- Email: [email protected]
Public policy
Public Policy President Vetoes Institute of Nursing and the Public Health Service Act ON OCTOBER 30, 1984, after Congress had recessed, President Reagan vetoed the Public Health Services Act of 1984, which provided funding for health professions education, and the Health Research Extension Act, which would have created two new institutes focused on nursing and arthritis. Some observers attributed the veto to the fact that the American Nurses' Association came out in favor of the Mondale-Ferraro ticket, and this may well have been a factor. However, in a briefing of the members of the American Association of Colleges of Nursing, White House staffer Judy Buckalew indicated that the ANA stance had nothing to do with the veto. She stated that the President felt that health professionals' education should no longer be subsidized by the federal government, and that he objected to the cost of the two new research institutes. His veto message characterized the two new institutes as unnecessary and expensive. Moreover, he indicated that the timing of the legislation was wrong, since an Institute of Medicine study of the organizational structure of the National Institute of Health (NIH) had just been completed.
Neither NIH nor the Division of Nursing will go out of business because of the vetoes. Perhaps anticipating this outcome, Congress had earlier passed continuing resolutions to fund the two entities but did not change their mandates. The Division of Nursing will, in fact, receive modest increases for several programs, including nursing research grants. The chances of succeeding next time with new legislation for an Institute of Nursing seem reasonable since there is bipartisan support for the idea in Congress. Although NIH Director James B. Wyngaarden has reservations about the idea, one NIH staff person said that there is talk around NIH that "something needs to be done for nursing." The climate sounds reasonable for negotiating. The idea ~as new in 1984 and perhaps it can be more widely discussed this year. Our strategy should certainly include an effort to get the legislation passed earlier in the Congressional session so that a recess will not provide an opportunity for a pocket veto. BONNIE BULLOUGH, PHD, RN, FAAN
Dean, School of Nursing SUNY/Buffa/o Buffalo, New York
74
Neither NIH nor the Division of Nursing will go out of business because of the vetoes. Perhaps anticipating this outcome, Congress had earlier passed continuing resolutions to fund the two entities but did not change their mandates. The Division of Nursing will, in fact, receive modest increases for several programs, including nursing research grants. The chances of succeeding next time with new legislation for an Institute of Nursing seem reasonable since there is bipartisan support for the idea in Congress. Although NIH Director James B. Wyngaarden has reservations about the idea, one NIH staff person said that there is talk around NIH that "something needs to be done for nursing." The climate sounds reasonable for negotiating. The idea ~as new in 1984 and perhaps it can be more widely discussed this year. Our strategy should certainly include an effort to get the legislation passed earlier in the Congressional session so that a recess will not provide an opportunity for a pocket veto. BONNIE BULLOUGH, PHD, RN, FAAN
Dean, School of Nursing SUNY/Buffa/o Buffalo, New York
74