that became 13
States.
I will remind my friend from Kentucky, neither did they ever envision
the State of Kentucky. As a matter of fact, what is now Kentucky was
claimed and owned by my home State, Virginia. So there are a lot of
things that weren't envisioned back in the 1780s that we have to deal
with in the 21st century. That is what we are doing here today.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to discuss and advocate
for the Preventing Patronage System Act, H.R. 302.
Our Federal workforce--the crown jewel of our Federal Government,
especially during a pandemic--is comprised of roughly 2 million Federal
employees hired on the basis of their acumen, their skill, and their
dedication. They work each day for the American people--serving in
myriad capacities to improve the Nation and America's posture abroad.
These impartial civil servants deliver mail; provide medical care to
veterans; help families in the wake of hurricanes and deadly fires;
design websites that facilitate access to lifesaving payments like
Social Security, unemployment insurance, and tax returns; and they
build telescopes that make us rethink what is possible and what kind of
universe there is to be explored.
This bill, H.R. 302, would ensure that Congress controls when and how
to change the very nature of our invaluable civil service. It simply
returns power to the legislative branch.
The Preventing Patronage System Act would protect merit-system
principles in our civil service by limiting Federal employee
reclassifications to the five excepted service schedules in use prior
to fiscal year 2021. It doesn't preclude a President from requesting
authorization from Congress to create a new one, but it requires it. It
restores the balance.
Since the creation of the civil service in 1883, administrations have
established an excepted service schedule only five times. These
excepted service categories are created for positions that require
unique hiring or operating rules, such as positions of a short-term
political nature or positions in remote areas, or in instances in which
there is a critical hiring need.
On October 21, 2020, then-President Trump signed Executive Order No.
13957 unilaterally attempting to create a new one, schedule F, in the
excepted service. This executive order, according to a coalition of
good government groups--I have got 34 of them endorsing this bill--
could expose Federal employees to politically partisan motivated hiring
and firing.
As drafted by that former President, schedule F would require agency
heads to reclassify policy-determining, policymaking, or policy-
advocating positions to a newly created schedule F. This action removes
the due process rights and civil service protections of employees moved
into that schedule.
Despite President Biden's rescinding of the schedule F, Axios
recently reported that former President Trump continues to develop a
unilateral plan to seize the reins of Federal Government and reclassify
up to 50,000 Federal civil servants, who are now part of the civil
service, and they would lose their protection and their merit-based
promotion.
Blind loyalty and ideological purity tests should never determine who
we trust with securing our Nation's borders, fortifying Federal IT
systems, caring for seniors and veterans, fighting public health
threats, or responding to natural disasters.
As one former Federal human resource expert said: Do we really think
a government of political hacks and sycophants is in the best interests
of the American people? Do we think making government more partisan
will make it more trusted by the people?
The non-partisan Partnership for Public Service stated: ``Endangering
the skilled employees at the core of our
[[Page H7850]]
government . . . would harm the delivery of crucial services to the
American people.''
Schedule F is a national security issue--and an issue that affects
delivery of essential services and resources to every family and every
business in this country.
H.R. 302 reinforces the legislative prerogative. It requires any
attempt to create a new excepted service to have explicit congressional
authorization.
It is bipartisan and it has 16 cosponsors, including three of my
friends on the other side of the aisle.
Changing the nature and operations of the civil service is rare,
important, and should require express congressional participation
through legislation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield an
additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, President Trump's schedule F would send
our Nation back to 1881 when President Garfield was shot by a man who
believed the support of the President should have earned him a
political partisan position in the Federal Government. Congress passed
the Pendleton Act in 1883, 2 years later, to a move away from that
patronage system, and it has been in place ever since.
As President Theodore Roosevelt said, ``The worst enemies of the
Republic are the demagogue and corruptionist. The spoils-monger and
spoils-seeker invariably breed the bribe-taker and the bribes-giver,
the embezzler of public funds and the corrupter of voters.'' A good
Republican President.
Acumen, not political fealty, must define our civil service.
Mr. Speaker, I have so many groups that have endorsed this bill and
many, many Members that have, as well.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a list of organizations that
endorse H.R. 302.
House of Representatives,
Committee on Oversight and Reform,
Washington, DC, September 14, 2022.
Ms. Cheryl L. Johnson,
Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Ms. Johnson: Below is a list of organizations that
have endorsed H.R. 302:
1. American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE).
2. National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU).
3. The Partnership for Public Service.
4. National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE).
5. International Federal of Professional and Technical
Engineers (IFPTE).
6. National Weather Service Employees Organization (NWSEO).
7. Patent Office Professional Association (POPA).
8. United Power Trades Organization (UPTO).
9. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
(CREW).
10. International Marine Mammal Project of Earth Island
Institute.
11. Civil Leadership Education and Research Initiative.
12. Project Blueprint.
13. American Society for Public Administration (ASPA).
14. National Association of Retired and Federal Employees
(NARFE).
15. Professional Managers Association.
16. Public Citizen.
17. Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association (FLEOA).
18. International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF).
19. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers (IAMAW).
20. National Association of Government Employees (NAGE).
21. Service Employees International Union (SEIU).
22. Professional Aviation Safety Specialists.
23. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal
Employees.
24. American Foreign Service Association.
25. FAA Managers Association.
26. Laborers' International Union of North America.
27. National Air Traffic Controllers Association.
28. National Association of U.S. Attorneys.
29. National Association of Federal Veterinarians.
30. National Council of Social Security Management
Associations.
31. National Postal Mail Handlers Union (NPMHU).
32. National Weather Service Employees Organization.
33. Patent Office Professional Association.
34. Federal Managers Association (FMA).
Sincerely,
Gerald E. Connolly,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Government Operations, House
Committee on Oversight and Reform.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on Oversight and Reform,
Washington, DC, September 12, 2022.
