Maurice Hinchey

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, to my mind the real strength of this democracy lies in the fact that every citizen, regardless of their circumstances, has the opportunity to participate fully in the electoral process, including the opportunity to run for office. And that includes, of course, the Congress of the United States. Unfortunately that principle works more in theory than it does in practice under the present set of circumstances. That is why campaign finance reform is so critically important and that is why this particular approach to reforming the way we finance our campaigns, that which is offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts, is so much to the point. Because it provides that opportunity for every citizen in a real sense. Under the provisions of this legislation, should it become law, people could run for the Congress regardless of how well or poorly connected they might be. Under the provisions of this bill, people do not have to have personal fortunes or be able to raise huge amounts of money in order to finance political campaigns. This legislation provides the financial wherewithal for even those of the most modest means who are capable and interested in participating in the public process to do so and to run for public office and to make a real, substantial contribution. It realizes fully and completely, more so perhaps than at any other time in our history the full potential of the democratic process, by making every citizen eligible. It frees candidates and elected officials alike of the drudgery and the demeaning process of having to raise enormous amounts of money in order to finance campaigns. This is real campaign finance reform. It is what we need to open up this process. Among other things, it requires that the public means of discourse in our country, principally radio and television, are made available to all candidates equitably and openly. I support this bill. I hope others will, too. It is real campaign finance reform. It will do the job in a meaningful and complete and comprehensive way.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for making that point. It seems to me that in the context of this debate, which is an extraordinarily important one, that there is one basic point that we need to focus on, and that is a very simple one: The underlying principles of this Republic, the founding and sustaining principle, is that government draws its just authority from the consent of the governed. We all know that. We all learned that in grammar school. You cannot have the consent of the governed unless you have their confidence. The governed cannot give their consent unless they have confidence in that which they are giving consent to. Nowhere in the government is that more stringently important than with regard to the activities of the Department of Justice. And the reason for that is obvious, because the Department of Justice has extraordinary power over individual Americans, over life, liberty and property of every single citizen of every State. Therefore, particularly the Department of Justice must be held under strict constraint. Nowhere else in the government is it as important as in the Department of Justice. That is why the McDade language in the Commerce-Justice bill is so important, and we owe the gentlemen a debt of gratitude, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), for bringing this language to us in the context of this bill. However, it is also clearly just as important that every employee of the Justice Department ought to be covered by this language, without exception. There should be no exception because every employee of the Justice Department has this prosecutorial power, the right, the ability to deprive Americans of life, liberty and property. Therefore, we need this perfecting amendment to make more powerful, more straightforward, more direct the underlying principles of the McDade language.

Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would say absolutely right. Every citizen of this Republic has the right to expect ethical behavior from every other citizen, but particularly every citizen of this Republic has the right to expect ethical behavior from everyone who is placed in a position of prosecutorial responsibility. Nowhere else in the system of government is the requirement to adhere to a strict, clear specified code of ethics more important than those who have been entrusted with prosecutorial responsibilities.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Madam Speaker, I, too, want to strongly support H.R. 1151, the Credit Union Membership Act of which I am an original prime sponsor. The credit union movement has distinguished itself over the years by providing its members with good quality, low cost financial services. As nonprofit cooperatives managed by their members, credit unions excel at providing the services families and small businesses need most. Study after study shows that from home mortgages to student loans to start-up financing for small businesses, credit unions beat the competition in terms of service and customer satisfaction. Credit unions have also taken the lead in communities that are all but ignored by the banking industry. In many distressed urban and rural areas a community development credit union is often the only conventional financial institution to be found. In my district a group of public housing tenants formed a credit union when they were unable to interest a bank in their financial goals. We need to encourage these types of institutions to bring more low-income individuals into the financial mainstream. The credit union movement deserves much of the praise for this legislation. Like everyone here, I heard from people in my district who are passionate about their credit unions, not just the officers and directors and employees, but the men and women and families and businesses who are affiliated with these institutions. Not only did they take the time to call and write, but they also came here to Washington and to my district offices to tell me in person how important their credit unions are to them. So, Madam Speaker, on behalf of the 3.3 million New Yorkers who are credit union members, I urge the suspension of the rules and the passage of H.R. 1151.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to two dedicated members of the House Banking Committee Minority staff who are leaving the Committee this week to pursue endeavors in higher education. The efforts of Robert Auerbach, the Democratic staff economist, and Stefanie Mullin, the Democratic press secretary, will be greatly missed by all members of the Committee. Bob Auerbach is a first-rate financial economist with a keen understanding of money and banking, the payments system, and the Federal Reserve System. He has served the members of the House Banking Committee well in more than 10 years and two separate tours of duty on Capitol Hill. During this time, he has worked on a number of initiatives from the deregulation of interest rates to the promotion of openness at the Federal Reserve Board. I have personally worked with Bob on a number of issues pertaining to monetary policy and have found his knowledge, insight, and guidance to be invaluable. Bob is leaving Capitol Hill for the ivory tower of academia. Starting this fall, he will be a Professor at the LBJ School of Public Policy at the University of Texas where he will be teaching courses on money and banking. He also has plans to write a book. Though I will miss Bob's wise counsel here in Washington, I know that our loss is most definitely the University of Texas' and his students' gain. As press secretary for the Democrats, Stefanie Mullin has the often thankless job of reminding the world that there is another perspective on the Banking Committee. For the past five years, she has accomplished this with grace and dignity, always making sure that the views of the minority were heard by the world outside the Rayburn Building. Stefanie is also leaving us to return to school, but as a student. She will be attending Columbia University in a masters program in the prestigious School of Journalism. I wish her luck, and look forward to the day when I meet her again as a member of the news media.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman be given 2 additional minutes.

