*‘Concurrent Receipt’ For Military Retirees*

The American Legion ^ | 27 September 2002 | By Ronald F. Conley

[advocate10]

‘Concurrent Receipt’ For Military Retirees
a Matter of Principle
By Ronald F. Conley

Legislative Action Center: Contact your congressmen

WASHINGTON (Sept. 27, 2002) - "In matters of style swim with the current; in matters of principle stand like a rock," Thomas Jefferson said.

White House bean counters and Pentagon political appointees are swimming in a century-long current of federal law that "soaks" military retirees who have service-connected disabilities. But the 2.8-million member American Legion, other advocacy groups and right-thinking members of Congress support the principle: A grateful nation owes just compensation to military retirees who incurred disabilities during a career of uniformed service to their nation.

Military retirees with service-connected disabilities continue to have their military retired pay reduced by the amount of disability compensation that they receive from the Department of Veterans Affairs. "Concurrent Receipt" legislation that would allow disabled military retirees to receive every penny they earned is in the hands of a House and Senate conference committee working on the Fiscal Year 2003 National Defense Authorization bill. While The American Legion fights hard for passage of this long-overdue legislation, the Office of Management and Budget urges the president to veto it. Further, Pentagon officials pit patriots -- past and present -- against each other, arguing that the quality of life and the warfighting capability of active-duty troops will suffer if service-connected military retirees receive the payments Uncle Sam owes them. Don't they realize that many active-duty troops plan to retire from military service and would not support Uncle Sam robbing disabled military retirees?

The Pentagon's spin cycle is in high gear. In a Sept. 25 "report" by the American Forces Press Service, DoD spuriously argues that paying a military retiree disability compensation and retired pay concurrently represents "double dipping," two paychecks for the same service. That point is patently ridiculous. Retired pay is for longevity of service. Disability compensation is for bodily sacrifice suffered as a result of military service. Furthermore, DoD alludes to research that indicates Concurrent Receipt legislation would benefit an affluent population at the expense of improvements to quarters, hangars and the availability of spare parts for the weapons of war.

Allowing service-connected military retirees to receive concurrently their disability compensation and retired pay "is not good government," says Assistant Defense Secretary Charles Abell in the report. Abell also suggests OMB underestimates the cost of Concurrent Receipt legislation: $58 billion over 10 years.

Principle is routinely a casualty of DoD's legislative and public relations wars against service-connected military retirees, the only citizens who pay for their VA disability compensation.

Although it questions the cost of Concurrent Receipt legislation, the Defense Department's spin does not address the fact that OMB's estimate, $58 billion over 10 years, reflects hard-earned compensation that the nation takes from the pockets of hundreds of thousands of disabled veterans and their families. Frankly, I can imagine a price tag more staggering than OMB's estimate: How many billions have been deducted from disabled retirees' military retired pay over the years to save Uncle Sam the cost of their disability compensation? That figure would be absolutely disgraceful.

Further, for all of DoD's deceptive drivel about "double dipping," there is not a peep from the Pentagon about the discriminatory nature of existing law. If these veterans had left the military after they incurred their service-connected disabilities and subsequently retired from any other federal agency except a branch of the U.S. armed forces, they would receive both retired pay and disability compensation in full. Service-connected military retirees make a sacrifice that no other service-connected federal retirees make. That's not right.

Pentagon political appointees and White House numbers crunchers are swimming with the current of unjust policy. On the other hand, standing like a rock in their support of a square deal for service-connected military retirees, are The American Legion, numerous other veterans organizations, and co-sponsors of bipartisan Concurrent Receipt legislation spearheaded by Nevada's Sen. Harry Reid and Florida's Rep. Mike Bilirakis. I recommend these opposing sides bury the hatchet - bury it squarely into the obsolete language of a century-old law that steals from military retirees with service-connected disabilities.

Veterans who earned both retired pay and disability compensation should receive their full and just benefits; this is a principle is worth fighting for. The 107th Congress should make it so, ignoring civilian politicos who are unfamiliar with the law of the barracks: Take care of the troops and the troops will take care of you.

