Survivor Benefits  |  MOAA presses Congress for budget authority.

SBP Action Nears

In the weeks leading up to Congressional action on the FY 2005 Budget Resolution, members of MOAA’s Government Relations staff were burning the midnight oil in an effort to convince Congress to eliminate the unfair age-62 reduction in the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP). Throughout February, MOAA lobbyists, working with other representatives from The Military Coalition, visited the offices of every member of the House and Senate budget committees, seeking support for inclusion of funding headroom in this year’s budget.

In addition, MOAA’s lobbyists presented special SBP briefings for House and Senate legislative staffers. Col. Lee Lange, USMC-Ret., deputy director of MOAA’s Government Relations Department, briefed the details of the SBP inequity and made a strong case for eliminating this “military widows tax.” With representatives from more than 70 congressional offices on hand, this presentation helped raise SBP’s profile on Capitol Hill.

The legislative briefing also afforded MOAA the chance to present its newly revised SBP brochure, “Fighting for Fairness.” This is an update of the brochure introduced last year that outlined the problems with SBP and the three major arguments in favor of change. To download a copy of this brochure, visit MOAA’s Web Base at www.moaa.org/legislative/sbp/sbp_fff_2004.pdf.

This year, MOAA is concentrating its efforts on two bills in particular: On the House side, Rep. Jeff Miller’s (R-Fla.) H.R. 3763, and on the Senate side, Sen. Mary Landrieu’s (D-La.) S. 1916. Taking into account cost concerns raised by a number of legislators, these bills would raise the age-62 SBP annuity to 55 percent over the course of the next 10 years. The estimated cost of these two bills is only a fraction of the estimated cost of last year’s proposed five-year “phase-in,” which we hope will significantly increase its chance of enactment.

By the time you receive this magazine, we should know whether we have been successful in winning over the budget committees. Regardless, the battle now will shift to the House and Senate Armed Services committees, which will need to incorporate the actual legislative change in the FY 2005 Defense Authorization Act.

In the meantime, it’s essential to continue a strong grassroots effort to convince non-cosponsors to get aboard and stop the age-62 reduction in military survivor annuities.

The above chart lists senators and representatives who as of March 3 had not cosponsored this legislation. If one or more of your legislators is on the list, please urge them to cosponsor Miller’s H.R. 3763 in the House and Landrieu’s S. 1916 in the Senate. Contact them using MOAA’s “Support SBP Fixes Now” Action Alert, on our Web site at http://capwiz.com/moaa/home/, or call our toll-free Capitol Hill hot line at (877) 762-8762. Just ask the operator to connect you to your legislator’s office.

Guard/Reserve  |   S. 2035 would address retirement and health needs.

Reserve Benefits Bill Reintroduced

At a Jan. 28 press conference, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) announced their reintroduction of  S. 2035, a bipartisan bill to improve health care and retirement benefits for the National Guard and Reserve. Joined by Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and 24 other senators, Graham made a strong case for needed compensation and benefit upgrades for the reserve components.

The health care component of S. 2035 builds on the authority enacted last year in the FY 2004 Defense Authorization Act. It would provide permanent authority for drilling reservists to participate in TRICARE on a cost-share basis. A separate provision would authorize DoD to pay part or all of the civilian health premiums for activated reservists who wish to remain on their employer-provided insurance.

The bill also would establish a graduated reduction in the reserve retirement age based on years of service. Retirees with 20 years of service would continue to draw their retirement at age 60, but those with more service time could qualify for retired pay up to five years earlier. Another bill, Sen. Jon Corzine’s (D-N.J.) S. 1035, would lower the reserve retirement age to 55.

The increased use of reservists for operational missions, particularly their vital contribution to military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, means Congress is paying more attention than ever to the way reserve troops are compensated. We expect a spate of new bills on these and other Guard and Reserve issues in the next few months.

MOAA believes strongly that, having changed the rules to require regular Guard and Reserve mobilization for the foreseeable future, the government must act quickly to adjust Guard and Reserve compensation and benefits systems. We must address the increased uncertainty and sacrifice this change injects into mobilized members’ family lives and civilian careers.

VA Health Care  |  President’s budget asks some veterans to pay more.

Administration Seeks VA Fees

They’re back. The administration’s FY 2005 budget request proposes a $250 usage fee for about 2 million priority 7 and 8 veterans enrolled in VA care. Priority 7 and 8 veterans are those with no compensable disabilities who have incomes above a geographically adjusted threshold. The administration also proposes increasing pharmacy copayments from $7 to $15 for priority 7 and 8 veterans. On the other hand, it would eliminate all drug copayments for disabled and indigent veterans (priorities 2–5). Severely disabled veterans—priority 1—already do not make any copayments.

Last year, the administration sought a similar $250 “enrollment” fee and drug copayment increases for priority 8 veterans. Both proposals were rejected by Congress.

Presenting the new budget plan at a House Veterans Affairs Committee hearing in early February, VA Secretary Anthony Principi was forced to acknowledge his department had sought $1.2 billion more than the president’s budget ended up recommending.