Mr. HINCHEY. I very much thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I would like to take this opportunity to draw the attention of the Members of the House to the Inspector General report which was discussed here a few moments ago. At that time, I made the point that it was quite clear that although the report itself did not stipulate a causal relationship between VERA and the decline in quality and the increase in mortality, that it was clear to reason that one followed upon the other. I want now to say this to my friends and colleagues here. Although the report did not stipulate that VERA was the causal effect, the author of the report, the Inspector General, said to me personally that he believed that VERA was the causal effect of the decline in quality in our veterans hospitals and that VERA was the causal effect of the increase in mortality in our veterans hospitals. That is undeniable. We have that from the mouth of the author of the report himself. I would just like to say this, also. This amendment is about fairness. This amendment is not about taking money from one part of the country and giving it to another. This is not an amendment to hurt Florida. Yes, I listened carefully to what was said a few minutes ago by a number of our friends and colleagues from Florida who talked about the increase in the number of veterans in that State. Undeniably that is true. I addressed that, in fact, in my opening remarks. We are not denying that Florida veterans need more help and more funding because of the increase in population of veterans in that State and some other States in the South as well. What I am saying is that VERA is not doing it fairly. VERA is turning its back on the veterans in other parts of the country, not just the Northeast. I read the list to Members a couple of times. Veterans headquarters in every part of the country, from the East through the Midwest, including the South, Durham, North Carolina for example, out to Long Beach are being adversely affected. Veterans funds are being cut in every one of those regions. This amendment is about fairness. It simply says, yes, we have to recognize that we have to do more for veterans in Florida and more for veterans in Arizona and other places but let us not do it at the expense of veterans in other parts of the country.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I would draw the gentleman's attention to the fact that the Inspector General's report from the Veterans Administration, although it did not specifically in that report say that VERA was responsible for the decline in the quality of care, for the decline in the quality of maintenance at those Veterans Administration hospitals, for the decline in personnel, for the misallocation of personnel, for the incompetent personnel who were there at those facilities and for the increase in mortality at those facilities, it is quite clear that all those things occurred immediately upon the implementation of VERA and continued to get worse as VERA was continually implemented. So while I did not expect the Veterans Administration to say specifically that VERA was responsible, it does not take an awful lot of reasoning to conclude from that report that these adverse circumstances occurred shortly after VERA was put into place, and as VERA was implemented they continued to get worse.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, right now our veterans are being damaged by a faulty computer model. We would like to free them from the computer model and see a system based on the realities. There will be some people who may come to the floor opposing this amendment. They may say that the system is working. They may say that it is helping veterans in some parts of the country. That may be true, but, increasingly, it is hurting more and more veterans, not just in metropolitan areas but all across the country. From coast to coast, veterans are being affected negatively by these cuts. I ask my colleagues to join me in adopting this amendment so that we can get a sensible approach to the need to finance the health care needs for veterans all across the country.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, the Veterans' Equitable Resource Allocation system, known as VERA, may have started out with good intentions. The purpose was to shift funds in accord with shifts in veterans' populations, and more specifically, with veterans' needs. If there are more veterans needing health care services in Florida today than there were 20 years ago, and we know that that is true, then Florida should be getting a larger share of the VA health budget than it received previously. That is common sense, and I have no argument with that principle. But I do have an argument with the actual plan for reallocation, the VERA plan, and with its consequences. Many of us were very disturbed in January of 1997 when the VA first gave us figures about how much would be cut from its health care spending in our regions to fit the VERA plan. We had been hearing from our veterans that the quality of care was not what it ought to be in many places, and we were concerned that these new cuts would hurt our veterans even more. The VA assured us that quality of care would not decline. Most of the reductions had already taken place, we were told. Any further reduction would be covered by improvements and efficiency. Every time we raised a question about the VERA model, for example, did it take into account higher costs in our region, did it take into account the fact that our facilities are old and in need of repair or replacement, each time we were assured that it did and the model was perfect. It was not. The decline in patient care at one of the hospitals that serves veterans in my area was swift and dramatic. Myself and my colleagues in the area asked for a review by the Inspector General at the Veterans Administration, and the report was horrifying. It documented sharp increases in deficient care, understaffing, and important professional categories, poor maintenance of facilities. It found, in fact, that there was a 50 percent increase in the rate of patients who died, who had received poor or marginal care in the 6 months after VERA formally took effect, a 50 percent increase in mortality rates. Some veterans told me they wept when they read the report. It was undeniable that these problems were attributable to the VERA cuts. To mention just one example, professional staff were offered buyouts to get the budget into line with the VERA requirements. But no one had planned how to replace them or to reassign those who stayed. In February, we were given more bad news. What we were told about the VERA cuts had not been accurate. We were going to have to absorb another $120 million in cuts over the next 2 years. How are we going to do that, we asked, when we have just documented the problems in our region? We have not received an answer to how that is going to be done. I have just learned that the Veterans Administration is planning another round of cuts under VERA that will affect 11 regions. The regions facing cuts are these, Boston headquarters serving Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts. They will receive $38.8 million in cuts. The Albany area, serving upstate New York cut $12 million. The New York City metropolitan area, serving lower New York and Newark, New Jersey cut $48 million. Pittsburgh, serving Pennsylvania, Delaware, part of West Virginia cut $3 million. Durham, serving North Carolina, part of West Virginia and Virginia cut $1 million. Nashville, serving Tennessee, part of West Virginia and Kentucky cut $12 million. Chicago, serving part of Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin cut $28 million. Kansas City, serving Kansas, Missouri, part of Illinois cut $20 million. Dallas, serving Texas, except for Houston, cut $10.5 million. Denver, serving Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, and Montana cut $13 million. And Long Beach, serving California and Nevada cut $23 million. The message of my amendment is simple. VERA is not equitable. It has failed. It may not have failed veterans all over the country yet, but it has clearly failed veterans in many regions and will be failing more instantly. My amendment would cut off funding for implementation of VERA. It would force the VA to go back to the drawing boards and develop a system that really would treat all veterans equitably.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes).

Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlemen.

Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I believe that if a comprehensive infrastructure bill was brought to the full floor of this Congress, there would be many people who would support it. I think it is quite clear that the infrastructure needs of the country are quite severe and that we ought to have a comprehensive approach to these infrastructure needs. But this is a particular appropriation for one particular State, $20 million in one fiscal year and an open-ended circumstance for the next several years, probably as much as $100 million over a 5-year period for the State of Alaska. As has been pointed out, this Congress has not been ungenerous to the State of Alaska. Alaska is second only to the State of Mississippi in terms of Federal per capita aid. In addition to that, the State has its own $42 billion fund from oil royalties. That fund will be distributed to every man, woman and child in the State this year as it was last year. Last year, every person in the State received about $1,300. That is $5,200 for a family of four. It is also true that Alaska has not been aggressive in taxing itself. This is a State without a State income tax, and much of the State does not have a State sales tax. So it is hard to imagine why the Congress would be appropriating this particular money for this one State for this one particular situation, particularly when the expenditure is so open- ended. In other words, this money could be spent for virtually anything. It could be spent to build roads anywhere. It could be spent to engage in a whole host of activities which would be contrary to sound environmental not less economic policy. With all that in mind, Mr. Speaker, I think that it is prudent for us to join with those who have called this a taxpayer boondoggle and support the Vento motion.