Page images
PDF
EPUB

H.R. 4792

Introduced by you, Mr. Chairman, on February 8, 1984, H.R. 4792 would amend Title 38, United States Code, to clarify, among other things, the scope of authority of Veterans Administration Police Officers.

Mr. Chairman, as we view this measure, the Administrator would have the authority to prescribe regulations for the purpose of protecting persons and property, as well as maintaining law and order in buildings and land under the direct jurisdiction of the Veterans Administration.

By permitting the Administrator to appoint qualified VA police officers, as well as a Chief Inspector to supervise such officers, the VA's ability to provide a safe environment for its employees, veterans and visitors would be significantly strength

ened.

Because these police officers shall be regarded as competitive service employees and placed in proper classes and grades, the ability to recruit and retain quality individual law enforcement officers would be enhanced.

However, the DAV has two concerns regarding the provisions of H.R. 4792 as currently constructed. First, the absence of language regarding an affirmative action plan for the hiring of qualified disabled veterans and veterans of the Vietnam Era. Mr. Chairman, as it is the policy of the United States to promote maximum employment and job advancement opportunities within the federal government for qualified disabled veterans and veterans of the Vietnam Era, we suggest, should H.R. 4792 be favorably reported, that this policy be made a part of the accompanying report language.

Second, that provision of the bill which would provide the VA Administrator with the authority to "... authorize police officers to carry firearms while in the performance of their official duties" and "prescribe standards for the issuance and carrying of firearms by police officers."

While we have no specific objections to VA police officers carrying firearms, we are primarily concerned, as I am sure the Subcommittee is, with the safety of VA employees and veterans.

In this regard, it could prove catastrophic if an emotionally disturbed veteran's aberrant behavior were to be mistakenly interpreted (by a VA police officer) as criminal in nature, as opposed to simply a manifestation of the disability requiring medical treatment.

Therefore, we would strongly urge the Subcommittee, should H.R. 4792 be favorably reported, to include report language specifically requiring that all VA police officers receive specialized training and instruction in the management and handling of veterans in the hospital environment, especially the emotionally disturbed

veteran.

This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman, and I wish to again thank you and the members of the Subcommittee for allowing the DAV this opportunity to express our views on these important subjects.

STATEMENT OF PAUL S. EGAN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION AND ROBERT E. LYNGH, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL VETERANS AFFAIRS AND REHABILITATION COMMISSION, THE AMERICAN LEGION

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee; the American Legion is pleased to have this opportunity to present its views on the matters scheduled for your consideration today.

We will comment on the four measures scheduled, specifically, HR 3876, HR 4625, HR 4694 and HR 4792.

H.R. 4792-Proposed amendments to title 38, United States Code, section 218, to clarify the scope of authority of VA police officers; to provide the Administrator with the authority to prescribe standards for VA police officer titles and grades; and introduces other significant changes relative to VÀ Security Service.

For several years, The American Legion has been intensely interested in the problems that continue to plague VA Security Service in the form of excessive turnover rates of personnel, ongoing recruitment and retention problems, and a host of other serious shortcomings that demand immediate correction. The expectation is that hospitals will provide a reasonably safe environment. It is the opinion of the American Legion that many VA facilities are not presently accomplishing this goal, and in the remainder, security is oftentimes deficient.

The Subcommittee is well aware of the alarming statistics that surround the system-wide Security Service, so we will not elaborate on these at this time. Suffice it to say that VA police officers are no longer just "door shakers" and escort personnel as many obviously still perceive them. Our Field Representatives consistently highlight serious problems at VA medical centers that are a direct result of inadequate stability within the security workforce. Our surveys confirm our contention that Security Service continues to deteriorate at an alarming rate. As our survey cycle starts its second course for this service, this fact has become all too evident. Mr. Chairman, we would again like to outline some of the more serious problems as we see them. The obvious longstanding problems are, of course, inadequate salaries and the lack of upward mobility within the service. The vast majority of recruitment and retention problems stem from these two voids. Likewise, the excessive annual turnover rates for security personnel, some consistently at 100%, continue to disrupt operations and threaten the safety of patients, staff and visitors. Responses to our field survey reports and the numerous letters of inquiry we have generated on this subject, continue to suggest future studies as the ultimate solution. The Legion would like to go on record with our opinion that this matter has been studied to death. The welfare of veterans, VA staff, and visitors, along with the need to safeguard the millions of dollars worth of government property against losses each year, can no longer be overlooked simply by pointing to ongoing and future studies as a viable solution.

The OPM occupational standards study of the Police Officer Classification Standard, currently underway, is a case in point. Although we were informed by VACO personnel that revised standards may be issued in early 1985 as a result of this study, we were more recently informed that this study has been suspended, indefinitely. It should be noted that this study could, in fact, ironically result in the downgrading of certain police officers at selected VA medical centers. Its indefinite suspension, therefore, is a barometer indicating the seriousness of the problem. Additionally, OPM personnel state completion of the study in early 1985 would mean it would be 1987 before any significant implementation could transpire.

