[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 21]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 29008]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1588, NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR 
                            FISCAL YEAR 2004

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                             HON. RON PAUL

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Friday, November 7, 2003

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, while I am pleased to see that this conference 
report has addressed the issue of concurrent receipt, I note with 
dismay that the provision as included in the report is inadequate. It 
will leave hundreds of thousands of veterans out in the cold, many of 
whom will likely not live long enough to benefit from this unacceptable 
pseudo-solution.
  This provision will allow only those 20-year retiree combat-disabled 
veterans to receive concurrent receipt, which completely ignores that 
many if not most soldiers who are combat-disabled do not remain in the 
military for 20 years. Upon becoming disabled they are discharged from 
the military. This means that, according to some estimates, two-thirds 
of disabled veterans will be left behind by this provision. In this, 
the provision is a slap in the face of our veterans.
  Additionally, the 10 year phase-in of concurrent receipt for the 
remaining who are at least 50 percent disabled effectively means that 
thousands of our veterans--particularly those of the World War II and 
Korea generations--will not live to receive this earned and deserved 
benefit.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to make our veterans and our soldiers our top 
priority. We have entered into a contract with each of them. They have 
done their part and are doing their part every day--in conflicts across 
the globe including the increasingly deadly Iraq occupation. We must 
keep our end of the contract. I am sad to note that provisions like 
this watered-down concurrent receipt are not in keeping with our end of 
the contract.
  I also must object to the procedure in bringing this conference 
report to the Floor. We were once again given only hours to read a 
conference report that ran hundreds and hundreds of pages. This is a 
disturbing pattern that seems to surface when we are required to vote 
on controversial legislation. Are Members not anymore supposed to at 
least review legislation before voting?

                          ____________________