|
Based on serious concerns about the effects of proposed language for new concurrent receipt legislation, which would replace H.R. 303 and S. 170, the DAV has indicated that it will not support this new bill as proposed. Both H.R. 303 and S. 170 would remove the offset between disability compensation and military longevity retired pay. Both bills have well over half of the members of their respective chambers as cosponsors. In the U.S. House of Representatives, H.R. 303 has 358 cosponsors, and in the U.S. Senate, S. 170 has 70 cosponsors. Despite cosponsorship by a solid majority in both the House and the Senate, neither bill has been passed. Now, we have been presented with a proposed provision that would take the place of H.R. 303 and S. 170. The DAV objects to this substitute bill because, even if passed, it will mean that there will be no further action to authorize concurrent receipt this year, and it may very well stall all future meaningful action to get legislat!
ion to authorize concurrent receipt.
Under this new bill's provisions, Congress would authorize concurrent receipt, but the law would not become effective unless Congress enacts other legislation next year to take $40 billion from some other Government program to pay for its cost, which we consider highly unlikely to happen. No member of Congress may be willing to step forward and introduce legislation to take $40 billion from some other popular Government program.
This new bill clearly does not give any promise or assurance that anyone in Congress will take any further action to actually authorize concurrent receipt in the future. It does, however, give members of Congress a way to escape the pressure being put on them to act on H.R. 303 and S. 170. It gives those legislators who have put tax breaks, pork barrel spending, and other less meritorious causes ahead of disabled veterans a way to make it appear they support concurrent receipt legislation. They can point to their vote for this bill as evidence of their support for concurrent receipt, knowing that this bill does not by itself provide any authorization for concurrent receipt.
The DAV opposes this bill because, not only is it not helpful to our efforts to get concurrent receipt legislation enacted, we strongly believe it will be detrimental. We have a strong belief that, if we agreed to this bill, we would not be taking our members a step closer to getting concurrent receipt legislation, but rather we would be taking them a giant step backward. Next year, without any legislation to press for, our motivated members will have no place to direct their grassroots influence as voters and as constituents. The veterans' and military organizations will have no place to apply meaningful leverage. With this new bill, it will be easy for Congress to excuse its inaction by any number of reasons, such as less favorable revenue projections in the budget, etc. If, as we fear, no member of Congress is willing to take the bold and probably controversial action to introduce offsetting legislation to take $40 billion from some other program, we will have no pla!
ce to direct and concentrate our lobbying. We will have no way to effectively move Congress forward when all 535 members are equally and collectively guilty of inaction but individually immune to criticism for the inaction of the whole. Members of Congress will be individually secure and safe in their inaction, and virtually beyond any effective pressure from us. We will have no effective leverage, and we will have aided and abetted those who put us in that severely compromised and disadvantaged position.
We arrived at our position only after careful assessment. We asked ourselves why members of Congress may be willing to readily support this bill when a majority has repeatedly failed to pass real concurrent receipt legislation. We asked ourselves what will make them more able or willing to pass real legislation for concurrent receipt next year than they are this year, especially if budget projections were to look less favorable.
The DAV urges all its members to contact their members of Congress and tell them that they must act on H.R. 303 and S. 170, not this substitute.
_____________________
JOSEPH A. VIOLANTE
National Legislative Director
|