Ms. Cheryl L. Johnson,
Clerk of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Ms. Johnson: Below is a list of Members of Congress
who would have cosponsored H.R. 302 had they been able to be
added prior to the House Committee on Oversight and Reform
discharging the bill:
Madeleine Dean (PA)
Brad Sherman (CA)
Rashida Tlaib (MI)
Mike Quigley (IL)
David Trone (MD)
Jamie Raskin (MD)
Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. (GA)
Rick Larsen (WA)
Norma J. Torres (CA)
Paul D. Tonko
Sincerely,
Gerald E. Connolly,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Government Operations, House
Committee on Oversight and Reform.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record two articles: an
editorial in the Washington Post endorsing this bill and delineating
the issue, and an article in Newsweek doing the same.
[From the Washington Post, Aug. 29, 2022]
Opinion: Congress Must Prevent Another Trumpian Attempt To Purge the
Government
(By the Editorial Board)
It might sound like an innocuous change to the structure of
the federal workforce: creating a category of employee, known
as ``Schedule F,'' for positions related to ``policy-
determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating.'' Yet, this
change threatens to politicize the underappreciated ranks of
those who keep the country's government running--the nation's
professional civil service.
President Donald Trump created the Schedule F designation
by executive order near the end of his term, just ahead of
the 2020 election. The order would have removed long-held
protections from tens of thousands of career bureaucrats,
making them easier to dismiss. That would give the president
vast powers to reshape the federal government at will--and
could politicize positions long treated as nonpartisan and
merit-based.
The Trump administration attempted unsuccessfully to rush
through the change before the end of its term, and, upon
taking office, President Biden immediately rescinded the
order. But, according to a troubling recent report from
Axios's Jonathan Swan, Mr. Trump and his associates plan to
quickly reinstate Schedule F if he is elected in 2024, using
it to fire career employees and replace them with loyalists.
Other potential GOP presidential hopefuls have also indicated
they would consider targeting the federal workforce.
The federal bureaucracy is a behemoth that includes
approximately 2 million employees in myriad roles, working to
keep the government operating. In 2020, the Trump
administration justified its Schedule F executive order by
suggesting that it would make it easier for supervisors to
remove poor performers. No doubt there are ways to reform
evaluation and dismissal processes so they are more nimble
and responsive.
But much of our government's expertise rests with civil
servants. A system that sees more people enter and leave
federal agencies with the political churn would be less
knowledgeable and efficient. It would also eliminate one of
the major appeals of federal jobs: the understanding that
there will be some measure of stability even when there are
changes in administrations. If potential employees feel like
they could be fired with little cause or recourse, fewer
capable people will seek out these positions. That would only
harm the wide range of government services on which Americans
rely.
Democrats have introduced legislation that would forestall
such a possibility. The Preventing a Patronage System Act,
sponsored by Rep. Gerald E. Connolly (D-Va.), would block
positions from being classified outside the existing system
unless Congress consents to it. Mr. Connolly subsequently
sponsored this as an amendment to the National Defense
Authorization Act, and it passed the House last month. Six
Democratic senators, led by Sen. Tim Kaine (Va.), have
introduced companion legislation that would do the same
thing. These measures would uphold protections for federal
workers and reduce opportunities for patronage-based hiring
in the future.
Populist politicians point to the ``deep state'' as the
root of America's ills. In fact, what they cast as a threat--
a professional, merit-based, experienced civil service--is
one of the country's greatest assets.
[[Page H7851]]
____
[From Newsweek, Sept. 13, 2022]
House Bill Would Block Trump Plan To Make It Easier to Fire Federal
Workers
(By Alex J. Rouhandeh)
The House will vote on a measure this week that would
ensure the job security of thousands of federal employees who
previously faced uncertainty around their employment security
following an executive order issued by former President
Donald Trump.
Trump issued an order in October 2020, the month before the
presidential election, which established a new employment
category for federal workers called ``Schedule F.'' Under
this category, individuals working in jobs tied to ``policy-
determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating'' would lose
protections, including due process rights, which prevent them
from being easily fired when a new administration takes
office.
That order effectively eliminated civil service employment
protection for federal employees that had been in place for
more than 135 years.
While President Joe Biden revoked the order not long after
entering the White House, there is no law in place preventing
a future president from executing such an order again.
And Trump has made it clear that if he is reelected in
2024, he plans to do just that.
During a March rally, Trump told supporters that if he were
again to serve as president he would introduce ``reforms
making every executive branch employee fireable,''
subsequently justifying this action by saying, ``the deep
state must and will be brought to heel.''
``(This would) allow a Trump to put political people in
those jobs,'' Democratic Congressman Gerry Connolly of
Virginia, who has introduced a bill to prevent this executive
order from being reintroduced, told Newsweek.
Axios' Jonathan Swan reported in July that if Trump were to
retake office, he plans to reintroduce the effort, putting an
estimated 50,000 jobs at risk.
Connolly explained the effect on decision-making in the
federal government that Schedule F would have.
``All of a sudden now, because the people making decisions
are avowedly political, owing their allegiance not to the
Constitution but to the president who appointed them, and
they serve at his pleasure or her pleasure.'' he said. ``They
can also now look at everything through a partisan political
lens, and that can affect services provided by the federal
government.''
Connolly represents Virginia's 11th Congressional District,
an area near the Washington metro area, which houses a large
number of federal employees. He said he interacts with these
people regularly, and sees them largely as civil servants
rather than members of a ``deep state'' that must be
dismantled.
``This right-wing mythology that they've created that
there's this deep state that is attempting to thwart the
political will of our elected political leadership is
completely false--there is zero evidence of that,'' Connolly
said. ``It's all a myth created in order to expand their
partisan political power over the civil service.''
Under the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act of 1883, i
became unlawful to fire or demote employees for political
reasons, ushering in today's standard, in which positions in
the federal government are awarded based on merit rather than
their political affiliation. Today, the National Archives
writes that the act ``applies to most of the 2.9 million''
federal jobs.
