[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 82 (Wednesday, June 19, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Page S5790]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           CONCURRENT RECEIPT

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I speak on behalf of the pending 
amendment. I strongly support it and would like to finally see this 
issue brought to a successful conclusion after many years.
  I first introduced legislation on concurrent receipt back in 1992, 
again in 1993, again in 1995, and again in 1999. In 1999, I introduced 
legislation that became law as a compromise measure that paid special 
compensation pay for severely disabled military retirees with 
disabilities greater than 50 percent.
  Here we are in 2002 with an opportunity to finally rectify a problem 
that has plagued our veterans, and to rectify it once and for all for 
all military retirees who have become disabled during their military 
service.
  We have an opportunity to show a measure of our gratitude to these 
brave men and women who are serving our Nation as we speak in a time of 
war that all of us agree may be of very long duration.
  The existing law, as it stands, is simply discriminatory and wrong. 
Concurrent receipt is at its core a fairness issue. Present law simply 
discriminates against career military people who have been injured or 
disabled in the conduct of their duties while in defense of this 
Nation.
  I want to emphasize the important aspect of this issue to all of my 
colleagues.
  Retired veterans are the only group of Federal retirees who are 
required to waive their retirement pay in order to receive VA 
disability compensation. I want to repeat that. This record must 
reflect the importance of this legislation to correct a gross and 
unfair discrimination against our veterans. Retired veterans are the 
only group of Federal retirees who are required to waive their 
retirement pay in order to receive VA disability compensation.

  In my view, the two pays are for very different purposes: one for 
service to the country and the other for physical or mental pain and 
suffering which occurred in that service to the country.
  When I first drafted concurrent receipt legislation as ranking member 
of the Personnel Subcommittee, it was cosponsored by my dear friend, 
and former chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee, Senator John Glenn, 
in 1992. If he were here today, he would speak as passionately as he 
did during those years in favor of this legislation.
  The Retired Pay Restoration Act has received strong bipartisan 
support in Congress with 396 cosponsors in the House and 82 cosponsors 
in the Senate.
  The Military Coalition, an organization of 33 prominent veterans' and 
retirees' advocacy groups, supports this legislation, as do many other 
veterans service organizations, including the Veterans of Foreign Wars, 
American Legion, and Disabled American Veterans.
  For the brave men and women who have selected to make their career 
the U.S. military, they face an unknown risk. If they are injured, they 
will be forced to forego their earned retired pay in order to receive 
their VA disability compensation. In effect, they will be paying for 
their own disability benefits from their retirement checks.
  We have a unique opportunity this year to redress the unfair practice 
of requiring disabled military retirees to fund their own disability 
compensation. Sixty percent is not enough. We need full funding for all 
military retirees. It is time for us to show our appreciation to the 
men and women who have suffered so much for our great Nation.
  If we went back and looked at the legislative history of the 
legislation we passed in 1999, I think a review of the debate and 
discussion of that legislation would show that we wanted to cover all 
veterans, but there simply was not enough money. So we drew the line at 
severely disabled military retirees with disabilities greater than 50 
percent, with the full intention of expanding that to all veterans.
  Why did we select 50 percent? It was an arbitrary selection because 
we knew that over time we would expand it. The reason why we drew the 
line where we did was simply for budgetary reasons.
  Again, it seems to me, the argument against it is only one; that is, 
we cannot afford it because it is too large a hit to the budget.
  I would argue that perhaps we have our priorities a bit skewed if we 
are not going to take care of our veterans as our first priority. So I 
hope we can convince the administration of the justice and fairness 
behind this proposal. I hope we can get it resolved to the benefit of 
our men and women who have served.
  I point out that this is an issue not only for veterans who have 
retired and feel inequity, but the active duty members of our military 
are also aware of this situation.
  So I speak strongly on behalf of the amendment, as one who has been 
involved in it, as I said, for nearly 10 years. We have achieved 
partial success now. I hope we can achieve complete success and make 
all veterans eligible for this program and they not have to give up 
their retirement pay in order to receive VA disability compensation.
  I thank the Presiding Officer for his patience, and I yield the 
floor.

                          ____________________