[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 136 (Wednesday, October 16, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10546-S10548]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONCURRENT RECEIPT
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise at this point on a different
subject, with the tolerance and forgiveness of the Senator from
Louisiana, to discuss a different problem, concurrent receipt.
I am very pleased my friend from Minnesota is in the Chair because he
is on the Armed Services Committee, and so it makes me very happy to be
able to present this argument to him.
We are all very familiar with this practice of requiring military
retirees to choose between military pay for retirement and disability
benefits. There is a history of this which I will get into. The money
comes from the Department of Veterans Affairs, but it is a very sad
state of affairs that we have come into.
This is a practice that my friend, Bill Stubblefield, of Martinsburg,
which is a large town in West Virginia, who serves on the board of
directors of the Retired Officers Association, told me ``is patently
unfair when a serviceman or woman, who has devoted 20 plus years of
their life in service to this country--suffering physically as a
consequence--has to be penalized by having their VA disability offset
by their retirement pay.''
It is a huge subject. We have been fighting for years to eliminate
this injustice. While the Senate, under the leadership of Senator Harry
Reid of Nevada, has passed such a provision several times, this is the
first time we have something to offer that approximates the Senate's
efforts in dealing with the House, which is now a problem.
Money has been set aside in the deeming resolution to fund some
version of concurrent receipt.
Now we learn that the Bush administration is threatening to veto--
they have said the President will veto--the Department of Defense
authorization bill. I think the enormity of that is $347 billion,
something of that sort. They said the President will veto the entire
bill because officials in this administration oppose concurrent receipt
for service members who are retired from the Armed Forces with a
service-connected disability.
A disability is a very special condition. Frankly, I find this
opposition highly objectionable. I find it shocking. It wholly
disregards the enormous dedication and sacrifice of our men and women
in uniform, and it labels their claim to compensation earned in service
to this Nation as ``double-dipping,'' which is a slam and a putdown. It
is something you say in sort of contemptuous terms.
When did this become double-dipping? More than 100 years ago,
Congress examined the military pensions of veterans of the Mexican-
American war. At that time, Congress found the retired service members
who returned to active duty could draw active duty, retirement, and
disability pay. So life was good and right and fair.
During debate, the late Senator Francis Marion Cockrell, who, I
confess, is unknown to me, argued that:
[T]he salary we pay the officers of the Army is intended to
be in full for all military services. We allow longevity pay
. . . in lieu of pension and everything else.
In 1891, therefore, Congress banned what is called ``dual
compensation'' for past or active service and disability compensation.
So that is history, 1891.
That legislation accomplished its goal. Service members can no longer
receive retirement or full disability compensation while on active
duty. However, the Congress of 1981 painted with too broad a stroke.
Retirement and compensation are and have always been intended to
compensate very different purposes. One is called retirement; the other
is called a disability. They are totally unconnected.
This is a very important issue to veterans in this Senator's State
and to veterans throughout the country. In fact, I would say to the
Presiding Officer, there is no single subject on which this Senator
gets more mail and more telephone calls and more conversations when in
my State than on this subject of concurrent receipt. It is an
overwhelmingly emotional and powerful argument of anger and disgust and
frustration on the part of the veterans of this country.
Veterans such as Hugh Weeks of Beckley, WV, a veteran of World War
II, Korea, and Vietnam--that's not bad--a career military man, writes
to tell me that while their military careers placed hardships on them
and their families, they never stopped serving during those hardships.
Hugh wrote to me: ``Now is the time for the government to stop
discriminating against us.''
In yet another disturbing setback for retiree veterans, the House of
Representatives Appropriations Committee, last week, reported out a VA-
HUD appropriations bill for fiscal year 2003 spending. This bill
contains a provision that would prohibit specifically VA from using any
staffing funds to adjudicate claims for VA service-connected disability
benefits that would result in concurrent receipt.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the applicable text of
the bill and committee report be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
H.R. 5605--Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban
Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2003
Sec. 114. (a) No appropriations in this Act for the
Department of Veterans Affairs shall be available for the
adjudication of any claim for disability compensation filed
after the date of the enactment of a new concurrent receipt
law by a veteran who is entitled to retired or retainer pay
based upon service in the uniformed services if the Secretary
determines that, if compensation under the claim is awarded
to the claimant, the veteran will, by reason of the new
concurrent receipt law, be entitled to payment of both
compensation under the claim and some amount of such retired
pay determined without regard to the provisions of sections
5304 and 5305 of title 38, United States Code.
(b) For purposes of subsection (a), the term `new
concurrent receipt law' means a provision of law enacted
after October 1, 2002, that
[[Page S10547]]
provides that certain veterans are entitled to be paid both
veterans' disability compensation and military retired pay
(in whole or in part) without regard to sections 5304 and
5305 of title 38, United States Code.
____
Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and
Independent Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2003
Section 114 prohibits VBA funds from being used to
adjudicate claims arising from any new concurrent receipt
legislation. The Department of Veterans Affairs estimates
that enacting concurrent receipt of compensation benefits and
military retirement pay would result in estimated mandatory
costs to VA of approximately $16,000,000,000 over ten years,
as well as administrative costs of $124,000,000 in the first
year and $245,000,000 over a five year period. These
estimates do not include the additional costs to the
Department of Defense. The Department estimates the
concurrent receipt claims workload would add more than
800,000 claims over the next three years. VA has been working
diligently over the years to reduce the claims backlog and
adjudication time. As of August, VA adjudicated almost
730,000 claims in fiscal year 2002 and still has a current
workload of over 355,000 claims with a lag time of 225 days.