Connelly's proposed Preventing a Patronage System Act,
which he first introduced in January of 2021, would prevent a
president from placing employees under a new schedule without
the approval of Congress.
In addition to Connolly, the bill has 16 co-sponsors. Three
are Republicans, including Representative Brian Fitzpatrick
of Pennsylvania, who served as Connelly's original partner on
the effort.
The passage of this bill could represent a significant
victory for Connolly, as he looks to make a case for why he
should fill the Democratic party's top spot on the Oversight
and Reform Committee once current chair Carolyn Maloney
leaves Congress at the end of this year.
If Republicans take control of the House, the Oversight
Committee could become an avenue through which the party
launches investigations into President Biden and his
administration's top officials, as Minority Leader Kevin
McCarthy has expressed interest in doing. Connolly would
stand at the frontlines in opposing this agenda.
The Virginia Democrat has been a staunch critic of the
Trump agenda and the former president's role in altering the
functioning of federal institutions. Connolly served as a
prominent voice during the 2020 election when Democrats
raised concerns regarding Trump's choice for Postmaster
General Louis Dejoy's running of the United States Postal
Service.
In wake of a federal judge calling DeJoy's actions a
potential ``politically motivated attack on the efficiency of
the Postal Service,'' Connolly worked as an original
cosponsor to help pass the bipartisan Postal Service Reform
Act of 2022. In the time since, Connolly has continued to go
after DeJoy, introducing legislation to stop him from
replacing the postal fleet with gas-powered trucks instead of
electric ones.
He likens his work on the DeJoy appointment to his current
work on Schedule F. He said both were issues that had not
drawn public attention. And, as with Schedule F, the DeJoy
appointment sparked questions regarding the politicization of
federal government positions long viewed as apolitical.
``A career civil servant, (former Postmaster General)
Meghan Brennan retires, and she is replaced by a Republican
political donor.'' Connolly said.
``What we learned during the Trump years was that so much
of our democracy is based on respecting the norms and
precedent,'' Connolly added. ``When you get an individual
like Trump, who couldn't care less about any of that and is
not going to respect it, you now have to look at codifying
into law behavior that previously was assumed, and Schedule
F, this patronage bill, is a good example of that.''
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
respond to what my friend, Mr. Connolly, just said. This schedule F has
been grossly mischaracterized by my friends on the other side of the
aisle.
I want to relay a scenario. Let's say, Mr. Speaker, that this year
were a Presidential election year. Let's say that gas prices were an
issue in the election. One Presidential candidate campaigns on: We are
going to lower the price of gasoline at the pump significantly. We are
going to lower it to the price it was when President Trump was in
office. The other Presidential candidate campaigns, and says: No, we
are going to convert everything to electric vehicles, and everything is
going to be fine.
I would say in that scenario the candidate who says they are going to
lower gas prices is going to win overwhelmingly because this is one of
the biggest issues in America right now.
Fast-forward to the administration. The President comes in, and he
says: We are going to lower gas prices because we are going to issue
more permits and we are going to reduce the barriers and roadblocks
that the previous administration put in to block the American energy
companies. He orders that. He has got a mandate from the people on that
issue.
The bureaucrats then say: No. No. We are not going to issue more
permits. No. We are going to make it even harder. You can't frack and
you can't drill. I don't care what the American people said at the
voting box. I am Mr. Bureaucrat, and no, we are not going to do it.
That is why we need schedule F employees because the unelected
bureaucrats are not accountable to the American people. We have got a
scenario here in Washington, D.C. where the unelected, unaccountable
bureaucrats are calling the shots, regardless of the will of the
American people. That is why we support President Trump's proposal for
the schedule F employees.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished majority
leader of the House of Representatives.
{time} 1245
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
I rise in strong support of this and the other two bills that we will
vote on, the Oversight and Reform Committee bills that we are
considering this week. Not only will they make government more
accountable to the people it serves, they are also a testament to the
extraordinary work and dedication to service of the committee's
chairwoman, my friend, Carolyn Maloney.
She leaves Congress at the end of this year after an accomplishment
of three decades in office. During that time, she has been a champion,
not only for New York, but for all those across the country who cherish
good government and the causes of justice, opportunity, and equality
for which she has worked so very, very hard.
Few in the history of the Congress have worked on behalf of the
consumers in a more dedicated and effective fashion than Chairwoman
Carolyn Maloney.
Today, she continues that service by offering, on behalf of her
committee, these three bills. I make particular mention of the bill
authored by Chairman Gerry Connolly of the Government Operations
Subcommittee, which has been strongly supported by Chairwoman Maloney
and their colleagues and the committee's majority.
I, too, strongly support this effort, which would protect the
nonpartisan
[[Page H7852]]
nature of our civil service by ensuring that Presidents cannot simply
fire Federal workers by reclassifying them as ``schedule F'' employees.
That is what the previous President suggested. That is what his
supporters are suggesting now.
And they are suggesting, not only that, but they are going to put
people in place who want to follow their political edicts, legal or
not. They made it quite clear they want to eliminate what they call the
deep state.
The deep state is a cadre of professionals dedicated to honoring the
Constitution, the laws of this country, and carrying out the policies
of the Congress and the President.
By the way, it is the Congress that makes policy, under the
Constitution, under Article I. It is the executive that carries out
policies. Now, Presidents of both parties want to be policymakers also.
I get that. It is a nonpartisan desire of Presidents.
But our Founders but, more importantly, those who adopted the Civil
Service Reform Act and have made amendments subsequent to that, and a
majority of the Congress of the United States, both parties, thought
that it was in the interest of citizens to have a professional cadre of
employees, not subject to political pressure, or whim, or edict, but
subject to following the law and carrying out the policies of this
country.
We must guard against a future President taking that dangerous step
of making them employees at will. Frankly, we have had a very stark
example of a President whose will was inconsistent with American
principles.
We must not return to the kind of patronage system that fueled
corruption and partisanship before the civil service reforms of the
late 19th century.
