Tuesday, Sept. 16, 2003 | 10:51 a.m.
WASHINGTON -- A fight is brewing on Capitol Hill over a plan that would allow retired, disabled veterans to receive both retirement pay and disability payments.
The fight revolves around how to define military disability and has Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., a veteran working on the plan's final compromise, on one side and Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., on the other.
Under current law most disabled veterans who qualify for military retirement pay have their retirement check reduced by the amount of their disability payment. Civilian government workers are allowed to receive both disability and retirement concurrently.
Reid sponsored a plan in the Senate that would allow veterans to receive full disability and retirement pay. A compromise working its way through the House would allow the payments but would make it harder to qualify by more narrowly defining military disability.
Reid, the Senate assistant minority leader, and Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle last week sent a letter to the White House objecting to the plan, which they say now defines military disability too narrowly and could make 1.5 million veterans no longer eligible for disability payments.
Gibbons, through his spokeswoman Amy Spanbauer, said this morning that the intent is not to disqualify anybody currently receiving disability, but to allow veterans to receive both types of pay and to make sure that the military isn't paying for injuries that are not service-related.
Spanbauer emphasized that the plan is not final, adding, "We want to make sure whatever compromise is created is the most fair possible."
The letter from the Democratic senators referred to a "Summary of Legislation" attributed to the White House, which Spanbauer confirmed this morning was a compromise being considered by the defense bill conference committee.
The plan changes the definition of disability to be specifically related to the performance of military duty. It defines military duty as related to a member's specific job, direct orders or combat and excludes "actions and time periods unrelated to official government business."
The pending proposal would allow retired veterans with disabilities connected to their military service to receive an extra $20 to $750 per month in 2004, depending on the degree of disability, without a reduction in retirement pay. This would increase until by 2007 they would receive full disability compensation without a retirement reduction.
Under current law about 28 percent of the 26,000 retired veterans in Nevada lose an average of $5,000 a year apiece because of the required reductions, according to data compiled by a House committee for Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev.
But the proposal also says to qualify for disability payments, the illness or injury must have been a "direct result of the performance of duty."
This definition excludes any injuries or illnesses sustained while not performing official military duties or related to aging or a pre-existing medical condition, according to the proposed document.
It also excludes actions unrelated to government business but done during duty hours, such as travel to or from a military station, meals or other activities.
That angered Reid, who said a significant change to the definition of disability should not be attached to the increased pay, his spokeswoman, Tessa Hafen said.
In their letter to the White House, Reid and Daschle wrote, "While we believe it is critical to implement concurrent receipt (of disability and retirement), we find it outrageous to pit one group of disabled veterans against another. It is impossible to overstate the magnitude of this change."
Reid has passed legislation through the Senate for the past three years to allow disabled veterans to receive full retirement benefits without making any of these changes. The same measure has not made it through the House.
Hafen said Reid would be willing to consider changing the disability requirements, but not as part of the pay debate.
Berkley and fellow Democrats on the House Veterans Affairs Committee sent a letter to committee Chairman Christopher Smith, R-N.J., on Friday, saying the proposal would force disabled, retired veterans to prove their disability was related to the performance of military duties.
"Given the current state of medical science and the circumstances of military service, the burden of proof could be insurmountable for many veterans," the 17 Democrats on the committee wrote.
Smith and the three subcommittee chairman, Rep. Henry Brown, R-S.C., Rep. Robert Simmons, R-Conn., and Steve Buyer, R-Ind., sent their own letter to the House conferees late last week saying the proposal was "unfair, unworkable and unwise," especially since no hearings or other public involvement took place.
Spanbauer said the proposal is still in flux and members are trying to figure out the fine line on who should get the payments. Gibbons sits on the House Armed Services Committee crafting the bill.
The goal, Spanbauer said, is to allow veterans to receive both disability and retirement pay.
"This is a problem that has spanned years," she said. "To remedy that situation is a huge overhaul, one of the biggest in decades."
Spanbauer said a solider who goes bungee-jumping while off-duty and gets injured on his own time is different from a soldier who sustains an injury during a service-related activity.
What's not clear is the fate of a service member who has a brain tumor or other ailment that is not clearly related to military service.
"The congressman wants those questions answered," Spanbauer said.
archive