Regardless of the policy surrounding concurrent receipt, the
Committee is concerned that the deluge of new concurrent
receipt claims will paralyze the system and those veterans
who have been waiting for years to get a determination will
never see the benefit. The Committee directs the
Administration to budget appropriate VA funding for both
mandatory and administrative costs should such new concurrent
receipt legislation be enacted.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, if this provision becomes law, no
service member who retires next year and is disabled because of service
will be found service connected by VA. No current retiree who has yet
to file a claim with VA but is disabled because of service will be
service connected by the Veterans' Administration. No retiree who is
already service connected, whose condition worsens, will receive a
service-connected rating increase. No widow of a retiree who died of a
disability related to service will be able to receive VA service-
connected death benefits if she receives Department of Defense survivor
benefits.
It is discrimination. It is wrong. If followed to its logical
conclusion, none of the benefits that flow from service-connected
disability status will be given to otherwise completely eligible
individuals. These important benefits include free health care and,
most importantly, obviously, long-term care, vocational rehabilitation
and certain life or homeowner's insurance, health care, education, and
home loan eligibility for surviving spouses and children.
Our House colleagues have justified this action, so to speak, this
policy choice, by pointing to the cost to the Federal Government of
paying for benefits that rightfully accrue to veterans who devoted a
lifetime of service to this country. The House Appropriations Committee
also warned of a potential flood of new claims that might be filed if
concurrent receipt passes, increasing delays in processing.
My shock over these provisions and the rationale given for them is
not that of the chair, which I am, of an authorizing committee seeing
its role usurped by appropriators. One gets accustomed to that. No one
is more concerned about the way the Veterans' Administration
adjudicates claims than I am. As chairman of the Veterans' Affairs
Committee, I have been working on this issue for a very long time. I am
troubled not only about the length of time the Veterans' Administration
takes but the quality of the decisionmaking in that process.
We can quibble over the number of claims that might arise if
concurrent receipt passes and how much they might add to VA's already
shocking backlog. That is why we must support, therefore, a sufficient
appropriation to process and pay for these claims.
None of these concerns aforementioned by me justify prohibiting
benefits to eligible veterans and their families, benefits they have
earned through their service to this country. Nothing justifies that.
It can be straightened out in this body. It is time for us as a
nation to step up and do the right thing. Otherwise, how can we face
Hugh Weeks, the aforementioned veteran from Beckley, WV, and all of the
disabled retirees who stand with him. When will it be time to stop
discriminating against those who continue to serve after they have
suffered disabling injuries or illnesses? I hope that time is now.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I am glad to.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. I just want to thank the Senator from West
Virginia for his insight and leadership and for educating me, a Senator
from Florida, from his position as chairman of the Veterans' Affairs
Committee.
I wanted to bring to the Senator some late-breaking news. We have
just had a conference committee meeting of the Armed Services Committee
in which we are trying to get final resolution on the DOD authorization
bill. The House conferees refused to show up with the Senate conferees
to hammer out the final version because of a dispute over concurrent
receipt. But it is not a dispute from the entire membership of the
House of Representatives. In fact, they had a motion to instruct
conferees to accept the Senate's position, as articulated by the
Senator from West Virginia on concurrent receipt; in other words, that
if you have a military retirement, you ought to have that, and it
should not be offset by what you are also entitled to if you are a
disabled veteran who is entitled to disability benefits.
Despite the fact that the House passed a motion to instruct
conferees, 400 to 0, to accept the Senate position--in other words, to
accept concurrent receipt--and give these disabled veterans what they
are entitled to, the White House sends a message to the House of
Representatives leadership and says: Don't agree with the Senate.
I was so proud of the chairman of the Armed Services Committee; when
he found out that was the position, he said: Nothing doing. We are not
agreeing to the White House's position. We are going to stand up. The
Senate is going to stand up for concurrent receipt.
I thank the Senator from West Virginia. I wanted to bring him that
late-breaking news.
I also want to put very clearly where the responsibility is because
the veterans of this country don't know that they are going to be
denied concurrent receipt because of instructions from the White House
staff and President Bush.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise to add my words on this issue and
also to thank the Senator from West Virginia for his comments, as well
as the Senator from Florida. The Senator from West Virginia is
absolutely correct; this is a very important issue to Americans
generally, particularly in the context in which we find ourselves,
getting ready to perhaps fight yet another war and honing our designs
on homeland security, but particularly to the veterans and their
families that are affected.
Unfortunately, the President has stated he will, in fact, veto the
Defense bill over this issue. I urge him--and I am sure many of my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle do as well--to reconsider. While
there is a cost associated with this, clearly it is an injustice that
should be corrected.
A veteran, a person who has put their life on the line, particularly
in recent years, been called up again and again and again into active
reserves and also reservists have been called up, to have a person
injured or disabled and then to serve out their 20 years, only to come
to the realization that they can receive their retirement but they
can't receive their full disability is a very unfair situation,
something for which our veterans most certainly deserve our better
attention.
As we allocate our resources to strengthen our military, not only do
we need smarter weapons, but we need to keep our promises to our men
and women in uniform. We need to keep our promises about health care--
you take care of us now, we will take care of you in your senior years.
We are doing a better job of that by stepping up with the TRICARE and
health benefits. But this concurrent receipt issue is where the rubber
hits the road and trying to get some sort of commitment to helping our
veterans who are disabled on the battlefield or injured on the
battlefield, that disability then is subsequent to that injury, to
allow them and their families to take the full benefit of their
retirement as well as their disability seems to me in the scheme of
what we have been talking about: Investing in our military, trying to
keep up their morale, keep up our promises,
[[Page S10548]]
and live up to our promises to our men and women in uniform as to what
we should be doing.
I am hopeful this situation will resolve itself to the benefit of
veterans. I, for one, am prepared to stay here and work toward that
end.
____________________