Conference Report On H.R. 1588 National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Yeas 2004
7 November 2003
SPEECH OF
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Friday, November 7, 2003
2003 Ron Paul 116:1
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.
2003 Ron Paul 116:2
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.
2003 Ron Paul 116:3
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.
2003 Ron Paul 116:4
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.
2003 Ron Paul 116:5
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?