Floor SpeechNeutral2024-12-17

WILDLIFE INNOVATION AND LONGEVITY DRIVER REAUTHORIZATION ACT--Continued

HealthcareTaxesEnvironmentForeign PolicyTradeSocial SecurityVeteransInfrastructureEthics

Context

On 2024-12-17, Senator Mark R. Warner (D-VA) delivered a floor speech titled "WILDLIFE INNOVATION AND LONGEVITY DRIVER REAUTHORIZATION ACT--Continued" in the Senate. The speech addressed healthcare and also covered taxes, the environment. It referenced legislation including S7070, S7078, S399, among other bills.

Full Text

WILDLIFE INNOVATION AND LONGEVITY DRIVER REAUTHORIZATION ACT--Continued

Congressional Record, Volume 170 Issue 187 (Tuesday, December 17, 2024) [Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 187 (Tuesday, December 17, 2024)] [Senate] [Pages S7070-S7078] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] WILDLIFE INNOVATION AND LONGEVITY DRIVER REAUTHORIZATION ACT--Continued The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia. Unanimous Consent Request--S. 399 Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senator Kaine's request for unanimous consent for the Senate to pass the Saving the Civil Service Act. It is a critical bill that I hope all my colleagues would agree needs to be enshrined into law. One of the great strengths of our democracy is that we have an independent, merit-based civil service. Back in the 19th century, we saw what happens when you had a Federal workforce that was made up of a system of spoils and political patronage. So the Congress, back in 1883, said: We ought to put in place an independent civil service. That has been the law of the land for the last 150 years. Virtually every other industrial nation in the world has modeled their independent workforce after the American model. We have 2 million Federal employees across the country. Virginia has 147,000. There are close to that many in Maryland and in the District, but they are all over. Senator Hirono mentioned earlier Hawaii has some of the highest concentration. Senator Kaine's bill, which we are all proud to be cosponsoring, would simply say: Let's not break that system. The idea--and the incoming President has said he wants this--to make and get rid of a merit-based civil service is, in my mind, beyond comprehension. Do you really want that nurse at the VA hospital, that the first criteria we are looking for is who did she vote for as opposed to whether she knows nursing; or that air traffic controller that says: Well, I may have been politically active for an unpopular candidate, so I am going to get fired? Or, more likely, one of the things that we have seen that has been a strength of our system: The independent economist at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Presidents of each party get mad when their numbers come out each month because those numbers are independently verified. Do you want to fire all those folks and put in political loyalists? The rest of the world would run from that, and it would, frankly, undermine the reserved nature of the U.S. dollar as the currency of the backbone of the world, if we are cooking the books on our economic numbers. There are a host of other examples that we could go almost category by category. I can tell you, the vast majority of Federal workers whom I interact with, most of them could actually have done better in the private sector. They do this work because of that sense of public service. And if you get rid of a merit-based system and do it all for political patronage, who is going to actually join that kind of government on a going-forward basis? This would undermine our economy, undermine our security, and obviously undermine the ability of the American people to get a fair administration of government services. With that, I am going to yield to my good friend, the Senator from Maryland Senator Van Hollen. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland. Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from Virginia Senator Warner, who just addressed this very important issue, and my friend and colleague, the other Virginia Senator, Senator Kaine, who is making the motion today that we pass his Saving the Civil Service Act. This is a critical piece of legislation to protect one of America's best innovations, which is the idea of a nonpartisan, merit-based Federal workforce--one that serves all Americans, regardless of political affiliation; one where you don't take a political test to decide whether you have the credentials for the job; you take a skills- based, knowledge-based test to decide if you are best for the job. Our Federal workers are the air traffic controllers who ensure safe passage when Americans fly; they are the inspectors who protect our food supply; they are the folks who determine whether or not medicines put on the market are going to be both safe and do what they say they are going to do; they are the folks at the Social Security Administration in Baltimore City who make sure that people get their Social Security checks on time; they are the nurses and doctors at veterans hospitals who help our veterans; and many, many other essential functions. Today, the only criteria for their employment is performance. It is what they know, not who they know. They are qualified to serve based on those