The other two bills authored by Chairwoman Maloney are equally
necessary and beneficial to the American people. The first would
further protect whistleblowers against retaliation; and the second
would protect the nonpartisan nature of the U.S. Census, prescribed by
our Constitution, and so vital to equal representation.
When we passed whistleblower legislation and protections, we did so
because we wanted people to be able to come forward and say the emperor
has no clothes. The policies being pursued are being done
inefficiently. The policies being pursued are wasting money. The
policies being pursued are illegal.
That is why we protect whistleblowers, because it is in the interest
of our citizens, of our country, and our laws and, by the way, in the
interest of Congress, so that people can come forward to those of us
who make policy, who appropriate money, to be told the policies that
you passed are not being followed, or the money you dedicated is not
being spent in the way you purposed it. So these bills are critically
important.
And by the way, the Constitution says, count everybody. That is what
the Constitution says. The Supreme Court said that is what it said. Not
just my friends; not just the people who like me; count everybody.
And by the way, if you are going to change the rules, tell the
Congress, and tell us before it is too late for us to do anything about
it. That is all this bill says. This bill ought to be overwhelmingly
supported by both sides of the aisle.
Very frankly, if you have a deep state, you would think you would
want to make sure that the Congress is the one that sets the policies
of who is counted and not counted and how it is counted.
President Lincoln famously described ours as a ``government of the
people, by the people, and for the people.''
These bills, like the work of Chairwoman Maloney, throughout her
career in public service, will help us keep it that way.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support these
bills.
And in closing, once again, I congratulate Carolyn Maloney of New
York for her dedicated, extraordinarily effective service to the people
of New York, people of her city, the people of this country. She has
been an extraordinary Member of this institution and has made us
better.
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the distinguished majority
leader quoting the Constitution's constitutional role of Congress in
making policy.
I will remind my friend, the majority leader, that it is Congress'
role to appropriate money, not the President. And that is why we should
have oversight hearings on the $300 billion student loan bailout
proposal that the President unconstitutionally proposed.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs.
Greene).
Mrs. GREENE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition of H.R.
302, Preventing a Patronage System Act. And the reason why I do so is
that the executive branch needs to function in a way that helps the
administration, the current President of the United States.
President Trump had an executive order to make a section called
schedule F, where employees could be terminated. This is very
important, and the reason why I say so is I am also a businessowner.
And it is very important for any businessowner, any CEO, anyone running
a company, to be able to terminate people working under them.
This is an important function of the executive branch. Preventing a
Patronage System Act takes that away. It makes it to where they can put
people into positions where you cannot fire them. That is wrong. This
is not how the government should be working. It shouldn't be putting
people in places, unelected bureaucrats, into positions and jobs where
they cannot be terminated. Anyone should be fired.
You see, there is a reason why the American people call Washington
D.C. the swamp, and it is not just because it is built on a swamp. It
is called the swamp for a reason; because the American people see the
government as a place where they call swamp creatures; they think they
never leave.
In doing so, the Preventing a Patronage System Act, this bill will
formally make it a Federal law in order to just make that happen.
You see, we really need a system in place. We need to make sure that
we don't pass Federal laws where people cannot be fired. It should
never be the case.
People should be fired if they are not doing a good job. People
should be fired if they are not doing things effectively for the
administration they work for. The President of the United States should
be able to fire whoever he or she wants.
The Democrats want to pass this bill to empower Democrat operatives;
people that they have hired; people that they have put in their
administration; they want to make sure those Democrat operatives are
there to be able to undermine the next Republican President of the
United States. That should not be a Federal law.
And as a businessowner, I am telling you, it is so important to be
able to fire people in your company that aren't doing a good job. And
it should be no different for any President. The executive branch must
be able to have people working there that can be terminated.
Everyone knows the movie ``Pirates of the Caribbean.'' And on the
``Black Pearl''--that is the second one--it has pirates on the ship
that become part of the ship walls. Effectively, that is what H.R. 302
is doing.
The Preventing a Patronage System Act will make employees in the
executive branch just that, part of the building walls, making it
impossible to get rid of them.
So, for this reason, I oppose this bill, and I urge my colleagues to
vote against it.
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
I would like to respond to the gentlewoman who may not have been here
when I made my previous remarks, because I point out that this is not
about making it hard to remove poor performers. The Federal Government
can and does remove poor performers where appropriate. And there is a
process for that.
According to data from the Office of Personnel Management, the
Federal Government removed 10,687 employees in Fiscal Year 2021.
It is in the public's best interest to ensure that the President
cannot take action that would politicize the civil service and threaten
the integrity of the work that we depend on civil servants to perform
every day.
One expert on Federal human resources, Jeff Neal, has explained that
the tension that can exist between career employees and political
appointees
[[Page H7853]]
usually reflects the ``need to ensure that proposals are legal'' and
that ``statutory and regulatory requirements, such as the
Administrative Procedure Act, are met.''
In other words, this tension is actually a sign that the system is
working, and procedures are being properly followed. That is certainly
not poor performance or cause for removal.
Schedule F would have improperly targeted those who ensure legality,
equity, and appropriate stewardship of taxpayer dollars.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District
of Columbia (Ms. Norton), a distinguished member of the Committee on
Oversight and Reform and a champion for workers.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding to me.
And I appreciate her correction of the prior speaker on the other side
who repeatedly said that Federal employees could not be fired, ignoring
the figures that the Chair had given of 10,000 employees fired last
year.
This is a civil service system. It is not a private system. It rules
under the Constitution and under the rule of law. That is the
difference between working for the Federal Government and working for a
private employer.
I speak in strong support of the Preventing a Patronage System Act--
note that word--Patronage System Act, of which I am a cosponsor.
This bill would prevent a future President from reimposing the
schedule F scheme that would move tens of thousands of career employees
into positions that would essentially be a new form of political
appointment. The nonpartisan, apolitical civil service system is
critically important to how our government functions.
