The following is a copy of the letter Rep. Michael Bilirakis sent to an
Assistant Secretary of Defense as a rebuttal to ASD Abell's position on
concurrent receipt. Rep. Bilirakis, the House champion of concurrent
receipt is also sending President Bush a similar letter. We applaud and
thank Rep. Bilirakis and Ms. Rebecca Hyder, his Legislative Assistant, for
their hard work and unparalleled perseverance on behalf of the disabled
military retired community.
October 1, 2002
The Honorable Charles Abell
Assistant Secretary of Defense (Force Management Policy)
Department of Defense
The Pentagon
Washington, D.C. 20301-1155
Dear Secretary Abell:
As you know, I am the chief proponent of the concurrent receipt issue in the
House of Representatives. I saw an article by James Garamone on concurrent
receipt posted on the American Forces Press Service. I was quite
disappointed by some of the comments and arguments raised by you and the
Department of Defense in the article.
According to the article, "DOD research shows that the small number veterans
who would benefit from such a repeal are already doing well financially."
Based on my contacts with disabled military retirees over the last 17 years,
I question the validity of that statement. Since I first began working on
this issue, I have heard from thousands of disabled retirees who are
negatively impacted by the current offset and are struggling to get by each
month. Some of these retirees have been forced to undertake drastic
measures, such as selling their homes, in order to meet their monthly
obligations. For many of them, their retired pay amounts to less than
$1,000 per month. In many of these cases, the amount of the VA offset
exceeds the retiree's total retired pay, meaning the individual receives
none of the retired pay from the Department of Defense that they have
rightfully earned. Even with their VA disability compensation, most of
these individuals had total monthly incomes of $1,000 or less, and I
seriously doubt that any of these retirees would consider themselves "doing
well financially."
Moreover, the Department of Defense has already acknowledged that its
studies on retiree income included very few severely disabled retirees.
This omission undermines the credibility of the Department's studies.
Furthermore, these studies relied on total household income, including
spousal income and other outside income sources. Outside income sources
have no bearing on whether or not a military retiree is entitled to receive
his or her retired pay -- retirement income earned with 20 years or more of
loyal service to our nation.
I also believe that your assertion that if concurrent receipt passes "1.2
million veterans could qualify" for extra payments is blatantly misleading.
Previous cost estimates based on data provided by the Departments of Defense
and Veterans Affairs show that about 550,000 disabled retirees would qualify
if a full concurrent receipt plan were enacted into law. Undoubtedly a
change in the current law will encourage additional members to apply for a
disability rating. However, speculation that an additional 700,000 retirees
might apply for and be granted disability ratings is simply overreaching.
It is highly improbable that this many retirees would even apply, much less
be approved, for VA disability compensation.
Finally, your argument that funding for concurrent receipt will hurt current
servicemembers is also misleading. Members of Congress are cognizant of the
sacrifices military service entails. Neither I nor any of my colleagues
would suggest that other personnel funding be cut to pay for concurrent
receipt, and the enactment of a concurrent receipt provision won't
negatively impact military readiness. If there were any question that my
legislation to eliminate the current offset between military retired pay and
VA disability compensation would have such a negative impact, I sincerely
doubt that it would have garnered the support of more than 90 percent of the
House of Representatives and 80 percent of the Senate.
Moreover, earlier this year, I worked very hard with the members of the
House Budget Committee to provide the funding needed to begin the
elimination of the current offset so that readiness would not be negatively
impacted by our actions. I take great offense at the insinuations that I or
my fellow Members of Congress do not support the brave men and women
currently serving in our Armed Forces.
Secretary Abell, I would remind you of a quote by our first
Commander-in-Chief George Washington: "The willingness with which our young
people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be
directly proportional to how they perceive the veterans of earlier wars were
treated and appreciated by their nation." At a time when our Nation is
calling upon our Armed Forces to defend democracy and freedom, we must be
careful not to send the wrong signal to our military service members. For
those of them who have selected to make their career in the U.S. military,
they face an additional unknown risk in our fight against terrorism. If
they are injured, they will be forced to forego their earned retired pay in
order to receive their VA disability compensation. In effect, they will be
paying for their own disability benefits from their retirement checks.
I strongly urge you and the Department of Defense to end your misleading
rhetoric against concurrent receipt, do what is right, and support the
elimination of the current offset.
Sincerely yours,
Michael Bilirakis
Member of Congress