Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008
DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008 -- (House of Representatives - July 18, 2007)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will report the amendment.
There was no objection.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Davis of Kentucky:
Page 125, after line 2, insert the following:
Sec. 522. None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to pay a bonus or other performance-based cash award to any employee of the Social Security Administration or the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services who holds a position to which such employee was appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, or a Senior Executive Service position (as defined by section 3132 of title 5, United States Code).
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that would restrict funds allocated in this bill from being used to pay a bonus or other performance-based cash award to any employee of the Social Security Administration or the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services who is a presidential employee or a member of the Senior Executive Service. Neither agency would ever survive as a private business trying to make a profit based upon their constituent service abilities which are often inefficient and inept.
The premise is simple. Bonus pay is for exemplary work. It is my opinion that the American people are not getting exemplary work from the SSA and the CMS. Therefore, the management of the agency, as in the private sector, should not be eligible for bonus pay and should be accountable for their performance.
In March of 2006, my office received a call from a concerned constituent who was having a problem with the withholding of Medicare part D premiums from his Social Security check. After an intensive investigation by my staff, we discovered that this was a widespread problem that affected hundreds of thousands of Medicare beneficiaries who have changed their prescription drug benefit plans.
After enrolling in a Medicare prescription drug plan during early enrollment and arranging for his premium to be deducted from his Social Security check, my constituent determined that his initial choice of a plan didn't fit his medical needs. He then decided to change his plan and his payment method, opting this time for direct payment instead of deduction from his Social Security check.
However, when he received his check, he realized that his premium for his initial selection was still being withheld. He attempted to address these problems himself with both CMS and SSA. He worked with them for 3 months without success. After contacting my office, my constituent liaison had more than a dozen exchanges with CMS and SSA over the next 6 months. Repeatedly, he was told by one agency that it was the other agency's fault. Several times he was told that the problem had been resolved and it would be reflected in the next Social Security check but never was. By this time our constituent had to live within an enormously reduced Social Security check for 9 months. My office had actively engaged on his behalf for 6 months, and my constituent is frustrated and angry. CMS and SSA say it is not their problem, and my constituent's hard-earned money is unaccounted for.
If the Social Security Administration was able to stop paying the plan provider by April of 2006, which is still an outrageously long period of time, then surely they would have been able to stop the withholding of the plan premium for my constituent 10 months after the fact.
Mr. Chairman, this is not only unacceptable; it is outrageous. For the millions of seniors in Kentucky and across the country that live on a fixed income or who are struggling to make ends meet, unnecessarily withholding these funds can create serious cash-flow problems. It is inappropriate to reward management of these organizations for taking money away from our seniors.
In the roll-out of a program as large as Medicare part D, there are bound to be bumps in the road. That is completely understandable. However, that it should take 11 months to resolve an issue like this is incomprehensible.
This story represents only one of the most egregious examples. The problem is not one of individual case managers in the departments but rather a systemic inefficiency and cultural problem, bureaucratic attitudes that involve shifting blame as opposed to working actively to take responsibility for problems in their departments and then solving them. It often requires multiple inquiries and sometimes several months to even get a status update on a case. Getting to the root of the issue and fixing a problem can take upwards of a year. This is simply unacceptable.
The amendment I wanted to offer would have conditioned the payment of bonuses based on reports to Congress by both agencies detailing how they are addressing these issues. Unfortunately, the Parliamentarian has informed me that such an amendment would constitute changing existing law in an appropriations bill and be subject to a point of order.
Therefore, I am offering only a straight prohibition against the payment of bonuses for the coming fiscal year. I think this is something that both sides of the aisle can agree on. It is my sincere hope that the chairmen and ranking members of the Appropriations, Ways and Means, and Energy and Commerce Committees will work with both agencies and with me to improve the service delivered to our constituents.
If you are going to receive performance-based bonuses, then I think your performance needs to be exceptional. When we are causing seniors frustration and unnecessary problems with their hard-earned money, I don't view that as a satisfactory performance, let alone performance that should be rewarded with a taxpayer-funded bonus.
In conclusion, if you believe that the performance of CMS and SSA exceeds your expectations, then you should oppose this amendment.
[Page: H8104]
However, if you believe, as I do, that both agencies are performing well below expectations in meeting the needs of our senior citizens, then I urge you to support my amendment to prohibit bonus pay for those responsible for running these agencies in the coming fiscal year.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. I appreciate the distinguished chairman's comments and perspective on this.
The one thing that I would share is I think we're dealing with some cultural challenges in the customer service responsiveness of many of the agencies.
Oftentimes in this Chamber, we highlight the poor performance of private corporations in their management, but having worked in helping businesses turn around and reform their practices, one of the things that I've noticed, especially in corporations that are successful in transforming their culture, the executives, the management leadership at those corporations, take personal responsibility and have a significant personal stake in the performance of every level of their department. I think this requires across-the-board change.
Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source