This bill restricts agencies’ ability to move positions out of the competitive service by freezing the categories and rules governing exceptions to those that existed on September 30, 2020, and by imposing several new procedural limits. It bars creating new exception pathways, requires Office of Personnel Management (OPM) approval for occupied transfers into Schedule C, and mandates employee written consent for transfers between competitive and excepted services.
Why it matters: the measure is a direct attempt to curb the expansion of political and non-competitive appointments and to restore a fixed procedural baseline for exceptions. For agency leaders, HR professionals, and OPM, it replaces managerial discretion with statutory ceilings, reporting duties, and tighter legal guardrails that will change how agencies reclassify, recruit, and place staff.
At a Glance
What It Does
It locks in schedules A–E and the Part 6 procedures as of Sept. 30, 2020, as the only allowable exception pathways, forbids transfers into other excepted schedules, and requires OPM sign-off before moving occupied positions into Schedule C. The bill also caps the number of competitive-to-excepted transfers during any presidential term and requires prior written employee consent.
Who It Affects
Federal departments and agencies that use excepted hiring authorities; OPM and its Director, who gain explicit consent and reporting roles; agency HR offices that implement hires, reassignments, and reclassifications; and current competitive-service and excepted-service employees (including VA staff under titles 38 chapters 73 and 74).
Why It Matters
It reasserts statutory constraints over an area largely governed by regulation, reducing scope for agencies to expand noncompetitive hiring or shift career slots into politically accountable excepted categories. The bill increases transparency through annual reporting and makes OPM the gatekeeper for key transfers.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill starts by defining basic terms—'agency,' 'competitive service,' 'Director' (OPM), and 'excepted service'—to make clear it applies across the executive branch. Its core constraint is chronological: only the exception schedules A through E, and the Part 6 terms and conditions of 5 CFR as they existed on September 30, 2020, may be used to justify excluding a position from the competitive service.
Practically, that prevents agencies from relying on any new schedules or Part 6 amendments adopted after that date to create fresh noncompetitive pathways.
On transfers, the bill draws tighter lines. It forbids moving a position in the excepted service into a different excepted schedule except those A–E routes preserved by the Sept. 30, 2020 baseline.
Agencies must get prior written consent from the OPM Director before transferring any occupied position into Schedule C (the common political appointment track). For the duration of any four-year presidential term, each agency may convert competitive-service positions to excepted-service status only up to the greater of 1% of the agency’s workforce at the start of the term or five employees—an explicit numerical cap intended to limit large-scale reclassifications in a single administration.The bill also protects employees: it requires prior written consent before moving someone from competitive to excepted service, or between excepted schedules.
It applies these requirements to veterans’ health system positions under chapters 73 and 74 of title 38, so VA-specific hiring authorities cannot be used to evade the statute. To improve transparency and enforcement, OPM must file an annual March 15 report listing every competitive-to-excepted transfer and any violations, and the Director must issue implementing regulations within 90 days of enactment to operationalize these limits.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill fixes the regulatory baseline: only exception schedules A–E and Part 6 terms as they stood on September 30, 2020, may be used to except positions from the competitive service.
OPM Director’s prior consent is required before an agency may transfer any occupied position into Schedule C (5 CFR part 213, subpart C).
During any four-year presidential term, each agency can convert competitive-service positions to excepted service only up to the greater of 1% of its workforce at the term’s start or five employees.
No employee may be moved from the competitive service into the excepted service, nor shifted between excepted schedules, without the employee’s prior written consent.
OPM must submit an annual report to Congress (by March 15) listing every competitive-to-excepted transfer and any statutory violations, and must issue implementing regulations within 90 days of enactment.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Designates the act as the 'Saving the Civil Service Act.' This is purely nominative but signals the bill’s intent to protect merit hiring norms.
Definitions
Defines 'agency,' 'competitive service,' 'Director' (meaning the OPM Director), and 'excepted service' by cross-reference to title 5. These simple definitions ensure the limitations reach the full executive branch and align with existing statutory terms.
