PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 27, 2012
Senior Executive Service Reform Act of 2012 - Amends provisions of federal law relating to the Senior Executive Service (SES) to: (1) reduce from 25% to 15% the number of SES positions at the start of each fiscal year that may be filled by noncareer appointees; (2) require the head of each federal agency to create a position of assistant secretary for administration or management and appoint a career SES employee to fill such position; and (3) require agency heads to appoint career SES employees to positions with direct responsibility for agency-wide functions in acquisition, information technology, and human resources.
Requires each federal agency to: (1) evaluate any SES position that becomes vacant to determine the skills and qualifications necessary for the position, (2) ensure that vacant positions are open for a reasonable period of time and that application requirements are streamlined, (3) ensure that applicants for a vacant position receive timely notification of the status of their application, and (4) take steps to strengthen candidate development programs to prepare aspiring leaders for the SES.
Prohibits the use of quotas or forced distribution of ratings for performance appraisals. Provides for annual pay adjustments for senior executives and other senior employees rated at the fully successful level or higher.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Includes executive performance awards and bonuses in basic pay for purposes of calculating retirement annuities.
Requires a written explanation for an SES performance rating if such rating is lowered from the initial recommendation.
Requires: (1) the Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to establish a Senior Executive Service Resource Office in OPM to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and productivity of the SES and its hiring process, advance its professionalism, and promote diversity; (2) senior executives appointed to the SES to create an executive development plan that includes continuing development, training, and mentoring goals; and (3) agency heads to oversee the establishment of an onboarding program to provide new SES appointees an overview of their role and responsibilities, the agency's mission, priorities, and strategic plan, and SES rules and regulations. Allows agencies to establish a rotation program for career SES appointees.
Requires each federal agency to: (1) incorporate in its executive performance plans an objective for holding executives accountable for addressing employee satisfaction; and (2) submit a plan to OPM to enhance and maximize opportunities in SES for the advancement and appointment of minorities, women, and individuals with disabilities.
People & committees
Rep. Moran, James P. [D-VA-8] · D–VA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1152)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.6042 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.6042 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.6042 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.6042 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.