Committee members expressed anger and frustration at the administration’s budget plan. Some characterized it as “smoke and mirrors,” because it masks the continuing resource-versus-capacity mismatch in VA health care that has caused lengthy waiting lists in recent years. The president’s own VA health care task force recommended in May 2003 that the VA system be fully funded to meet the needs of all veterans enrolled in priorities 1–7, but administration budget officials seem to have ignored that message. Instead, they renewed efforts to trim the federal budget needs by “robbing Peter to pay Paul”—requiring some veterans to pay higher fees to help fund cost reductions for others.

MOAA fully supports initiatives that free disabled and indigent veterans from any cost-shares. But this budget says, in effect, that the government doesn’t want to pay for the care of the veterans it agreed to treat. Rather than meeting its own budget obligation, it prefers to make eligible veterans wait months for access and force some to pay more out of their own pockets, in hopes this will drive some away and lessen demand.

Col. Bob Norton, USA-Ret., deputy director of MOAA’s Government Relations Department, and Master Sgt. Morgan Brown, USAF-Ret., of the Air Force Sergeants Association, testified at this hearing on behalf of The Military Coalition (TMC). Norton and Brown co-chair TMC’s Veterans’ Committee.

Norton expressed strong support for full health care funding for the VA system as recommended by the President’s Task Force on Improving Delivery of Health Care for Our Nation’s Veterans. Norton urged the committee to expand and improve current VA and DoD initiatives aimed at smoothing the transition of wounded and ill servicemembers from active duty to the VA system. He said “seamless transition” was a top priority for TMC, noting that the largest troop rotations since World War II are under way.

Norton also thanked the committee and Congress for enacting substantial concurrent receipt legislation last year. However, he said more work remains on concurrent receipt, both to deliver the newly approved benefits and to extend them to the large number of disabled retirees not covered by last year’s legislation.

Brown urged the committee to authorize a Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) enrollment window for active duty servicemembers who entered the service during the VEAP (Veterans Educational Assistance Program) era (Jan. 1, 1977–June 30, 1985) but declined to enroll in that much-inferior program. Brown also urged the committee to support needed upgrades to National Guard and Reserve education benefits under the MGIB.

Military Personnel  |  Stopgap measure won’t fix long-term problem.

Stop-Loss: The New Draft

The more we think about DoD’s plan to meet wartime requirements for the next few years, the more concerned we get.

The plan is to increase Army manning by 30,000 for the next few years. But that won’t be accomplished through additional recruiting, as most think upon hearing those words. It will be accomplished mainly by barring current members from leaving when their terms of service are up—a policy known as “stop-loss.” The plan is to keep stop-loss in place through 2005 for thousands of active duty and Guard and Reserve troops.

It’s hard to see that as anything other than a reinstitution of the draft, imposed in the most ironic way possible. The only people being drafted are those who already have volunteered to serve. Many already have seen combat or hazardous duty in Africa, the Balkans, Afghanistan, or Iraq. Now their end-of-tour separations are being denied so they can be forced to fill manpower shortages and deploy again.

DoD is trying to put a good face on it, saying it will meet wartime needs through “increased retention” rather than increased recruiting. If stop-loss is being euphemized that way, DoD is kidding itself. You can’t keep stop-loss in place for extended periods without risking negative long-term retention consequences.

Don’t get us wrong. Sometimes stop-loss is the only way to meet the national defense mission. But prudent planners know it should be a short-term tool, not an extended policy. It means that somebody didn’t plan very well.

The planning deficiency didn’t start with current leadership. The United States should have started recruiting for a bigger force years ago, because troops have been overstressed for more than a decade. But the fact that it hasn’t been done yet is no excuse to continue putting it off.

Is anybody thinking about the situation this process is creating for whomever will be leading DoD and the armed services two years down the road? When the stop-loss policy ends, does anyone think there won’t be a disproportional wave of negative retention? If the United States will need a larger force for years to come—and most agree it will—prudent planning seems to dictate that increased recruiting be part of the solution.

We don’t think the need is lost on military leaders. They’re doing their utmost to find the best solution to a huge manpower challenge within the “transformation” limits imposed on them by politicians and political appointees. But there’s also a limit to how much reality can be ignored and a limit to the risks we should accept in planning the military force levels needed to defend the country.

Remember “Help is on the way”? We never thought it meant just another helping of sacrifice heaped on those who already have borne their fair share of the battle.

Health Care  |  S. 2065 would authorize Part B relief and FEHBP.

Johnson, McCain Offer Health Bill

On Feb. 11, Sens. Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) introduced S. 2065, the Keep Our Promise to America’s Military Retirees Act of 2004.

S. 2065 is a companion bill to H.R. 3474, introduced by Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) in November 2003. Like its House counterpart, S. 2065 would waive Medicare Part B premiums for all military retirees—and their dependents—who entered service before Dec. 7, 1956. It also would authorize optional coverage for military retirees under the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan (FEHBP).

