Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This bipartisan amendment is the Preventing a Patronage System Act, H.R. 302, which was reported from the House Committee on Oversight…
Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This bipartisan amendment is the Preventing a Patronage System Act, H.R. 302, which was reported from the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, and which also passed the House as Title 12 of the Protecting Our Democracy Act.
The Preventing a Patronage System Act is prompted by attempts to eliminate expertise and acumen from our civilian civil service.
Since the inception of the civil service system in 1883 with the Pendleton Act, administrations have acted to create formal exceptions to the competitive service only five times.
These excepted service categories are created for limited positions that require unique hiring or operating rules, like for positions of a short-term political nature or positions in remote areas, or where there is a critical, technical hiring need so great that competitive civil service rules cannot meet the need.
In these limited cases, individuals hired into positions classified in excepted service are not vested with certain civil service appeal rights because they have not undergone the required competitive hiring process.
On October 21, 2020, the then President signed executive order 13957 to create a sixth and broad excepted service schedule, a new schedule, Schedule F.
This order undermined the merit system principles of our Federal workforce by requiring agency heads to reclassify broadly policy- determining,
policymaking, or policy-advocating positions to a newly created Schedule F category, removing the appeal rights of affected Federal employees.
One agency alone, the Office of Management and Budget, planned to reclassify 400 positions to Schedule F. That is 80 percent of its workforce.
On January 22, 2021, as one of the President's first executive orders, Executive Order 14003 revoked the creation of Schedule F.
The danger remains, however, that a future President could attempt to erode the foundation of our merit system principles, over 140 years old, by resurrecting something similar to a Schedule F.
The Preventing a Patronage Act stems from a bipartisan provision that would freeze Federal employee reclassifications to the five existing excepted service schedules in use prior to fiscal year 2021.
This amendment preserves congressional roles and prerogatives in determining which Federal employees are vested with civil service protections and which are not. Future administrations would simply be required to come to Congress for statutory authority before making sweeping changes to the Federal workforce.
This amendment seeks to preserve core principles of our civil service, the expertise and not political loyalty of our workforce.
The provision is endorsed by the American Federation of Government Employees, the National Treasury Employees Union, the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association, the Senior Executives Association, the National Federation of Federal Employees, and many other unions and good government groups.
I am proud this bipartisan amendment is cosponsored by my Republican friend from Pennsylvania, Brian Fitzpatrick.
Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, my friend from Georgia has it all wrong. He is right about the will of the people, but the will of the people does not elect a tyrant, a dictator, or a king. They elect a President to preside who is subject to the careful checks and balances of the Constitution of the United States.
For 140 years, this Congress, after passing the Pendleton Act, has insisted that our civil service should not be partisan. In fact, we passed the Hatch Act to regulate their political activities, unlike any other American, to ensure that the American people get fair, unbiased, and nonpartisan service from their public servants.
Schedule F that was proposed by the previous President upturned that and if it had been implemented fully, it would have politicized the civil service in an unprecedented way that would have returned us to the spoils system of the 19th century. That is what we are doing here.
The second thing we are doing, which my friend may or may not care about but many of us do, is to reassert the role of Congress, irrespective of who is in the White House.
Any President must come to this body before he or she proposes to create a new Cabinet office, dissolve an existing one, or change it fundamentally. That is what this simple amendment does. It is a bipartisan amendment. I urge its adoption.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support amendment 495, an amendment that cuts red tape and removes burdensome requirements placed on art in embassies abroad; an amendment, by the way, that was offered by my Republican friends at last year's NDAA. That is why we are here tonight.
The Art in Embassies Program is a public-private partnership that exhibits American art in our diplomatic outposts throughout the world. The program engages over 20,000 participants globally, including artists, museums, galleries, universities, and private collectors and encompasses over 200 venues in 189 countries.
The program has promoted cultural diplomacy through art by way of artist exchanges and programs exhibiting a diverse group of American artists and international artists and artists from the host countries.
For example, in 2019, the African-American experience was the central focus of the AIE exhibit in Kigali, an exhibit that featured works by a number of African-American artists.
The Art in Embassies Program has a long track record of advancing U.S. public diplomacy through temporary and permanent art exhibits, publications, and cultural exchanges.
The Museum of Modern Art, MOMA, first envisioned this global visual arts program in 1953. President John F. Kennedy, who understood the value of art in diplomacy, formalized it as an important tool for our State Department back in 1963.
Unfortunately, the 2021 legislation placed unnecessary and repetitive reporting requirements on the program that threaten its viability. It limits the purchase to $25,000, and anything above that has to come to Congress for review.
These requirements require Congress to review all art that is purchased for the Art in Embassies Program beyond that limit. That places a tedious and gratuitous strain on our ability to run the program at all.
These attacks on cultural exchange programs are not new. Sadly, in the 1940s, in sort of a red scare moment in the United States, Members of Congress attempted to defund and delegitimize the works of modern American artists across the board.
The Art in Embassies Program not only showcases our fundamental respect for the basic right to free expression, pluralistic beliefs, and American creativity, it is also an important tool for the United States to advance our public diplomacy priorities and support influential cultural exchanges.
This simple amendment would sunset the requirement 1 year early from the 2-year sunset that is provided in the current law.
Maya Freelon Asante, an artist who has participated in the Arts in Embassies cultural exchanges, recently said it best: ``Art used as a form of cultural diplomacy is more important now than ever because art can transcend language and cultural barriers and helps us focus on positive and peaceful alliances.''
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, the intolerance we just heard, referring to this amendment as ridiculous, coupled with the admission by the gentleman from Tennessee that he wants congressional review so that it is zero.
Art is a powerful tool fighting war. Look at Picasso's Guernica; maybe the most evocative anti-war painting ever.
I was in Madrid for the NATO Summit where I spoke about war and peace to the heads of state at NATO just 2 weeks ago. I visited the Prado, and I looked at one of the most powerful pictures I've ever seen by Goya about Napoleonic occupation of his homeland, Spain. He witnessed that horror, and he depicted it, and it drove him almost into madness, what he witnessed.
Maybe my friend thinks that art ought to be zero, but I believe millions of Americans would disagree, and so do I.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment and not to go the route of zero art in America, and I yield back the balance of my time.