Freeze of allowable exception pathways
Prohibits excepting competitive-service positions except by placing them in schedules A–E as described in 5 CFR 6.2 and under the Part 6 procedures that existed on Sept. 30, 2020. The practical effect is to bar agencies from relying on any exception schedule or Part 6 modification adopted after that date to justify noncompetitive placement.
Transfer controls and caps
Contains multiple transfer limits: (1) an excepted-service position cannot be moved into any schedule other than those A–E ones preserved by the baseline; (2) agencies need OPM’s prior consent to move an occupied position into Schedule C; (3) during any presidential 4‑year term, conversions from competitive to excepted service are capped at the greater of 1% of the agency workforce (measured at the start of the term) or five employees; and (4) employees must give written consent for moves between services or excepted schedules. These mechanics combine numerical ceilings, a gatekeeper role for OPM, and individual consent as a check on managerial reclassification.
Application to VA and annual reporting
Specifically applies the section to positions under chapters 73 and 74 of title 38 (VA practitioner and related authorities), closing a potential loophole that could have exempted VA hires. It also mandates an annual OPM report to Congress by March 15—listing each competitive-to-excepted transfer and justifications and disclosing any violations—creating a recurring transparency and accountability requirement.
Implementation regulations
Directs the OPM Director to issue implementing regulations within 90 days of enactment, requiring OPM to translate the statutory constraints into operational guidance and compliance processes in a tight window.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Career competitive‑service employees — They gain greater insulation from reclassification into noncompetitive schedules and an express right to refuse moves to excepted service, which increases job stability and protects merit-based hiring.
- OPM and congressional oversight — OPM receives explicit gatekeeper authority over Schedule C transfers and an annual reporting duty, strengthening central oversight and giving Congress a regular compliance feed.
- Employee unions and employee advocates — The written‑consent requirement and numerical caps create procedural protections unions can use to resist politicized reassignments and to enforce merit principles.
- Veterans and VA clinicians in titles 38 chapters 73/74 — Because the bill expressly covers these VA positions, it limits ad hoc reclassifications that could disrupt continuity of care or veteran-preference protections.
Who Bears the Cost
- Agency leadership and political appointees — The Schedule C consent requirement and caps reduce managerial flexibility to staff policy positions quickly and may shrink the pool of politically aligned hires.
- Agency HR offices — They must implement new consent processes, track caps against workforce baselines, prepare the documentation for OPM sign-off, and potentially manage appeals or disputes, increasing administrative work.
- OPM operational units — OPM must write 90‑day regulations, process consent and transfer requests, and compile annual reports, expanding its enforcement and administrative load without explicit funding in the text.
- Programs requiring specialized hiring authorities — Agencies that rely on new or expanded excepted pathways (e.g., for cybersecurity, emergency hires, or novel mission needs) will face constraints that may force use of contractors or temporary workarounds.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill balances two legitimate goals that pull in opposite directions: safeguarding the merit system and insulating career jobs from politicized reclassification versus preserving agencies’ ability to staff rapidly and flexibly for mission needs; a strict statutory baseline and transfer caps reduce political influence but also constrain legitimate staffing reforms and emergency response options.
The bill’s fix‑the‑date approach removes regulatory flexibility by making the landscape of allowable exceptions static as of Sept. 30, 2020. That simplicity aids oversight but can freeze obsolete or inadequate authorities in place and block future, potentially necessary, administrative innovations in hiring for evolving mission needs (for example, rapid technical hiring or emergency surge authority).
Agencies could respond by reclassifying work, relying more on temporary appointments or contractors, or pursuing narrow statutory exceptions, each with different policy consequences.
Operationally, the 90‑day deadline for OPM regulations is tight. OPM must define consent procedures, submission standards for Schedule C approvals, and metrics to calculate the 1% workforce cap.
Ambiguities—such as whether separations, hires, or transfers after the term start affect the 1% denominator, or how to treat dual-status or part‑time employees—could prompt litigation. The employee consent rule protects workers but can complicate reorganizations and impede managerial moves during emergencies.
Finally, enforcement hinges on OPM’s reporting and willingness to act; the statute creates transparency but relies on OPM capacity and Congress’s appetite to follow up.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.