We are occasionally blessed with legislation that is written brief and to the point. As we wade into appropriation and authorization bills running up to the end of the fiscal year we are exposed to bills written in many pages and in great detail and often with a readability index less than your cable TV terms and conditions.
Out of that haze comes HR 4031, a bill authorizing the Secretary of Veteran Affairs to, basically, fire anyone or demote them if individual’s performance warrants removal. It is most certainly a brief and to the point bill but the problem is it is too brief; there is none of the usual explanations of what performance warrants removal, appeal processes, or other conditions of such a situation. We could assume that somewhere in the administrative code of the VA there is a list of actions or in-actions that would demonstrate performance justifying removal but the bill doesn’t offer that. Instead it says the removal is to be done “in the same manner as the removal of a professional staff member employed by a Member of Congress.” Which brings forth another administrative code.
As House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer pointed out during HR 4031 this puts a political appointee in the position of firing or demoting non-political senior executives without cause.
This is a bill that comes forth due to the recent allegations about mismanagement at the VA. It is strangely ad hoc in the sense that it seems more so to pose a threat rather than offer necessary guidance on how to handle poor performance. Something of a knee-jerk reaction since the Secretary of Veterans Affairs is the guy in the hot seat on these issues as well as the official given authority under the bill to fire or demote. There is nothing in the bill requiring the Secretary to affirm that the substandard actions were taken or if the behavior is the product of circumstances beyond the control of the official whose job is at risk. Nothing in the bill that covers benefits lost or retained if the official is subject to termination or demotion and no appeal process is offered. It is, if nothing, a military way of doing things; screw up and you are on guard duty or peeling potatoes.
This is a political bill with no apparent usefulness in reality and is even more curious because revelations about extremely substandard conditions at Walter Reed hospital during the Bush administration seemed to fly above the radar of the Republican Congress of the time. Obviously someone was responsible for the conditions at Walter Reed back then but, beyond appropriating funds to improve the facility, Congress offered no such hiring and demoting legislation.
This is one to watch because it is either a poorly designed blip on the screen or there is more to come. ##
Get Ready for More of the Same
By Lee H. Hamilton
I felt a brief surge of hope about Congress a few weeks ago. It was returning from Easter recess, and Capitol Hill was filled with talk about immigration reform, a minimum-wage bill, a spending bill to keep the government operating, and maybe even funding for transportation infrastructure. But, as I said, it was brief.
That’s because the talk turned out to be just that. Immigration reform appears headed nowhere. Likewise, tax reform and budgetary discipline. The minimum-wage increase died in the Senate. Shoring up the Highway Trust Fund, which could go bankrupt at the end of the summer, requires either massive new spending or a hefty rise in the gasoline tax — and Congress, of course, is inclined to do neither. The one step it appears ready to take is to approve a short-term spending bill, and that’s only because no one in either party wants to risk the public outrage that would attend a government shutdown right before an election.
Which is part of the problem. With this year’s congressional elections fast approaching, neither party wants to force its members into tough votes. In fact, neither party even wants to appear to be working with the other one. Republicans in the House talk about Benghazi, boosting charter schools, and Obamacare, and pass bills that have no chance of becoming law. In the Senate, Democrats push an extension of jobless benefits, try to make political hay out of the Republicans’ rejection of the minimum wage, and show little interest in moving bills through to enactment. Listening to them separately, it’s hard to imagine that they inhabit the same country.
This doesn’t seem likely to change as a result of the mid-term elections. Congress will remain evenly divided. Which means that for the next two years at least, the stalemate between Capitol Hill and the White House will probably continue.
As a nation, we face a lot of challenges, yet we’re not addressing them. Comprehensive immigration reform may be “very difficult to achieve,” in the words of one leading Republican senator, but it’s still vitally important. Housing reform, tax reform, trade liberalization, reforming the International Monetary Fund — all need congressional action. So do the nation’s armed services and the Defense Department, which face serious cuts because of sequestration. Climate change isn’t even on the congressional agenda.
Which is why we have the curious sight of local governments trying to deal with a global issue by passing zoning laws and ordinances, in the belief that at least they can do a little bit to address climate change’s impact. Indeed, congressional inaction is spurring states to cancel planned summer bridge- and road-repair projects, and big-city mayors to fill the national power vacuum by going ahead with their own minimum-wage measures, tax increases, and other initiatives designed to legislate where Congress won’t.
Recently, I’ve been listening to what non-incumbent candidates for Congress are saying. Their partisan labels and policy specifics might differ, but not their basic message: that they’re the ones to fix congressional dysfunction, partisanship and polarization, and to get Capitol Hill moving again. Many of them won’t get the chance to put their ideas into action, since incumbents have overwhelming advantages at election time. Even those who do get elected will find, as they always do, that there’s a yawning gap between what seems possible when you’re campaigning and what’s actually possible once you’re elected.
Still, the fact that candidates are talking about fixing Congress means they believe this is what Americans want. If they do well enough in the elections, perhaps incumbent members will notice that the people want Congress to get its act together, and to begin to address seriously our long list of problems.
Let’s hope so, because here’s my fear. Congress is already derided at home as bumbling and ineffective. The perception abroad is even more worrisome: Capitol Hill’s inability to act is seen as a key piece of America’s decline as a superpower. If it turns out that we’ve got several more years of drift and dysfunction ahead of us, then the institution that our founders considered to be the keystone of American democracy risks becoming not part of the solution, but the core of the problem.