We would also like to comment on another commonly heard solution to the recruitment and retention problem. Title 5 provides for special salary rate increases for recruitment problems of this nature, but this, in our opinion, is window dressing at best. The manpower needed for the enormous amount of required data collection, when coupled with the ludicrous turnaround times, always in excess of 1.5 years, results in VAMC Directors not even applying for the rate increases. Additionally, we would add that there are documented cases where special salary rate increases have been authorized, eventually eliminating recruitment problems, and then are withdrawn by OPM because recruitment problems suddenly do not exist any more. Catch-22 at its most classical manifestation. The logic behind this kind of thinking is not deserving of comment, except to mention the morale deterioration and ensuring problems that result from this action.

H.R. 4792 also addresses the issue of clothing allowance. This is a matter of utmost importance to the individual police officer in the field. There is very little opposition to this provision, even from OPM, yet this is still one of the major complaints our office receives from VA police officers. The American Legion strongly endorses an increase in the initial and annual clothing allowance provided to VA police officers as outlined in this bill.

Mr. Chairman, before we respond to an issue in this bill we disagree with, the training situation, or lack thereof, needs to be mentioned. It is our opinion, formed from information gathered through site visits, that the Little Rock training currently provided is grossly inadequate. There needs to be either an expansion of this training period, or implementation of alternative training, possibly in the form of periodic training sessions within each Medical Region.

The final proposal outlined in H.R. 4792 we will discuss, pertains to the issue of weapons for VA police officers. Admittedly, a problem exists in this regard and The American Legion recognizes it to be a severe one. However, we believe that firearms in a health care environment can only spell trouble for all concerned. Records reviewed show an annual average of 85 incidents involving the use of the non-lethal Chemical Irritant Projector (CIP) weapon. While we recognize the short-comings associated with the CIP weapon, such as its ineffectiveness on some individuals under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs, we also must weigh the consequences of utilization of a deadly weapon. There are those rare occasions where possession of a firearm would be warranted, but we believe that fundamentally it is the responsibility of local police and other Federal law enforcement agencies to assist VA in matters of this kind. We would suggest efforts be undertaken with these agencies to strengthen rapport levels and improve response times.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we contend that certain aspects of H.R. 4792, if implemented, will certainly help to solve long-standing recruitment and retention problems and will ultimately stabilize VA security operations. As this Subcommittee knows, this is long overdue. The American Legion fully supports a system-wide increase in the grades and step levels at which VA police officers may be employed. We pledge our support to the proposed increase in clothing allowances and improved training methods. We also agree with the provision that increases the limitations on the Administrator's authority to affix penalties for violations of various regulations. We do, however, feel compelled to disagree with any provision that would allow VA police officers at VAMCs to carry firearms. Our analysis of this situation shows potential ramifications that far outweigh justification at this time.

Mr. Chairman, the three other measures under consideration today are all supported either in whole or part by The American Legion. The first of these, HR 3876, would permit service-connected veterans to secure prescriptions from non-VA physicians and have them filled by VA pharmacies. Until a recent VA General Counsel opinion, many service-connected veterans could and did avail themselves of non-VA prescribed, but VA supplied medicines.

The American Legion believes that the VA should control its benefit programs and thereby control expenditures for its programs. However, since nonservice-connected housebound beneficiaries in receipt of aid and attendance allowances may receive medications from VA, honoring prescriptions written by non-VA physicians, we have to view denial of the same benefit for service-connected veterans as inequitable. Moreover, a slight change in the legislation could be made which would both eliminate the inequity between nonservice and service-connected veterans while still allowing VA a measure of control over its drug expenditures. Such a change would simply authorize VA to periodically review records of veterans receiving prescriptions from non-VA physicians. This would allow VA to insure than non-VA physicians are not over prescribing drugs to veterans contrary to medical standards.

Another bill under consideration, HR 4694, would provide certain retired regular military officer physicians with an incentive to seek employment with the VA's Department of Medicine and Surgery (DM&S). This incentive would be provided if dual pay and dual employment restrictions in section 5532 (a), (b), and (c) of title 5, United States Code were waived. Since waiving of these restrictions would provide a greater income for retired military physicians, the incentive created would undoubtedly provide VA with a useful recruitment tool.

Finally, HR 4625 would make a technical correction in the time within which the Comptroller General must report on whether the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has allocated funds sufficient for VA to maintain statutorily authorized personnel levels. The Legion has no objection to this change. In fact, this change may even make it easier for Congress to monitor OMB practices as they effect VA personnel levels.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes our statement.

TESTIMONY OF LT. COL. DAVID J. PASSAMANECK, USA RET., NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, AMVETS

AMVETS appreciates this opportunity to submit its views on the proposed legislation under consideration.

We favor enactment of H.R. 3876 but would urge deletion of the words, "and compensable in degree" and "conpensable" respectively from lines 5 and 7 of the bill. There is no reason why zero rated service connected veterans should still be required to obtain prescriptions from VA physicians for their service connected conditions.

H.R. 4625 is a technical amendemnt which we do not oppose. We favor enactment of H.R. 4694 but note the continued inequity of penalizing regular retired officers in general by applying discriminating dual compensation limits when they are employed in civil service.

We favor H.R. 4792, but would require the Administrator to certify in each case in which a non-veteran is hired that no qualified veterans could be hired from among applicants after all reasonable efforts were put forth to recruit veteran law enforcement officers.

This concludes my testimony.

DEPOSI

JUL 13 198

SHIPPEL

« PreviousContinue »