President Trump attempted to--former President Trump attempted to
illegally create this new class of Federal employees, in contravention
of the Constitution and, more specifically, these employees' rights.
{time} 1300
We need to encourage the best to join the Federal Government, and
this type of ploy by the prior administration would hinder that effort;
instead, allowing an administration to engage in a patronage system.
The government needs experts, not political cronies.
I appreciate Congressman Connolly for introducing this important
bill, and I am pleased to be able to speak in support of it.
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Hice), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on
Government Operations.
Mr. HICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Comer for yielding
time.
The numbers that were just shared are out of 2.1 million Federal
employees, and the figure is accurate. Some 10,000 were terminated in
2021, but this is a fraction. People in the private sector are three
times more likely to be terminated for poor performance than are people
in the Federal Government. That is because it is so restrictive and so
difficult to go through the process.
In fact, when the discussion deals with Federal employees that have
been on the job past the probationary period, the number of
terminations drops to half of what was just spoken of. These are skewed
numbers that are being shared, but also a fraction of the over 2
million Federal employees and a fraction in comparison to those who
were terminated in the private sector.
We must be able to deal with poor performers in the Federal
Government, and our Democrat friends want to protect them and make
Federal bureaucrats a protected class. That is absolute insanity. It is
bad for America. It is bad for the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I again thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume to respond to the gentleman's statement.
Schedule F was never about removing employees who were performing
poorly. That was not the purpose. There is already a procedure in place
for that.
It aimed to strip workplace protections away from Federal employees
so that anyone who didn't adhere to an ideology aligned with the
President, the former President, could be easily replaced with someone
who did.
That is a violation of the impartiality with which the civil service
is meant to operate. It is supposed to be an independent, merit-based
system not tied to ideology.
If changes that consequential are to be made to the civil service,
they shouldn't happen without the approval of Congress. That is what
this bill does. This bill preserves Congress' authority in civil
service policy. People can't come in willy-nilly and change the system
and make it a partisan system overnight.
If implemented, schedule F would have placed Federal employees'
careers in the hands of political appointees who could fire them for
presenting data, evidence, or views that contradict the political whims
of an administration.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the great State
of Virginia (Mr. Beyer), the distinguished chairman of the Joint
Economic Committee.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 302,
sponsored by my friend and colleague from Virginia.
Three out of four of my grandparents were career Federal servants. I
represent more Federal employees than any Member of Congress. I have a
deep appreciation for the vital work our civil service does to keep our
Federal Government functioning.
Our Federal employees have endured attack after attack from our
former President and his allies. The most significant threat to our
Federal workers came when the former President tried to use executive
action to strip Federal workers of their most basic protections and
replace our career civil servants with political loyalists.
This rule would have made a huge number of Federal employees fireable
by any future President, overturning a century-old system put in place
by Congress to prevent this politicization.
Congress passed the Pendleton Act 139 years ago, through Democrats
and Republican Presidents all those years, to require civil servants to
be politically independent. We insist our public servants be loyal to
our country, not to our political leaders. We demand integrity,
competence, and experience, not partisanship and ideology.
Should schedule F ever be enacted, any future President could
unilaterally transform a whole government overnight in wildly
destructive ways.
The bill we are about to vote on will prevent something like schedule
F from ever becoming law. It would block any reclassifications of
Federal employees to schedule F and prevent any position in the
competitive service from being reclassified to an excepted service
position.
This bill is essential to keep Federal employees from being used as
political bargaining chips and protects the careers of thousands of
civil servants and their families, along with the legitimacy of the
institutions under which they serve.
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Roy).
Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleagues talking about the
politicization of how we deal with Federal employees. The fact is, the
bureaucracy has never been more politicized than it is today.
This bill is the Federal bureaucrat protection act. That is what this
is. Let's be a hundred percent clear. This is about leftists in this
body wanting to protect the entrenched leftists in the bureaucracy,
undermining the will of the American people every single day. That is
what it is about.
We don't want to allow the people who are running the agencies to go
in and fire people who are either not doing their job, completely
violating their ethics at the desk, or, frankly, are going right
against the law or the will of the American people.
Look no further than the Department of Homeland Security, which is
turning a blind eye to our border. Look no further than an FBI that is
targeting parents for daring to challenge school boards. That is what
your Federal bureaucracy is doing.
All of these charges being levied, saying, oh, this is about hate,
going after Federal employees--I am a former Federal prosecutor and
worked with the Department of Justice. My father worked in the Federal
Government for 20 years right here. But I know why the
[[Page H7854]]
gentleman, my friend, Mr. Beyer, was here: Because the richest counties
in America are right here in Fairfax, Loudoun County, Montgomery
County, feeding right off of the back of the beast that is the Federal
Government, the bureaucrats that are stepping over the will of the
American people.
If we dare put forward legislation, like I have, to say that those
bureaucrats should be able to be fired at will--for example, how about
the HUD employee caught using his work email for private business
deals, the postal employee arrested for bringing cocaine into the
workplace, and the EPA employee who spent years viewing pornography for
2 to 6 hours a workday?
The fact is, only 25 percent of Federal supervisors felt they could
successfully remove an employee, while 78 percent reported that
previous efforts to remove an employee had no effect. Only 3 percent of
whistleblower complaints are substantiated. Mr. Speaker, 175 of 16,000
discrimination complaints were substantiated in 2019.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to preserve an
entrenched bureaucracy to step over the will of the people so that this
town can decide the well-being of the American people. That is what it
is about.
It is about power. It is about the entrenchment of power among
bureaucrats. My colleagues know it, and that is why they are trying to
advance this legislation.
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I refer to my prior
statements and reiterate that schedule F was never about removing
employees who are performing poorly. There is a whole process to do
that.