MOAA strongly supports S. 2065 and will work for its enactment. If you would like to send a message to your legislators in support of this bill, you can do so on MOAA’s Web site at http://capwiz.com/moaa/issues/bills/?bill=5087281.

GI Bill  |  MOAA supports legislation to restore education benefit equity.

Reserve GI Bill Benefits Lag

As the largest mobilization of National Guard and Reserve troops since World War II continues, Congress has become increasingly sensitive to the needs of these servicemembers and their families. But one benefit that’s been left behind is the Reserve Montgomery GI Bill.

Last year, Congress enacted a pilot program that allowed reservists to buy into TRICARE coverage, approved unlimited commissary visits, upgraded legal and economic protections under the Servicemembers’ Civil Relief Act, and increased pay and survivor benefits.

But education benefit shortfalls for reservists have not drawn the attention they should. When the modern Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) was established in 1985, Guard and Reserve GI Bill education benefits were set at 47 percent of active duty benefits.

For every $100 an active duty servicemember or veteran received in GI Bill benefits, a reservist would get $47. This ratio continued until the late 1990s, when Congress legislated substantial increases to the active duty GI Bill—but neglected to do so for the reserve program.

As a result, reserve MGIB benefits have slipped to 29 percent of active duty GI Bill benefits. A new reserve entrant will see $282 in monthly GI Bill benefits, compared with $985 a month in basic MGIB benefits for active duty service. Restoring reserve MGIB rates to the 47 percent benchmark would require raising reserve benefits to $463. One approach is Sen. Susan Collins’ (R-Maine) S. 812, which would bring reserve MGIB benefits to $473 by 2005.

With more than 350,000 Guard and Reserve members mobilized in the past two years and many thousands more scheduled for deployment to Afghanistan and Iraq, it’s past time to fix this problem. We must not leave our citizen-soldiers behind as they go into harm’s way to fight the war on terrorism. Raising their GI Bill benefits to help their transition back to civilian life will be one important way to help.

Health Care  |  Pentagon slow-rolling reserve health coverage.

Hearing Highlights Progress, Problems

On Feb. 25, the House Armed Services Total Force Subcommittee held a hearing on DoD’s health protection program for servicemembers mobilized to support the war on terrorism.

Force health protection issues include the ability to identify members’ health status before they deploy, exposures incurred while deployed, health assessments upon return, and systems and processes needed to ensure protection, prevention, and treatment of potentially disabling conditions—such as Gulf War Syndrome—because of such service.

Subcommittee Chairman John McHugh (R-N.Y.) said, “We cannot let [a Gulf War Syndrome situation] happen again. It is our responsibility and duty to ensure the health and well-being of our forces as they now deploy to extremely dangerous locations. Our servicemen and -women and their loved ones must be confident that they are receiving the best opportunities for good health.”

MOAA’s Deputy Director of Government Relations Sue Schwartz, DBA, RN, and Robert Washington Sr., legislative director for the Fleet Reserve Association, presented testimony on behalf of The Military Coalition (TMC) urging the subcommittee to:

• make permanent the temporary reserve health coverage authorities in last year’s Defense Authorization Act;
• ensure the VA and DoD do a better job of tracking occupational exposure by sharing data on servicemembers’ assignment history, location, occupational exposure, and injuries;
• increase the government subsidy for the Selected Reserve TRICARE Dental Plan to encourage participation and dental readiness for deployment;
• provide more resources to ensure robust psychological services for servicemembers and veterans to help avoid a new generation of homeless veterans; and
• ensure resources to support the needs of returning ill and wounded servicemembers to ease their return to duty or post-service life.

DoD witnesses included Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) Dr. William Winkenwerder Jr. and Army Surgeon General Lt. Gen. James Peake. These officials indicated they have been aggressively tracking force health protection indicators for all military members and are working closely with the VA on transition issues.

Asked by Rep. Vic Snyder (D-Ark.) about how much Guard and Reserve members might have to pay to participate in the newly authorized, fee-based Guard and Reserve TRICARE coverage, Winkenwerder responded he was not ready to offer a cost publicly. He went on to say DoD leaders don’t like the cost to the Pentagon of offering this coverage. He said they have concerns about expanding health benefits to unmobilized Guard and Reserve members and are not convinced such coverage would help recruiting, retention, or readiness.

We think it’s disgraceful that Pentagon leadership is “slow-rolling” implementation of the new requirement to provide fee-based TRICARE coverage for Selected Reserve members who have no health coverage through a civilian employer.

The law requiring this coverage was passed Nov. 6, 2003, but the Pentagon has yet to offer any timetable for implementation or give any indication that implementation planning has begun. Apparently, DoD officials are clinging to the hope that they can get out of this responsibility.

If they think that, they have another think coming. Congress put the requirement in statute last year in full awareness—and rejection—of the Pentagon’s resistance. Drilling members who have no other insurance need this coverage badly. Several state Guard and Reserve officials have asserted to MOAA leaders that providing health coverage would be a major help to their recruiting and retention efforts.
It’s time for Pentagon leaders to stop dragging their feet, start supporting the troops, and get busy delivering this much-needed coverage.