2009/07/30 13:44:00
Getting some kind of concurrent receipt initiative in the Senate’s Defense Authorization Bill seemed a no-brainer.
Our longtime Senate concurrent receipt champion, Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) is Majority Leader of the Senate.
Each Senate-passed bill for the last five years has included at least some Reid-proposed initiative to reduce the remaining number of disabled retirees affected by the disability offset to retired pay. And most of those initiatives resulted in at least some progress toward the goal of totally eliminating the offset.
This year, Reid had proposed two separate amendments to the defense bill. One would implement President Obama’s budget proposal to phase out the offset for all chapter 61 (medical) retirees, regardless of their length of service. Starting January 2010, the plan would eliminate the offset for Chapter 61 retirees with 90-percent or 100-percent disability ratings (including unemployables) with less than 20 years of service. Between 2011 and 2014, it would phase out the offset for all remaining Chapter 61s.
His other amendment would fix a glitch in the statutory calculation formula for Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC) which currently underpays certain combat-disabled retirees.
So it came as a surprise when MOAA checked the list of approved amendments following Senate passage of the FY2010 defense bill – and found that neither of these amendments had been adopted.
In the aftermath of the late-night amendment negotiations before the defense bill was approved, MOAA learned that Armed Services Committee leaders of both parties had agreed to include the amendment in the defense bill under a “unanimous consent” procedure.
This is a common means of approving amendments to a fast-moving bill. Under the procedure, an amendment is adopted unless there is an objection from one or more senators present.
In the case of Sen. Reid’s concurrent receipt amendment, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) objected to its inclusion in the defense bill, effectively stymieing the amendment just before the final vote on the bill.
When MOAA asked Sen. Coburn’s office staff for an explanation of his objection, the response was that the amendment “would have raised mandatory spending by $5 billion over 10 years, with no proposed spending reduction to pay for it.”
But the good news is that concurrent receipt progress in this year’s defense bill is still a very strong possibility, despite the failure of the Senate amendment.
That’s because the defense bill the House of Representatives passed in June (H.R. 2657) included virtually the same plan for Chapter 61 retirees. House leaders found cost offsets for the first year’s spending requirement, and pledged to find them for the remaining years.
The House action guaranteed the issue will be on the table as House and Senate leaders meet to work out the differences between the bills passed by their respective chambers.
It would have been ideal to have the same plan in both bills. But MOAA believes Hill leaders’ desire to support President Obama’s strong endorsement of eliminating the offset for medical retirees make it a high probability for retention in the final defense bill.
We’ve learned never to “count our chickens,” but believe disabled retirees shouldn’t be discouraged by the omission in the Senate bill.
