[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 20 (Tuesday, February 13, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1257-S1258]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                THE RETIRED PAY RESTORATION ACT OF 2001

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, each day in America 1,000 World War II 
veterans die. Seven days a week, every day of every month, thousands of 
World War II veterans die. It is with this background that today I am 
going to be talking about legislation which I introduced a short time 
ago.
  On January 24th I sponsored S. 170, the Retired Pay Restoration Act 
of 2001. This bill addresses a 110-year-old injustice against over 
450,000 of our nations veterans. Congress has repeatedly forced the 
bravest men and women in our nation--retired, career veterans--to 
essentially forgo receipt of a portion of their retirement pay if they 
happen to also receive disability pay for an injury that occurred in 
the line of duty.
  We have, in America, a law that says if you are a career military 
person and you also have a disability you receive while in the 
military, when you retire you cannot draw both pensions. If you, 
however, retire from the Department of Energy, or you retire from Sears 
& Roebuck, you can draw both pensions, but not our dedicated service 
men and women. They cannot draw both pensions. That is wrong. That is 
what this legislation is trying to correct.
  The reason I did it on the background of a thousand men dying every 
day is because we have to do something before it is too late for those 
people. We have many World War II veterans who

[[Page S1258]]

spent a career in the military. They were in the military and received 
a disability. In all of these years, they have only been able to, in 
effect, draw one pension. That is wrong.
  S. 170 permits retired members of the Armed Forces who have a service 
connected disability to receive military retirement pay while also 
receiving veterans' disability compensation.
  Last year, I along with Senator Inouye, introduced S. 2357, the Armed 
Forces Concurrent Retirement and Disability Payment Act of 2000. I was 
extremely disappointed that we did not take the opportunity to correct 
this long-standing inequity in the 106th Congress.
  Out of 100 percent of what we should have done last year, we did 1 
percent. We did very little.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Memorial Day is 
just over one hundred days away. There is no better honor this body 
could bestow upon our nations veterans who have sacrificed so much, 
than to pass this legislation before Memorial Day.
  We are currently losing over one thousand WWII veterans each day. 
Every day we delay acting on this legislation means that we have denied 
fundamental fairness to thousands of men and women. They will never 
have the ability to enjoy their two well-deserved entitlements.
  Given the tax and budget debate we are now in, I am gravely concerned 
that we will not have the resources that will be needed to properly 
fund this legislation and honor those who served our nation--our 
veterans.
  President Bush rightfully this week is focusing attention on the U.S. 
military. It is very important that he do that. I think the way he is 
approaching things appears to me to be very reasoned. He is saying we 
are going to keep Clinton's budget in effect this year until we have a 
chance to really understand what is happening. But he ordered Secretary 
Rumsfeld to take a close look at it.
  One of the things I want him to take a close look at is not only the 
readiness of the military and what happens to those people who have 
already served in the military, but I also say that it is very 
important that everyone recognize we do need and deserve and will have 
some kind of a tax cut. But we have to be aware of the fact we are 
basing these proposed tax cuts on uncertain forecasts. We are 
forecasting 10 years in the future.
  A few days ago here in Washington they forecast morning temperatures 
in the midforties. Most mornings I get up and take a little run. So I 
was kind of happy that we were going to have a break in the weather. 
The forecast was it would be kind of warm. I got up, put on shorts and 
a T-shirt. Out I went. It was 33 degrees. There is a lot of difference 
between 40 and 33. I was real cold. I say that because people can't 
forecast very well the weather 1 day ahead. I think we who are 
depending on the economists to forecast 10 years ahead must approach 
this with caution. I know we will do that.
  We also have to be sure this tax cut is proper in size. We have to 
make sure we do not take away from debt reduction and that we take care 
of Social Security and Medicare.
  Also, in addition to these projections, and the size that we are 
talking about with this tax cut, we want to look at fairness. Are we 
approaching this in the right way? Is it really appropriate?
  This is in the form of a question and not a statement. Is it really 
appropriate that the top 1 percent and the wealthiest 1 percent get 43 
percent of the tax cut? They pay a lot of the taxes--about 20 percent 
of the taxes. I think there has to be a debate, once we determine the 
projections, about the size of this tax cut--what we are going to do 
and how we are going to distribute that?
  I was home this past weekend. Most Americans--in fact 80 percent of 
Americans--pay more in withholding taxes than they do in income taxes.
  I also say this: The business community is concerned the tax cuts are 
not directed toward them but, rather, individuals. We have to make sure 
the tax cut we come up with is fair. As I said, this Senator supports 
tax cuts for all Americans. I think we have to make sure these tax cuts 
protect Social Security and Medicare and that we have some money left 
over to invest in health, education, and things such as my taking care 
of veterans.
  Of course, for me, the biggest tax cut the American people can get is 
to recognize if we pay down that debt, everybody gets a tax cut. The 
magnitude of the tax cut that President Bush is pushing we hope will 
not eliminate any ability of increased funding for veterans. This is 
going to cost money, but it is going to cost money that is one of the 
fairest ways we could spend some of the surplus.
  I say to President Bush: We should not leave our veterans behind. I 
say to Members of this Congress: We should not leave our veterans 
behind. Our veterans have earned this and now is our chance to honor 
their service to our Nation in a different way. I will work very hard 
to ensure that our Nation's veterans receive the dividend of our 
current surplus. Specifically, we have to have a fiscally responsible 
tax cut that allows us to protect Social Security, provide a 
prescription drug benefit, fund education, ensure a strong and stable 
military, and continue to pay down the debt.
  Today, over a million and a half Americans dedicate every minute of 
their lives to the defense of this Nation. The U.S. military force is 
unmatched in the history of the world in terms of power, training, and 
ability, and this Nation is recognized as the world's only superpower, 
a status which is largely due to the sacrifices our veterans made 
during this last century. So rather than honoring their commitment and 
bravery by fulfilling our obligations, the Federal Government has 
chosen instead to perpetuate a 110-year-old injustice. Quite simply, 
this is wrong. It borders on being disgraceful.
  I hope everyone within the sound of my voice will join in honoring 
these veterans who deserve what they have earned. They are not asking 
for a handout. They are asking for what they deserve. They have 
disabilities. They have fulfilled their commitment in the military and 
are subject to that retirement.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Kansas, how long 
does he wish to speak?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Five minutes or less because I preside at that point 
in time.
  Mr. REID. Senator Boxer has made a request through me and I ask this 
of the Chair. I ask unanimous consent that she be allowed to speak at 
4:20 p.m. for 25 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to Senator Boxer speaking 
for 25 minutes?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
  (The remarks of Mr. Brownback pertaining to the introduction of S. 
315 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

                          ____________________