[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 67 (Tuesday, May 14, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4988-S4989]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  CUTS IN THE VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION

  Mr. BOND. Thank you, Mr. President. I rise today to make the basic 
and simple point that numbers do not lie. I am chairman of the 
Veterans' Affairs/HUD Appropriations Subcommittee. I have been very 
much concerned about making sure that the people who serve this country 
in the military get the kind of care that has been promised by the 
Veterans' Administration.
  The VA deals, primarily, with those who have suffered war-related 
injuries, and who are medically indigent now. Yes, there are 
efficiencies that can be

[[Page S4989]]

made and there are certain steps being taken within the VA to operate 
more soundly. But I was shocked when I saw the President's proposal for 
Veterans' Administration spending for the next 6 years.
  The President now says he wants to balance the budget. But how does 
he do it? Well, Mr. President, he takes it out of the vitally important 
medical care and health care services for the veterans. I joined with 
Chairman Pete Domenici to beat back efforts by our Democratic 
colleagues in the subcommittee to substitute the President's budget, 
which he claims gets us to balance. I thought it was so serious that I 
wanted to speak on the floor. I spoke this weekend back home in 
Missouri, talking about the tremendous decline that the Clinton budget 
proposes for Veterans' Administration spending over the next 6 years, 
which is almost 23 percent.
  Mr. President, the Veterans' Administration cannot live with that 
kind of cut. That is the kind of cut that the President proposes the VA 
will have to follow to get to a balanced budget for the entire 
Government in the year 2002. At least the President agrees that we need 
to get to a balanced budget. But does he really mean this budget?
  Well, Mr. President, it was very interesting to me to read in the 
newspaper on Saturday morning--in the St. Louis newspaper--a report by 
political correspondent, Jo Mannies, who called the White House after I 
presented this information and she says: ``A White House aide replied 
that Bond was misrepresenting the facts.''
  Misrepresenting the facts? Mr. President, here are the facts. Under 
the Clinton budget, the Veterans' Administration have a budget 
authority that goes from $17.3 billion in 1997, to $15.9 billion in 
1998, to $14.5 billion, to $13.0 billion, to $13.29 billion, to $13.8 
billion. That comes out to be a $12.979 billion cut in Veterans' 
Administration funding in that 6-year period.

  Can the VA live with that? No. Secretary Jesse Brown said, when I 
asked him before the Appropriations Committee, ``Are you planning to 
live within this budget?'' He said, ``I am not planning to live with 
it. I am not planning to live with your budget to green line''--which 
at that time was a flat line--``nor am I planning to live with the 
President's line.'' Secretary Brown went on to say, ``I think his 
budget means something to me because he has given his word that he is 
going to negotiate with the veterans' community.''
  Really? Does the President not mean what he said when he presented 
the balanced budget that shows these cuts? The interesting part of the 
story, the White House aide Jo Mannies referred to was Lawrence Haas of 
the White House Office of Management and Budget. He said the 
Republicans were misrepresenting their plans and the President when it 
comes to spending for veterans.
  President Clinton's 1997 budget plan contains an outline for reaching 
a balanced budget by 2002. ``The outline cites across-the-board 
spending cuts of equal percentages for most discretionary programs, 
including the VA,'' he said. ``The outline is not a hard and fast 
proposal for any of the programs,'' he said, ``because the President 
and the Congress review discretionary programs each year.'' He said 
that he expected changes for many of the specific programs. He said, 
``If past practices continue, the VA would be treated well and wouldn't 
experience much, if any, of a cut.''
  Mr. President, we have the President presenting a budget showing that 
he gets to balance by making a 23-percent cut in the Veterans 
Administration. Oh, incidentally, it is not an across-the-board cut 
because the President, at the same time, proposes a 28-percent increase 
in the spending on AmeriCorps, our national service.
  Mr. President, we are left with the amazing proposition that the 
White House official spokesperson said that it is the official policy 
of the Clinton administration that you should not believe the official 
policy of the Clinton administration. The Clinton administration sent 
up a budget that shows a 23-percent cut, a $12.9 billion cut over 6 
years.
  Mr. President, that is how they get there--a budget that I think has 
misplaced priorities. It does not make the cuts needed in Medicaid and 
in welfare spending, so they have to slash things like Veterans' 
Administration. Either they mean this and they are going to get to a 
balanced budget and the veterans are going to be unhappy, but they have 
an Office of Management and Budget saying they do not mean it. They 
have told the Secretary of Veterans Affairs they do not mean it.
  So, Mr. President, we are left with this real question: Which numbers 
are lying--the numbers they presented in the budget, or the numbers 
they are telling the Veterans' Administration they are going to get?
  I intend to work with my colleagues to make sure that the Veterans' 
Administration is adequately funded.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________