Ronald F. Conley is national commander of The American Legion, the nation's largest veterans organization.

[advocate10]

This issue is before Congress as we speak. It must come to a vote prior to the election or be lost for at least another year.

This may be the last chance for the forseeable future to right this wrong! Please contact Congrss!

[advocate10]

Ping.

Nobody on FR cares about disabled vets?

[advocate10]

Ping. We only have a couple of days to make this happen! Please get involved!

[fogarty]

Let's not forget to also contact the White House. It appears very much that even if this gets through Congress, Bush and his staff want to veto it. They have positioned themselves against it.

[advocate10]

You are correct, of course. But if the House and Senate stick to their guns, they can easily over-ride a veto.

In the Senate, 93 Senators co-sponsored their version, in the House, 90% of the congress critters co-sponsored it. If they keep to their positions, a veto won't stand.

[Militiaman7]

You can thank the Republican Leadership in the house and President "I care for the Military" Bush if CR isn't funded this year. Looks like I'll be holding my nose and voting for someone other than a pubbie this election.

.04% of the Defense budget and they'd have the money if they didn't spend it all on illegal migrants.

By the way you are correct. Almost, Nobody on FR cares about disabled vets.

[advocate10]

Actually, the House version IS funded, I'm informed.

This is TROA's latest:

House Leadership Blocking Concurrent Receipt. Not wanting to buck the Administration's veto threat, House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) is still refusing to let the FY 2003 Defense Authorization Bill come to the House floor with any meaningful concurrent receipt provision.

83% of senators and 90% of representatives have signed their names in support of legislation to fix the disability offset to military retired pay. The full House and Senate already have approved versions of the FY2003 Defense Authorization Act that would allow full or partial concurrent receipt of military retired pay and VA disability compensation. The House and Senate Armed Services conferees want to approve at least the House's partial relief version.

But

House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL)

is reportedly refusing to allow the bill to come to the House floor if it has any meaningful concurrent receipt provision in it. Why? To placate the Administration, which has been flooding military and public media in recent weeks with exaggerated and misleading rhetoric opposing concurrent receipt. (See TROA's letter response to an article in the October 7 Washington Post at http://www.troa.org/legislative/postltr.asp)

The Speaker knows that, if it comes to a vote, the House will overwhelmingly pass concurrent receipt relief, any presidential veto threat notwithstanding. In seeking to avoid a potential veto fight that reflects the real will of Congress, the leadership reportedly is considering alternative options, including:

*Delaying final action on the authorization bill until after the election, and hoping retirees and veterans will forget what happens before the next election two years downstream; *Dropping the authorization bill entirely, and putting selected "must do" authorization provisions (such as the January active duty pay raise) in a continuing resolution; or *Putting in a toothless proposal that technically would authorize concurrent receipt, but allow the President to block payments if he chooses (which many believe the President would do).

Late Thursday night, Rep. Gene Taylor (D-MS) tried to break the logjam by introducing a motion to instruct fellow conferees to adopt the Senate's concurrent receipt provision. Taylor, Rep. Mike Bilirakis (R-FL), and others asserted that, having cleared the way for the use of military force against Iraq, it's time to take care of those we send in harm's way. The House approved Taylor's motion unanimously - but it was non-binding, and the Speaker could still choose to ignore the overwhelming voice of the Members.

Passing a defense authorization bill as the nation builds for a possible war with Iraq is as important to us as it is to Congress. But it's also important for Congress to keep its word, both to current disabled retirees and to those now at risk of becoming disabled in the future. Unfortunately, House leadership seems to view those as mutually exclusive options.

But they know the military and veterans community will be outraged if their interests are ignored at the last minute in a behind-the-scenes deal between House leaders and the Administrationâ?¦and are reluctant to have that happen just before an election. So they're looking at options to defer action (or inaction) until later.

Armed Services Committee members and concurrent receipt champions Rep Mike Bilirakis (R-FL) and Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) know how negatively that would be received by the military and veterans community, and continue working hard trying to preserve a real concurrent receipt provision in the authorization bill.