[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)

                          ____________________