The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“THE RETIRED PAY RESTORATION ACT OF 2001” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Energy was published in the Senate section on pages S1257-S1258 on Feb. 13, 2001.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
THE RETIRED PAY RESTORATION ACT OF 2001
Mr. REID. Mr. President, each day in America 1,000 World War II veterans die. Seven days a week, every day of every month, thousands of World War II veterans die. It is with this background that today I am going to be talking about legislation which I introduced a short time ago.
On January 24th I sponsored S. 170, the Retired Pay Restoration Act of 2001. This bill addresses a 110-year-old injustice against over 450,000 of our nations veterans. Congress has repeatedly forced the bravest men and women in our nation--retired, career veterans--to essentially forgo receipt of a portion of their retirement pay if they happen to also receive disability pay for an injury that occurred in the line of duty.
We have, in America, a law that says if you are a career military person and you also have a disability you receive while in the military, when you retire you cannot draw both pensions. If you, however, retire from the Department of Energy, or you retire from Sears
& Roebuck, you can draw both pensions, but not our dedicated service men and women. They cannot draw both pensions. That is wrong. That is what this legislation is trying to correct.
The reason I did it on the background of a thousand men dying every day is because we have to do something before it is too late for those people. We have many World War II veterans who spent a career in the military. They were in the military and received a disability. In all of these years, they have only been able to, in effect, draw one pension. That is wrong.
S. 170 permits retired members of the Armed Forces who have a service connected disability to receive military retirement pay while also receiving veterans' disability compensation.
Last year, I along with Senator Inouye, introduced S. 2357, the Armed Forces Concurrent Retirement and Disability Payment Act of 2000. I was extremely disappointed that we did not take the opportunity to correct this long-standing inequity in the 106th Congress.
Out of 100 percent of what we should have done last year, we did 1 percent. We did very little.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Memorial Day is just over one hundred days away. There is no better honor this body could bestow upon our nations veterans who have sacrificed so much, than to pass this legislation before Memorial Day.
We are currently losing over one thousand WWII veterans each day. Every day we delay acting on this legislation means that we have denied fundamental fairness to thousands of men and women. They will never have the ability to enjoy their two well-deserved entitlements.
Given the tax and budget debate we are now in, I am gravely concerned that we will not have the resources that will be needed to properly fund this legislation and honor those who served our nation--our veterans.
President Bush rightfully this week is focusing attention on the U.S. military. It is very important that he do that. I think the way he is approaching things appears to me to be very reasoned. He is saying we are going to keep Clinton's budget in effect this year until we have a chance to really understand what is happening. But he ordered Secretary Rumsfeld to take a close look at it.
One of the things I want him to take a close look at is not only the readiness of the military and what happens to those people who have already served in the military, but I also say that it is very important that everyone recognize we do need and deserve and will have some kind of a tax cut. But we have to be aware of the fact we are basing these proposed tax cuts on uncertain forecasts. We are forecasting 10 years in the future.
A few days ago here in Washington they forecast morning temperatures in the midforties. Most mornings I get up and take a little run. So I was kind of happy that we were going to have a break in the weather. The forecast was it would be kind of warm. I got up, put on shorts and a T-shirt. Out I went. It was 33 degrees. There is a lot of difference between 40 and 33. I was real cold. I say that because people can't forecast very well the weather 1 day ahead. I think we who are depending on the economists to forecast 10 years ahead must approach this with caution. I know we will do that.
We also have to be sure this tax cut is proper in size. We have to make sure we do not take away from debt reduction and that we take care of Social Security and Medicare.
Also, in addition to these projections, and the size that we are talking about with this tax cut, we want to look at fairness. Are we approaching this in the right way? Is it really appropriate?
This is in the form of a question and not a statement. Is it really appropriate that the top 1 percent and the wealthiest 1 percent get 43 percent of the tax cut? They pay a lot of the taxes--about 20 percent of the taxes. I think there has to be a debate, once we determine the projections, about the size of this tax cut--what we are going to do and how we are going to distribute that?
I was home this past weekend. Most Americans--in fact 80 percent of Americans--pay more in withholding taxes than they do in income taxes.
I also say this: The business community is concerned the tax cuts are not directed toward them but, rather, individuals. We have to make sure the tax cut we come up with is fair. As I said, this Senator supports tax cuts for all Americans. I think we have to make sure these tax cuts protect Social Security and Medicare and that we have some money left over to invest in health, education, and things such as my taking care of veterans.
Of course, for me, the biggest tax cut the American people can get is to recognize if we pay down that debt, everybody gets a tax cut. The magnitude of the tax cut that President Bush is pushing we hope will not eliminate any ability of increased funding for veterans. This is going to cost money, but it is going to cost money that is one of the fairest ways we could spend some of the surplus.
I say to President Bush: We should not leave our veterans behind. I say to Members of this Congress: We should not leave our veterans behind. Our veterans have earned this and now is our chance to honor their service to our Nation in a different way. I will work very hard to ensure that our Nation's veterans receive the dividend of our current surplus. Specifically, we have to have a fiscally responsible tax cut that allows us to protect Social Security, provide a prescription drug benefit, fund education, ensure a strong and stable military, and continue to pay down the debt.
Today, over a million and a half Americans dedicate every minute of their lives to the defense of this Nation. The U.S. military force is unmatched in the history of the world in terms of power, training, and ability, and this Nation is recognized as the world's only superpower, a status which is largely due to the sacrifices our veterans made during this last century. So rather than honoring their commitment and bravery by fulfilling our obligations, the Federal Government has chosen instead to perpetuate a 110-year-old injustice. Quite simply, this is wrong. It borders on being disgraceful.
I hope everyone within the sound of my voice will join in honoring these veterans who deserve what they have earned. They are not asking for a handout. They are asking for what they deserve. They have disabilities. They have fulfilled their commitment in the military and are subject to that retirement.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Kansas, how long does he wish to speak?
Mr. BROWNBACK. Five minutes or less because I preside at that point in time.
Mr. REID. Senator Boxer has made a request through me and I ask this of the Chair. I ask unanimous consent that she be allowed to speak at 4:20 p.m. for 25 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to Senator Boxer speaking for 25 minutes?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
(The remarks of Mr. Brownback pertaining to the introduction of S. 315 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
____________________
