(Reprinted from The Macon Telegraph. Posted on Thu, May. 29, 2003)

Military benefits pay: Back talk with action

The reasons are unclear why, back in 1892, it was written into law that military personnel could not receive retirement pay as well as disability payments for injuries suffered while in service to their country. Military retirees, unlike other federal employees, have any disability payments they are due deducted from their pensions. Equally unclear is why the practice was continued in the G.I. Bill of 1944. The law is very clear, though, so it's not just a misinterpretation or the result of unintended consequences. However it came into being, it needs to be changed, and if the efforts of U.S. Rep. Jim Marshall of Macon are successful, it will be.

This issue is not new; it has been discussed and defeated in Congress since 1987. Last year, even with the sponsorship of 402 House members and 83 senators, the action, called "concurrent receipt," was modified because it faced a White House veto. What did pass was only a partial victory. It allowed, under certain circumstances, some veterans (estimated 35,000) to receive both their disability and retirement pay. But it was a defeat for the majority of veterans (500,000) who find themselves in the predicament of having been injured while in military service and retiring from the military.

Marshall has filed a discharge petition, which would force the Retired Pay Restoration Act, H.R. 303, out of the House Armed Services Committee and to the full House for a vote. Such a petition needs 218 signatures from members of Congress. That would seem to be a simple matter since the bill has 296 co-sponsors. However, the White House is still opposed to its passage because of the costs involved. Payments from adoption of the measure could run between $18 billion (House estimates) to $58 billion (Senate estimates). There are several other objections, from the strain concurrent receipt would place on the Veterans Affairs' processing system, to the Department of Defense retirement costs, to adding to the mess of regulations that ultimately need a wide swath of reform cut.

Whatever the excuses, none are good enough to delay action. What Marshall is proposing is a simple "put up or shut up" maneuver. It will pull the covers off representatives who go home touting their co-sponsorship of the bill, but in actuality only play lip service when it comes to getting it enacted. This move will not win Marshall any popularity contests among his congressional mates, but it is the right thing to do for veterans, something that should have been done a long time ago.