This is about protecting the integrity of a merit-based system, so
people are not retaliated against and fired because they are not doing
what somebody is dictating them to do.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Green), the distinguished Representative and chairman of the
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Financial Services
Committee.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding
time, and I say to the gentlewoman that it has been a preeminent
privilege to serve with her for lo these many years; indeed,
superlative pleasure. I miss you already. Thank you for what you are
doing.
I am grateful to my colleague, Chairman Connolly. I see this as
another example of his legislative brilliance: to make a decision that
will allow people to succeed on their merits or fail on their demerits,
to take the political patronage out of the civil service system.
The civil service system functions efficaciously across the length
and breadth of this country. Police departments and fire departments
across the country that have civil servants provide the institutional
knowledge. They have the expertise. Mr. Speaker, you don't want to just
throw out all the best of the best that have been working there and
understand what the system is all about.
Every new person who comes in would like to bring in people to
support his or her political philosophy. I support your having people
to work with you, but I don't support destroying a system that allows
us to have the institutional knowledge to keep the government
functioning efficaciously.
This patronage system that has developed under F has been a failure,
and it is little more than fatuous folly that will prove to be harmful
to this country.
Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 302, and I beg that my colleagues would
do so, as well.
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The U.S. House of Representatives needs to concentrate its energy on
helping Americans survive economic turmoil and defending our borders
and national security.
I once again urge House Democrats to get back to what the American
people elected us to do: conduct oversight over the Federal Government
and the Biden administration, which is on a path to destroy America.
We need to hold hearings, conduct oversight, and pass legislation
affecting the crises that every American is facing today. That is our
constitutional responsibility. But instead, today, we are once again
spending valuable resources and time on divisive political messaging
legislation.
I think if any American was watching this committee hearing today,
they would share the frustration of those of us on this side of the
aisle who are trying to drain the swamp, who are trying to hold
unelectable, unaccountable Federal bureaucrats who refuse to do their
jobs accountable. That is part of the job of Congress.
This bureaucracy gets bigger every Congress. I have noticed, with the
exception of one speaker, all the speakers on the other side of the
aisle who spoke in favor of this bill represent the Washington, D.C.
Federal bureaucracy workforce.
The majority of Congress, we represent America, and America wants to
hold poor-performing government employees, bureaucrats, who are paid
with their hard-earned tax dollars, accountable. That is why the
Republicans oppose this legislation, and I urge all of my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle to do the same.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the
balance of my time, and I will respond to my very good friend, who I
have tremendous respect for.
I do not represent the Washington workforce. I represent New York
City. I represent the private sector, the private-sector capital of the
world, New York City, Manhattan. That is who I represent.
I also represent taxpayers, a lot of them, and they want their money
to be spent for good government. They want the people working in the
government to be impartial and dedicated to doing the best job possible
without political influence. That is exactly what this bill we are
talking about today is about.
Schedule F, as I repeat, was never about removing employees who were
performing poorly. We have a whole system to do that. We removed over
10,000 last year. This is about protecting employees who are doing a
good job from political influence.
I reiterate the crucial role of the people who make up the
professional and nonpolitical civil service in delivering government
services to our constituents, protecting our democracy, and carrying
out agency missions across the Federal Government.
Injecting undue political influence into that system, as schedule F
would have done, would be disastrous for the merit system we have in
place.
{time} 1315
When we pass this bill today, we are making sure that no President of
either party, Democrat or Republican, can ever unilaterally take such
destructive action in the future.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
support a merit system, to support the civil service system that has
served us so well, to vote to keep politics out of the civil service
system, and to support the important underlying bill.
I congratulate my colleague and very good friend, Mr. Connolly, on
his excellent work on this bill. It is bipartisan. We have three
Republicans. But I hope that we will pick up more, because this is
about voting for freedom, democracy, independence, good government, you
name it.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
support this important bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cuellar). All time for debate has
expired.
The further amendment printed in part A of House Report 117-464 may
be offered only by the Member designated in the report, shall be in
order without intervention of any point of order, shall be considered
as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and
shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Hice of Georgia
The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment No.
1 printed in part A of House Report 117-464.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
September 15, 2022, on page H7854, in the third column, the
following appeared: AMENDMENT NO. 1 OFFERED BY MR. HICE The
SPEAKER pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment No.
1
The online version has been corrected to read: AMENDMENT NO. 1
OFFERED BY MR. HICE OF GEORGIA The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is now
in order to consider amendment No. 1
========================= END NOTE =========================
Mr. HICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
[[Page H7855]]
Page 3, line 14, strike ``; and'' and insert the following:
``, subject to the terms and conditions under part 6 of such
title as in effect on such date; or''.
Page 3, strike lines 15 and 16 and insert the following:
(2) in schedule F of the excepted service as in effect on
December 31, 2020, pursuant to Executive Order 13957 (85 Fed.
Reg. 67631; relating to creating schedule F in the excepted
service).
Page 3, line 20, before the period, insert ``or (a)(2)''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1339, the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Hice) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. HICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Let me begin by stating clearly that I oppose the underlying bill
here. Some of my Democratic colleagues claim that there is no such
thing as a deep state, that there are no problems that we have within
our Federal employee system. But there are genuine, valid concerns.
Take, for example, a Washington Post story titled: ``Resistance from
within: Federal workers push back against Trump.'' In that article:
``Federal workers are in regular consultation with recently departed
Obama-era political appointees about what they can do to push back
against the new President's initiatives.''
We have a problem, and it is a problem that bureaucrats do not do
their jobs in fulfilling the will of a duly-elected President and the
will of the American people. Instead, over and over, as time has shown
it, they resist the will of the President.
This whole title here of H.R. 302, ``Preventing a Patronage System
Act,'' a patronage system is designed to get people in the front door.
That is not even what we are talking about. We are talking about people
who are already in the door who are not doing their job. For crying out
loud, it is the back door that needs to be dealt with, when you have
poor performers, people who are not doing their job.
President Trump dealt with this by instituting schedule F, giving him
the authority to do away with policymakers who refused to do their job.
