H.R. 492: Saving the Civil Service Act
Sponsor
Gerald Connolly
Democrat · VA-11
Bill Progress
Latest Action · Sep 16, 2025
ASSUMING FIRST SPONSORSHIP - Mr. Walkinshaw asked unanimous consent that he may hereafter be considered as the first sponsor of H.R. 492, a bill originally introduced by Representative Connolly, for the purpose of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII. Agreed to without objection.
Why it matters
This matters now because lawmakers are trying to block any future president from quickly reclassifying large numbers of federal workers into jobs with weaker civil service protections.
The Saving the Civil Service Act would block the federal government from creating or using a new excepted-service category like Schedule F, the Trump-era plan designed to move certain policy-related federal jobs out of the traditional civil service system. In simple terms, the bill tries to stop a future administration from reclassifying career employees into a category with fewer job protections and then removing them more easily.
The bill does this by freezing the allowable excepted-service schedules to the ones that existed on September 30, 2020 — schedules A through E under current federal personnel rules. That means agencies could not create a new schedule outside that framework, and they could not shift jobs into some new category built to bypass normal hiring and firing protections. It also says agencies need advance approval from the Office of Personnel Management before moving any occupied job into Schedule C, which is generally used for confidential or policy-related positions.
It also puts numerical and procedural limits on moving workers out of the competitive service. During a presidential term, an agency could transfer no more than 1% of its workforce — or five employees, whichever is greater — from the competitive service into the excepted service. On top of that, employees would generally have to give written consent before their job is moved from the competitive service into the excepted service, or from one excepted-service schedule to another.
Politically, this is a direct response to long-running fights over the independence of the federal workforce. Backers argue that expert civil servants should not be turned into at-will political employees when administrations change. The bill does not create new spending or a new program; instead, it rewrites the guardrails around how federal jobs can be classified. Its real impact would be on presidential personnel power, agency flexibility, and the stability of the career bureaucracy.
What does H.R. 492 do?
Blocks any new Schedule F-style category
The bill says competitive-service jobs can only be moved into excepted-service schedules A through E as those schedules existed on September 30, 2020, shutting the door on creating a new category like Schedule F.
Limits moving jobs between excepted-service schedules
Agencies could not shift excepted-service positions into any schedule outside the preexisting A through E framework.
Requires OPM approval for Schedule C moves
An agency would need prior approval from the Office of Personnel Management before moving any occupied job into Schedule C, a category often tied to confidential or policy roles.
Caps how many workers can be reclassified
Over a four-year presidential term, an agency could move no more than 1% of its workforce — or five employees, whichever is greater — from the competitive service into the excepted service.
Requires employee written consent
Workers would have to agree in writing before their job could be moved from the competitive service into the excepted service or from one excepted-service schedule to another.
Applies to certain VA medical personnel too
The bill says these limits also apply to positions under chapters 73 and 74 of Title 38, covering many Veterans Affairs health care workers, despite other law that might normally exempt them.
Who benefits from H.R. 492?
Career federal employees
They would have stronger protection against being reclassified into jobs with fewer civil service safeguards and easier firing rules.
Federal employee unions and retiree groups
The bill advances their goal of preserving a professional, nonpartisan civil service insulated from political turnover.
Veterans Affairs clinicians and health staff covered by Title 38
Many VA medical employees would gain the same anti-reclassification protections spelled out for the rest of the federal workforce.
Future administrations that want workforce stability
A president who prefers continuity in government operations would inherit stronger legal guardrails against large-scale personnel upheaval.
Who is affected by H.R. 492?
The White House and future presidents
Their ability to quickly reclassify policy-related federal workers into less-protected categories would be sharply limited.
Federal agencies and department leadership
They would face tighter rules, approval requirements, and numerical caps when trying to move positions between civil service categories.
Office of Personnel Management
OPM would gain a larger gatekeeping role because agencies would need its consent before certain transfers into Schedule C.
Political appointees managing agency staffing
They would have less room to reshape the career workforce through reclassification and would need employee consent in many cases.
H.R. 492 Common Questions
Can a president create a new Schedule F under the Saving the Civil Service Act?
No. Under the Saving the Civil Service Act (Section 2(a)), competitive-service jobs could only be placed in excepted-service schedules A through E as those rules existed on September 30, 2020.
How much of an agency's workforce can be moved to excepted service under HR 492?
According to H.R. 492 Section 2(b)(3), an agency could transfer no more than 1% of its workforce as of the first day of a presidential term, or 5 employees, whichever is greater, during that 4-year term.
Does HR 492 require employee consent before a federal job is reclassified?
Yes. Under the Saving the Civil Service Act (Section 2(b)(4)), an employee's prior written consent is required before moving a job from the competitive service to the excepted service.
Does moving a federal job into Schedule C need OPM approval?
Yes. Under the Saving the Civil Service Act (Section 2(b)(2)), an agency needs prior consent from the OPM Director before transferring an occupied position into Schedule C.
Which excepted-service schedules are allowed under the Saving the Civil Service Act?