credentials, and they do a good job protecting the American public. And they serve in those jobs regardless of what President is in the White House and what party that President may belong to. Their duty is to serve the American people. So why are we here on the floor? Because the incoming administration has threatened to change the longtime practice of making sure we have a merit-based civil service. At the very end of the last Trump administration, they proposed something called schedule F, which would allow them to convert merit- based positions into politically based positions--in other words, substituting political cronies for qualified merit-based Federal employees. That is a recipe for corruption. Our predecessors, a long time ago, recognized that. That is why, back in 1883, the Congress passed the Pendleton Act to create the merit- based civil service. Prior to that, we had a spoils system, where people who worked on campaigns thought that they could get any job they wanted, regardless of their qualifications, because of their political party label. In fact, the reason we ended up getting the Pendleton Act--one of them--was that, in 1881, one of those people, who had worked on a political campaign and thought they should have gotten a job and didn't, assassinated President Garfield. So at that time, the country was shaken, and they said: We have to get rid of the spoils system and replace it with a merit-based system. I want to just make two other points because the incoming administration, as I said, tried this schedule F idea at the end of the last administration. This time, they are talking about doing it near the beginning of this incoming administration, which is why we are here on the floor today trying to take this action to prevent that from happening. I want to point out that Presidents have about 4,000 political positions to fill. We are talking about the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State. Presidents have the discretion already--the power today--to nominate people for those 4,000 positions. So we are not talking about taking that away. We are saying: You can't convert thousands of other positions that today are based on merit into those political type of jobs. Finally, we have heard a lot about the need for more government efficiency, and count me in. Count all of our colleagues from Virginia and Maryland and I think probably both sides of the aisle in on the idea of trying to make sure that we achieve greater efficiencies in government. But I will not support and we will not support something that, under the cover of the claim of government efficiency, is simply a Trojan horse to undo our merit-based system and turn it into one based on political cronyism because that leads to corruption, which will erode the public's confidence and erode the quality of service that our Federal civil servants provide. So I want to again thank my colleague from Virginia Senator Kaine for all he has done. I want to thank my colleague from Maryland Senator Cardin, who has also been a great partner in this. I yield to the Senator from Virginia Senator Kaine. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia. Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleagues Senator Warner and Senator Van Hollen. We just had a press conference where Senator Cardin and Senator Hirono also came to speak about the importance of this issue. As everybody knows--you learned this in civics in grade school-- officials in the United States swear loyalty not to the President but to the Constitution of the United States. Under the Constitution, Congress passes laws, and the President enforces them. But from the beginning days of our country, the President can't do all the [[Page S7071]] enforcement and implementation on his or her own; it is too big a job for an individual. In a big and complex country, you need people whose whole job might be enforcing a particular law--say inspecting a meat- processing plant. You need people to make sure planes don't crash into each other at airports, people to prosecute anybody running a scam to cheat the elderly out of their life savings, people to bust tax cheats or catch somebody dumping toxic chemicals into a stream, in violation of the Clean Water Act. Federal employees do all these things. They work to ensure that critical resources and services are provided in countless communities across America. They work to keep Social Security up and running, manage veterans' benefits, research medical diseases, and develop cures and vaccines. Enforcing the law and running government requires people who are duty-bound to enforce the laws enacted by Congress and to obey the lawful orders of the President, all subject to the overriding duty to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. But we swear fealty to that Constitution, not to a person. Early in the Republic, as my colleague indicated--Senator Van Hollen--the executive branch operated under what is known as the spoil system, as in the expression ``to the victor go the spoils.'' But there quickly arose an obvious problem: If the people who enforce American laws answer only to the President, then if you are on the President's team, they go easy on you, and if you are against the President, they bring Federal law d