That is something that is desperately needed, and that is what is at
stake. It is that issue that my amendment addresses.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in
opposition to the amendment offered by my good friend, Representative
Hice.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 302 preserves
congressional authority to make sure that no President can establish a
destructive policy like schedule F in the future without the approval
of Congress.
The amendment would do the exact opposite. It opens the door for an
administration to implement the revoked schedule F executive order and
dangerously politicize the Federal workforce.
For all the reasons this was bad policy in 2020, it remains bad
policy today.
Schedule F evaded congressional oversight in an attempt to make the
civil service an instrument of partisan politics rather than the
nonpartisan professional, independent workforce that Congress intended
it to be.
Schedule F would replace a professional system with a patronage
system, discouraging civil service employees from providing impartial
advice based on the facts or reporting waste, fraud, and abuse.
Reviving this attack on Federal employees also makes it harder to
retain and hire qualified employees, which further erodes the ability
of the agencies to carry out their mission.
I strongly oppose this amendment, and I urge Members on both sides of
the aisle to vote ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Kentucky (Mr. Comer), the ranking member of the Committee on
Oversight and Reform,
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this commonsense amendment offered
by my friend, Representative Hice.
President Trump took needed steps to ensure civil servants serve the
American people, not their own interests. One of President Biden's
first actions was to undo these needed reforms.
Representative Connolly introduced this bill, even before President
Biden was sworn in, to overturn President Trump's action and to prevent
any future President from reinstating them.
Obviously, the Biden administration has a radically different view of
the Federal workforce than President Trump did, one that House
Republicans strongly disagree with.
This amendment would simply ensure that a future President could
reinstate a policy similar to schedule F to allow for more
accountability within the career civil service. We should not tie the
hands of a future duly-elected President to implement the clear
mandates of the American people.
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes
to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly), the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Government Operations, and the sponsor and author of
this bill, H.R. 302.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the chairwoman of the
committee, for yielding.
I must say, the innuendos, the negative characterization, the smears,
if not slanders, launched against Federal employees in general on the
floor today would come as news, unwelcome news, to the almost quarter
of a million Federal employees in Kentucky, Georgia, and Texas. Almost
10 percent of the entire Federal workforce live in those three States.
The amendment just offered is a direct assault on our Federal
workforce and would completely gut the bill in front of us. It grew
from the Trump administration's efforts to turn our expert civil
service into a collection of cronies. This amendment invites the crony
clown car into the Federal Government.
My concern is not hypothetical. In September of 2019, then-President
Trump circled areas of Alabama with a Sharpie that he claimed were
dangerously in the path of a hurricane, Hurricane Dorian. That
prognostication was contrary to what expert civil servants, not swamp
creatures, at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
found. Luckily, the civil servants in NOAA's Birmingham, Alabama,
office tweeted out Mr. Trump's error.
While ``#Sharpiegate'' made a funny hashtag on Twitter, the aftermath
could have been catastrophic and cost lives.
What if FEMA deployed in the wrong region? What if millions of
taxpayer dollars had been wasted, sending Federal help where it was not
needed? What if families in the storm's path were left stranded because
our Federal workforce kowtowed to the permanent marker whims of the
then-President.
I am not the only one sounding this alarm. Thirty-four professional
associations, good government organizations, think tanks, and
nonprofits, have endorsed this bill.
From the International Federation of Professional and Technical
Engineers, hardly a politicized group:
The impact of schedule F and any similar effort to inject
political patronage, cronyism, and corruption into the
Federal Government would not only be felt by Federal
employees; it would harm working people, our economy, the
public interest, and the legitimacy of our democracy.
From the National Association of United States Attorneys:
If a President can unilaterally reclassify employees and
strip them of their protections, there is no longer a
safeguard against political interference. This is not the
system of justice our Nation should support.
From the National Federation of Federal Employees:
Political operatives or ordinary criminals will be able to
threaten the careers of Federal workers with impunity,
jeopardizing the collective mission of the United States.
This includes employees in Federal law enforcement, national
security, and national defense, among others.
Hardly swamp creatures.
From the Nonpartisan Partnership for Public Service:
Endangering the skilled employees at the core of our
government would not only further erode the critically low
levels of trust
[[Page H7856]]
in government but would harm the delivery of crucial services
to the American people, especially in a pandemic.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman from New York
has expired.
Mr. HICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
I respect greatly the gentleman from Virginia and enjoy working with
him, but his characterization that we are attacking Federal employees
is just not true.
There are millions of great Federal employees, and those who are
doing their job have absolutely nothing to worry about. That is not
what we are addressing here. We are addressing those who refuse to do
their job.
There needs to be a means of dealing with those--especially in this
schedule F that President Trump put in place--those who are responsible
for policymaking, to do the will of the elected President of the United
States. My Democrat colleagues are trying to protect those individuals
and enable them, give them the right to continue to force their will
upon the American people rather than the will of the American people as
expressed through the duly-elected President, whomever that may be.
This is absolutely wrong and beyond my comprehension.
Even Federal employees themselves, year after year after year, talk
about how difficult it is to get rid of poor performers in the Federal
workforce. Here we are trying to protect them rather than have the
ability to deal with and terminate poor performers and, specifically
with schedule F, those who are responsible, regardless of the
administration, to perform the will of that administration.
My amendment addresses these issues. I strongly urge my colleagues on
both sides of the aisle to support this amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1339, the
previous question is ordered on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Hice).
The question is on the amendment.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. HICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will
be followed by 5-minute votes on:
Motion to recommit, if offered; and
Passage of H.R. 302, if ordered.