Only schedules A through E are allowed, using the criteria and conditions that were in effect on September 30, 2020, under the Saving the Civil Service Act (Section 2(a)).
Can agencies move employees from one excepted-service schedule to another without permission?
No. Under the Saving the Civil Service Act (Section 2(b)(4)), an employee must give prior written consent before being moved from one excepted-service schedule to a different one.
Can agencies transfer excepted-service positions into a schedule outside A through E?
No. According to H.R. 492 Section 2(b)(1), positions already in the excepted service cannot be transferred to any schedule other than schedules A through E.
Does the Saving the Civil Service Act apply to VA doctors and nurses under Title 38?
Yes. Under the Saving the Civil Service Act (Section 2(c)(1)), the limits apply to positions under chapters 73 and 74 of title 38, including many VA health care jobs, despite section 7425(b).
What date does HR 492 use to freeze federal excepted-service rules?
H.R. 492 freezes the relevant schedules A through E rules to those in effect on September 30, 2020, under Section 2(a).
Does HR 492 require OPM to issue regulations to enforce the new reclassification limits?
Yes. According to H.R. 492 Section 2(c)(2), the OPM Director must issue regulations to implement these limits on excepting and transferring positions.
Based on H.R. 492 bill text
HR492 Legislative Journey
House: Introduced
Sep 16, 2025
ASSUMING FIRST SPONSORSHIP - Mr. Walkinshaw asked unanimous consent that he may hereafter be considered as the first sponsor of H.R. 492, a bill originally introduced by Representative Connolly, for the purpose of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII. Agreed to without objection.
House: Committee Action
Jan 16, 2025
Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Cosponsors (98)
This bill has 98 cosponsors: 94 Democrats, 4 Republicans. Cosponsors represent 34 states: Alabama, Arizona, California, and 31 more.
Brian Fitzpatrick
Republican · PA
Kweisi Mfume
Democrat · MD
Don Bacon
Republican · NE
Donald Beyer
Democrat · VA
Eugene Vindman
Democrat · VA
Eleanor Norton
Democrat · DC
Eric Sorensen
Democrat · IL
Sarah Elfreth
Democrat · MD
Julia Brownley
Democrat · CA
Jamie Raskin
Democrat · MD
Diana DeGette
Democrat · CO
Mary Scanlon
Democrat · PA
Committee Sponsors
Oversight and Government Reform Committee
12 of 46 committee members cosponsored
9 Democrats across this committee haven't cosponsored yet. Mobilize their constituents
H.R. 492 Quick Facts
- Committee
- Oversight and Government Reform
- Chamber
- House
- Policy
- Government Operations and Politics
- Introduced
- Jan 16, 2025
ASSUMING FIRST SPONSORSHIP - Mr. Walkinshaw asked unanimous consent that he may hereafter be considered as the first sponsor of H.R. 492, a bill originally introduced by Representative Connolly, for the purpose of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII. Agreed to without objection.
Sep 16, 2025
Who is lobbying on H.R. 492?
9 organizations lobbying on this bill
AMERICAN FED OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES AFL-CIO | 7 |
NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION | 4 |
FEDERAL MANAGERS ASSOCIATION | 4 |
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES | 3 |
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS | 3 |
SENIOR EXECUTIVES ASSOCIATION | 3 |
PROFESSIONAL MANAGERS ASSOCIATION | 3 |
DEPARTMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES AFL-CIO | 3 |
NATIONAL ACTIVE AND RETIRED FEDERAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION | 2 |
Showing 1-9 of 9 organizations
H.R. 492 Bill Text
“To prohibit the establishment of schedule F of the excepted service, and for other purposes.”
Source: U.S. Government Publishing Office
Get notified when H.R. 492 moves
Committee votes, floor action, cosponsor changes — straight to your inbox.
Bill alerts + Legisletter's monthly briefing. Unsubscribe anytime.
Government Operations and Politics Bills
9 related bills we're tracking
Protect Our Letter Carriers Act of 2025
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Feb 6, 2025
Rights for the TSA Workforce Act
Referred to the Subcommittee on Transportation and Maritime Security.
Mar 11, 2025
Fair Pay for Federal Contractors Act of 2025
Referred to the Committee on Appropriations, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Sep 30, 2025
SAVE Act
Received in the Senate.
Apr 10, 2025
Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2025
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Aug 5, 2025
Designation of English as the Official Language of the United States Act of 2025
Referred to the Committee on Education and Workforce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Mar 3, 2025
Deliver for Democracy Act
Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Mar 14, 2025
Veterans Accessibility Advisory Committee Act of 2025
Message on House action received in Senate and at desk: House amendment to Senate bill.
Feb 12, 2026
Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2025
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Sep 18, 2025
Trending Right Now
Bills gaining momentum across Congress
Federal Extreme Risk Protection Order Act of 2026
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Feb 17, 2026
ALERT Act
Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Feb 20, 2026
Fair Housing for Survivors Act of 2026
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Mar 5, 2026
Tracking Government Operations and Politics in Congress? Monitor bills, track cosponsor momentum, and launch advocacy campaigns — all from one advocacy platform.