[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 103 (Friday, July 12, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H7509-H7510]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      VETERANS ARE AT A CROSSROADS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Greene of Utah). Under a previous order 
of the House, the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WISE. Madam Speaker, there are two issues I wish to talk about 
today. First of all is veterans.
  Madam Speaker, I think it is important that we recognize that 
veterans are at a crossroads right now and this Congress is at a 
crossroads, and it is important to reestablish that commitment and to 
reaffirm commitment to our veterans.
  The budget plan that was proposed in this House just last year would 
have cut veterans' programs, VA programs, by $6.4 billion to the year 
2002, and yet at the same time there would have been over $2 billion in 
tax cuts, many of which went to the wealthiest individuals.
  This proposal, had it gone through, would have meant the VA medical 
system would have had to reduce employment by 9,500 employees, denying 
care to 165,000 veterans that it was planning to take care of. This 
also means that they would have had to have reduced their workforce by 
the year 2002 by 61,000 workers or about 30 percent of their work 
force.
  I am happy to say that we beat this back, Madam Speaker, but yet even 
under the appropriation bills veterans were going to be asked to 
increase prescription copayments, to double the copayment that veterans 
pay for prescription drugs, and to deny 150,000 veterans Medicaid 
coverage in 2002, most of whom could not afford private insurance and 
would have been ineligible for VA medical care.
  We were able to beat that back, as well, and I am happy to say that I 
supported on the floor recently the Stump amendment, a bipartisan 
amendment to increase VA medical care by $40 million over both the 
President's request and the committee bill. Indeed, there was almost $1 
billion of increased funding for veterans health care in that bill. I 
also supported permitting Medicare to reimburse for veterans' care, 
particularly in military hospitals. I am sorry that that was defeated, 
but we will be back again.


                            campaign reform

  Madam Speaker, I also want to talk about campaign reform, because 
next week is billed as reform week by the Republican leadership in this 
House. What kind of reform are we looking at for campaign reform? It is 
interesting. My constituents tell me, ``Bob, the problem is there in 
too much money in politics, and you ought to get it out.''

  What does this campaign reform bill that the Speaker is bringing to 
the floor do? It does not take money out. It puts more money into 
campaigns. In fact, the Speaker himself said in November, and I quote, 
``One of the greatest myths of modern politics is that campaigns are 
too expensive. The political process in fact is underfunded. It is not 
overfunded.'' That is not what my constituents are telling me.
  First of all, this bill would reduce political action committees, 
what they can contribute, by one-half, perhaps worthwhile. But it would 
permit individual contributions to go up from $1,000 to $2,500, what an 
individual can give to a candidate. That does not sound like reform to 
me.
  Whereas the bill that has been talked about for the Democratic side 
would limit political action committee contributions to one-third of 
what a candidate could receive, this would increase and take the limits 
off what PAC's could contribute. There would be no limitation in the 
Speaker's bill on soft money, which is one of the most egregious 
offenses that either party can commit, funneling large amounts of money 
into State parties without any accounting.
  Also, this bill does nothing to take on the recent Supreme Court 
decision that in effect says a political party, Republican or Democrat, 
can make an unlimited independent expenditure in behalf of a candidate, 
one of the greatest loopholes going.
  So what this bill does that they are going to bring to the floor does 
not begin to cut down to the flow of money going into campaigns. It 
only takes the limits off and makes the situation far worse than it is.
  What we need, in order to deal with the Supreme Court decisions as 
well as other actions, we are going to have a constitutional amendment 
that says that free speech and expenditure of money are not the same 
thing; that simply because we can spend more money, that is not equated 
to free speech.
  I am greatly concerned because I see the cost of campaigns going up, 
I see outside groups coming in, I see independent expenditures steadily 
rising, all of which is taking control farther and farther away from 
the everyday voter and constituent. Yet this bill, branded as reform, 
only takes us further in that direction. It does not take money out of 
the electoral system, it puts more money in, and it makes candidates 
more responsive to large individual contributors.

  The interesting thing is, a family of four could contribute up to 
$2.4 million. If they have got it, folks could contribute up to $2.4 
million under this bill. That is not campaign reform, and I do not 
think anybody in my district thinks that it is.
  Another interesting provision in this bill is that it was suggested 
no money could be raised within 50 miles of Washington. I ought to be 
happy with that provision because the eastern Panhandle, which is just 
50 to 60 miles

[[Page H7510]]

from West Virginia, could become the mecca. This could become a boon to 
the hotel and catering industries. But the reality is that this bill is 
not good for West Virginia and it is not good for voters across the 
country. This is not reform.

                          ____________________