Members will record their vote by electronic device.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 204,
nays 226, not voting 2, as follows:
[Roll No. 431]
YEAS--204
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bentz
Bergman
Bice (OK)
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brady
Brooks
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burchett
Burgess
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cawthorn
Chabot
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Comer
Conway
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duncan
Dunn
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fleischmann
Flood
Flores
Foxx
Franklin, C. Scott
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garbarino
Garcia (CA)
Gibbs
Gimenez
Gohmert
Gonzales, Tony
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Harris
Harshbarger
Hartzler
Hern
Herrell
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hinson
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Issa
Jackson
Jacobs (NY)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Keller
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kim (CA)
Kustoff
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
LaTurner
Lesko
Letlow
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Mace
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McHenry
Meijer
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Mullin
Murphy (NC)
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Obernolte
Owens
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Salazar
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sempolinski
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Wagner
Walberg
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Zeldin
NAYS--226
Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Auchincloss
Axne
Bacon
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bourdeaux
Bowman
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brown (MD)
Brown (OH)
Brownley
Bush
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cheney
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fitzpatrick
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel, Lois
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez (OH)
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jacobs (CA)
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Jones
Kahele
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Kind
Kinzinger
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Leger Fernandez
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lieu
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McKinley
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Mfume
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moulton
Mrvan
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Newman
Norcross
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Peltola
Perlmutter
Peters
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (NY)
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Suozzi
Swalwell
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Vargas
Veasey
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--2
Budd
O'Halleran
{time} 1416
Mses. SPEIER, McCOLLUM, Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi, Ms. SHERRILL,
Mr. COURTNEY, Mrs. CHERFILUS-McCORMICK, Mr. CASTRO of Texas, Ms. CLARK
of Massachusetts, Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia, Mses. TLAIB, STEVENS,
Messrs. VICENTE GONZALEZ of Texas, YARMUTH, NADLER, ESPAILLAT, LARSON
of Connecticut, LAWSON of Florida, EVANS, SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New
York, AGUILAR, BROWN of Maryland, KAHELE, Mrs. LAWRENCE, Ms. WILD, and
Mr. HIMES changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Members Recorded Pursuant to House Resolution 8, 117th Congress
Baird (Bucshon)
Barragan (Beyer)
Bass (Correa)
Brooks (Fleischmann)
Bush (Bowman)
Carter (GA) (Mace)
Cawthorn (Boebert)
Cleaver (Davids (KS))
Conway (Valadao)
DeSaulnier (Beyer)
Dingell (Kuster)
Fallon (Nehls)
Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)
Jones (Beyer)
Khanna (Jeffries)
Kilmer (Jeffries)
Kirkpatrick (Pallone)
Lawson (FL) (Evans)
McCaul (Van Duyne)
McEachin (Beyer)
Moore (WI) (Beyer)
Newman (Beyer)
Norman (Duncan)
Palazzo (Fleischmann)
[[Page H7857]]
Pingree (Kuster)
Rice (NY) (Deutch)
Rush (Bowman)
Ryan (OH) (Correa)
Sanchez (Ruiz)
Schiff (Deutch)
Scott (VA) (Beyer)
Scott, Austin (Cammack)
Stansbury (Pallone)
Swalwell (Correa)
Wexton (Beyer)
=========================== NOTE ===========================
September 15, 2022, on page H7857, in the first column, the
following appeared: Stansbury (Pallone) Swalwell (Correa) Tlaib
(Bowman) Wexton (Beyer)
The online version has been corrected to read: Stansbury
(Pallone) Swalwell (Correa) Wexton (Beyer)
========================= END NOTE =========================
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Jackson Lee). The previous question is
ordered on the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 225,
nays 204, not voting 3, as follows:
[Roll No. 432]
YEAS--225
Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Auchincloss
Axne
Bacon
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bourdeaux
Bowman
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brown (MD)
Brown (OH)
Brownley
Bush
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fitzpatrick
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel, Lois
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez (OH)
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jacobs (CA)
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Jones
Kahele
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Kind
Kinzinger
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Leger Fernandez
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lieu
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McKinley
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Mfume
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moulton
Mrvan
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Newman
Norcross
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Peltola
Perlmutter
Peters
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (NY)
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Suozzi
Swalwell
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Vargas
Veasey
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NAYS--204
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bentz
Bergman
Bice (OK)
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brady
Brooks
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burchett
Burgess
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cawthorn
Chabot
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Comer
Conway
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duncan
Dunn
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fleischmann
Flood
Flores
Foxx
Franklin, C. Scott
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garbarino
Garcia (CA)
Gibbs
Gimenez
Gohmert
Gonzales, Tony
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Harris
Harshbarger
Hartzler
Hern
Herrell
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hinson
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Issa
Jackson
Jacobs (NY)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Keller
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kim (CA)
Kustoff
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
LaTurner
Lesko
Letlow
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Mace
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McHenry
Meijer
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Mullin
Murphy (NC)
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Obernolte
Owens
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Salazar
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sempolinski
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Wagner
Walberg
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--3
Budd
Cheney
O'Halleran
{time} 1428
Ms. BUSH and Mr. RUSH changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Members Recorded Pursuant to House Resolution 8, 117th Congress
Baird (Bucshon)
Barragan (Beyer)
Bass (Correa)
Brooks (Fleischmann)
Bush (Bowman)
Carter (GA) (Mace)
Cawthorn (Boebert)
Cleaver (Davids (KS))
Conway (Valadao)
Cuellar (Garcia (TX))
DeSaulnier (Beyer)
Dingell (Kuster)
Fallon (Nehls)
Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)
Jones (Beyer)
Khanna (Jeffries)
Kilmer (Jeffries)
Kirkpatrick (Pallone)
Lawson (FL) (Evans)
McCaul (Van Duyne)
McEachin (Beyer)
Moore (WI) (Beyer)
Newman (Beyer)
Norman (Duncan)
Palazzo (Fleischmann)
Pingree (Kuster)
Rice (NY) (Deutch)
Rush (Bowman)
Ryan (OH) (Correa)
Sanchez (Ruiz)
Schiff (Deutch)
Scott (VA) (Beyer)
Scott, Austin (Cammack)
Stansbury (Pallone)
Swalwell (Correa)
Wexton (Beyer)
____________________