Ron Paul Quotes.com
2003 Ron Paul Chapter 116
7 November 2003
Home Page Contents
Congressional Record Cached
Not linked on Ron Pauls Congressional website.
HON. RON PAUL
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?