Referenced legislation: S399, S399

View original source →

WILDLIFE INNOVATION AND LONGEVITY DRIVER REAUTHORIZATION ACT--Continued Congressional Record, Volume 170 Issue 187 (Tuesday, December 17, 2024) [Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 187 (Tuesday, December 17, 2024)] [Senate] [Pages S7070-S7078] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] WILDLIFE INNOVATION AND LONGEVITY DRIVER REAUTHORIZATION ACT--Continued The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia. Unanimous Consent Request--S. 399 Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senator Kaine's request for unanimous consent for the Senate to pass the Saving the Civil Service Act. It is a critical bill that I hope all my colleagues would agree needs to be enshrined into law. One of the great strengths of our democracy is that we have an independent, merit-based civil service. Back in the 19th century, we saw what happens when you had a Federal workforce that was made up of a system of spoils and political patronage. So the Congress, back in 1883, said: We ought to put in place an independent civil service. That has been the law of the land for the last 150 years. Virtually every other industrial nation in the world has modeled their independent workforce after the American model. We have 2 million Federal employees across the country. Virginia has 147,000. There are close to that many in Maryland and in the District, but they are all over. Senator Hirono mentioned earlier Hawaii has some of the highest concentration. Senator Kaine's bill, which we are all proud to be cosponsoring, would simply say: Let's not break that system. The idea--and the incoming President has said he wants this--to make and get rid of a merit-based civil service is, in my mind, beyond comprehension. Do you really want that nurse at the VA hospital, that the first criteria we are looking for is who did she vote for as opposed to whether she knows nursing; or that air traffic controller that says: Well, I may have been politically active for an unpopular candidate, so I am going to get fired? Or, more likely, one of the things that we have seen that has been a strength of our system: The independent economist at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Presidents of each party get mad when their numbers come out each month because those numbers are independently verified. Do you want to fire all those folks and put in political loyalists? The rest of the world would run from that, and it would, frankly, undermine the reserved nature of the U.S. dollar as the currency of the backbone of the world, if we are cooking the books on our economic numbers. There are a host of other examples that we could go almost category by category. I can tell you, the vast majority of Federal workers whom I interact with, most of them could actually have done better in the private sector. They do this work because of that sense of public service. And if you get rid of a merit-based system and do it all for political patronage, who is going to actually join that kind of government on a going-forward basis? This would undermine our economy, undermine our security, and obviously undermine the ability of the American people to get a fair administration of government services. With that, I am going to yield to my good friend, the Senator from Maryland Senator Van Hollen. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland. Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from Virginia Senator Warner, who just addressed this very important issue, and my friend and colleague, the other Virginia Senator, Senator Kaine, who is making the motion today that we pass his Saving the Civil Service Act. This is a critical piece of legislation to protect one of America's best innovations, which is the idea of a nonpartisan, merit-based Federal workforce--one that serves all Americans, regardless of political affiliation; one where you don't take a political test to decide whether you have the credentials for the job; you take a skills- based, knowledge-based test to decide if you are best for the job. Our Federal workers are the air traffic controllers who ensure safe passage when Americans fly; they are the inspectors who protect our food supply; they are the folks who determine whether or not medicines put on the market are going to be both safe and do what they say they are going to do; they are the folks at the Social Security Administration in Baltimore City who make sure that people get their Social Security checks on time; they are the nurses and doctors at veterans hospitals who help our veterans; and many, many other essential functions. Today, the only criteria for their employment is performance. It is what they know, not who they know. They are qualified to serve based on those credentials, and they do a good job protecting the American public. And they serve in those jobs regardless of what President is in the White House and what party that President may belong to. Their duty is to serve the American people. So why are we here on the floor? Because the incoming administration has threatened to change the longtime practice of making sure we have a merit-based civil service. At the very end of the last Trump administration, they proposed something called schedule F, which would allow them to convert merit- based positions into politically based positions--in other words, substituting political cronies for qualified merit-based Federal employees. That is a recipe for corruption. Our predecessors, a long time ago, recognized that. That is why, back in 1883, the Congress passed the Pendleton Act to create the merit- based civil service. Prior to that, we had a spoils system, where people who worked on campaigns thought that they could get any job they wanted, regardless of their qualifications, because of their political party label. In fact, the reason we ended up getting the Pendleton Act--one of them--was that, in 1881, one of those people, who had worked on a political campaign and thought they should have gotten a job and didn't, assassinated President Garfield. So at that time, the country was shaken, and they said: We have to get rid of the spoils system and replace it with a merit-based system. I want to just make two other points because the incoming administration, as I said, tried this schedule F idea at the end of the last administration. This time, they are talking about doing it near the beginning of this incoming administration, which is why we are here on the floor today trying to take this action to prevent that from happening. I want to point out that Presidents have about 4,000 political positions to fill. We are talking about the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State. Presidents have the discretion already--the power today--to nominate people for those 4,000 positions. So we are not talking about taking that away. We are saying: You can't convert thousands of other positions that today are based on merit into those political type of jobs. Finally, we have heard a lot about the need for more government efficiency, and count me in. Count all of our colleagues from Virginia and Maryland and I think probably both sides of the aisle in on the idea of trying to make sure that we achieve greater efficiencies in government. But I will not support and we will not support something that, under the cover of the claim of government efficiency, is simply a Trojan horse to undo our merit-based system and turn it into one based on political cronyism because that leads to corruption, which will erode the public's confidence and erode the quality of service that our Federal civil servants provide. So I want to again thank my colleague from Virginia Senator Kaine for all he has done. I want to thank my colleague from Maryland Senator Cardin, who has also been a great partner in this. I yield to the Senator from Virginia Senator Kaine. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia. Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleagues Senator Warner and Senator Van Hollen. We just had a press conference where Senator Cardin and Senator Hirono also came to speak about the importance of this issue. As everybody knows--you learned this in civics in grade school-- officials in the United States swear loyalty not to the President but to the Constitution of the United States. Under the Constitution, Congress passes laws, and the President enforces them. But from the beginning days of our country, the President can't do all the [[Page S7071]] enforcement and implementation on his or her own; it is too big a job for an individual. In a big and complex country, you need people whose whole job might be enforcing a particular law--say inspecting a meat- processing plant. You need people to make sure planes don't crash into each other at airports, people to prosecute anybody running a scam to cheat the elderly out of their life savings, people to bust tax cheats or catch somebody dumping toxic chemicals into a stream, in violation of the Clean Water Act. Federal employees do all these things. They work to ensure that critical resources and services are provided in countless communities across America. They work to keep Social Security up and running, manage veterans' benefits, research medical diseases, and develop cures and vaccines. Enforcing the law and running government requires people who are duty-bound to enforce the laws enacted by Congress and to obey the lawful orders of the President, all subject to the overriding duty to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. But we swear fealty to that Constitution, not to a person. Early in the Republic, as my colleague indicated--Senator Van Hollen--the executive branch operated under what is known as the spoil system, as in the expression ``to the victor go the spoils.'' But there quickly arose an obvious problem: If the people who enforce American laws answer only to the President, then if you are on the President's team, they go easy on you, and if you are against the President, they bring Federal law d Referenced legislation: S399, S399