Nimitz News

Patriots,
It would appear that the WORD has filtered UP HILL to "CAPITAL HILL!!!".
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

By Tom Philpott,
tomphilpott@militaryupdate.com
July 17, 2003

Concurrent Receipt Pressure Rises; CRSC Policies Refined

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert and other Republicans leaders are urging
President Bush to drop his veto threat and allow Congress to further ease
the century-old law that bans "concurrent receipt" of full military retired
pay and Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) disability compensation.

Capitol Hill sources said career retirees who forfeit part or all of their
earned annuities to draw tax-free VA disability pay are, with surprising
effectiveness, threatening House Republicans with election defeat next year
if they don't back up words of support for concurrent receipt with action.

Action this year, if the Bush administration continues to oppose concurrent
receipt, would be for Republicans to join Democrats in signing a discharge
petition by Rep. Jim Marshall (D-Ga.) to force a vote on HR 303, legislation
that would end the ban on concurrent receipt for all 710,000 retirees who
served 20 or more years and have VA-rated disabilities.

Marshall's petition turned an uncomfortable spotlight on Republicans who
cosponsored HR 303, the Retired Pay Restoration Act, but now balk at forcing
a vote on it because Bush opposes the bill. Only one Republican, Tom
Tancredo of Colorado, has signed the discharge petition. Congressional
sources said other Republicans have warned Hastert they might break ranks
too if the White House can't be persuaded to accept relaxation of the
concurrent receipt ban before the August recess.

Rep. Michael Bilirakis (R-Fla.), author of HR 303, is said to be pressing
for the compromise that the House reached last year before it fell victim to
Bush's veto threat. It would allow a five year phase-in of full concurrent
receipt for 90,000 of the most seriously disabled retirees, those with VA
disability ratings of 60 percent or higher.

The pressure is almost as intense now as last December when Sen. John Warner
(R-Va.) persuaded Bush to accept a lesser compromise, the Combat-Related
Special Compensation, which took effect June 1.

CRSC, in effect, is concurrent receipt by another name. But eligibility is
limited to roughly 35,000 retirees who have permanent injuries for which
they received the Purple Heart or disabilities of 60 percent or higher tied
to combat, combat training or instrumentality of war such as exposure to the
deadly defoliant Agent Orange during the Vietnam War.

The Bilirakis compromise appears to be the high end of what House leaders
might settle for in "high-level" discussions now underway with the White
House. The least costly step Congress could crow about would be to extend
CRSC eligibility to all reserve retirees with combat-related disabilities.
Only a few reserve retirees are eligible for CRSC under current law.

Steve Strobridge, government relations director of the Military Officers
Association of America, said Marshall's discharge petition "is putting great
pressure on Republicans to do something so they don't have to explain the
inconsistency" of cosponsoring HR 303 but refusing to allow a vote.
Proponents "hope and expect substantive progress" on easing the concurrent
receipt ban this year, Strobridge said.

If it happens, Congress and the White House will go against the advice of
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. In a July 8 letter to House Armed
Services Committee, Rumsfeld opposed concurrent receipt, saying the Senate's
unfunded plan to eliminate the ban altogether would cost $57 billion over 10
years and drain resources from more important personnel programs.

CRSC And "Unemployability"

Defense officials are circulating draft policy decisions on how
Combat-Related Special Compensation likely will be set in two special
circumstances important to severely disabled retirees.

The first occurs when retirees are deemed "unemployable" by the VA, and
therefore eligible for compensation as fully disabled, even their combined
disability ratings don't amount to 100 percent. The planned policy would be
to allow higher CRSC payments for "unemployability" only if the combined
combat-related disabilities meet threshold requirements for "unemployable."
If finding of unemployability rests in part on non-combat-related injuries
or illnesses, CRSC will not be raised.

The second policy going through final review involves Special Monthly
Compensation (SMC), which is payable on top of regular VA compensation when
disabilities are disfiguring or profoundly affect daily living. Receipt of
SMC, on top of other VA compensation, often eliminate retired pay entirely.

To reverse a drop in retired pay caused by SMC, the CRSC board must
determine that the disabilities are combat-related. For example, if the
retiree had lost a hand years before to enemy fire, any reduction in retired
pay from receipt of SMC would be payable as CRSC. If the hand were lost to a
home repair accident, any drop in retired pay from receipt of SMC would not
be restored by higher CRSC.

CRSC won't always match what a disabled retiree draws in VA compensation and
SMC even if the whole payment is combat-related. That's because the goal of
CRSC is to fully restore retired pay that fell victim to the offset. It can
match but never exceed the amount of retired pay offset.

Reserve TRICARE

Another Senate provision Rumsfeld opposed was opening TRICARE to reservists
and their families in return for a modest enrollment fee. It would cost an
estimated $5.1 billion a year.

Sen. Lindsay Gramm (R-S.C.) said the Senate has reached a compromise on this
with the Bush administration. The Defense Department promises to study the
issue this year and Congress promises to do something on reserve health care
next year.

Comments and suggestions welcomed. Write to Military Update, P.O. Box
231111, Centreville, Va. 20120-1111, e-mail to Tom Philpott
<tomphilpott@militaryupdate.com>
or visit Philpott's website at: militaryupdate.com.