Defense Authorization Act  | Health care proceeds, but no SBP fix.

House, Senate Pass Defense Bills

O n May 22, both the House and Senate passed their respective versions of the FY 2004 Defense Authorization Bill by wide margins. 

In both chambers, there was considerably less debate than in most previous years because congressional leaders imposed restrictive rules on amendments from the floor. In the House, only 13 amendments were allowed, none of which yielded significant personnel issues. In the Senate, leadership maneuvered a special rule that effectively blocked a number of planned amendments on topics including the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) and concurrent receipt. A follow-on action inserted a concurrent receipt provision, but unfortunately there was no similar success on SBP. (See “Senate Rules Cut Both Ways,” page 20.)

The charts beginning on page 18 compare selected provisions of the House and Senate bills.

Some of the provisions we were pleased to see in the House and/or Senate bills are:

• another opportunity to seek further progress on the unfair disability offset to military retired pay;
• language in both bills that will impose much stricter standards on the Defense Department to help TRICARE Standard beneficiaries find participating providers and a Senate proposal to do a better job of providing continuity of health coverage for families of mobilized Guard and Reserve members (see “Defense Bill Pushes Health Care Access,” page 22);
• a Senate proposal to provide at least a 3.7 percent January 2004 pay raise for all uniformed servicemembers—including Public Health Service and NOAA Corps officers, whose raises the administration and the House would limit to 2 percent;
• the Senate Armed Services Committee’s endorsement of Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) initiative to specify in permanent law that future active duty, Guard, and Reserve raises should fully match private-sector wage growth. Under current law, military raises will be capped one-half percentage point below the average American’s pay raise every year after the current special pay-raise authority expires in 2006. History shows capping military pay raises is a sure-fire formula for a retention and readiness disaster. MOAA strongly believes it is essential to restore the full-comparability pay standard;
• a Senate proposal to extend SBP coverage to survivors of Guard/Reserve members who die on inactive duty for training;
• a House and Senate plan for full commissary privileges for Selected reservists and “gray area” reserve retirees; and
• a House plan to extend eligibility for the government’s long term care insurance plan to “gray area” reserve retirees.

Legislation | Reid wins second effort on concurrent receipt.

Senate Rules Cut Both Ways

Senate champions who sought to amend the Defense Authorization Bill to ease the disability offset to military retired pay and increase Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) annuities found their way blocked May 21 by the Senate parliamentarian, who, stunningly, ruled those amendments and dozens of others “not relevant.” 

Perplexed senators found that, at 2:30 a.m. a few days earlier, after final action on the tax cut bill, Senate leaders asked by “unanimous consent” that only “relevant” amendments would be considered for action on the defense bill. Under unanimous consent rules, a proposal is adopted if no senator objects, and none of the few senators on the floor at the time did so. Under Senate rules, the “relevancy” test requires that the amendment relate specifically to a provision already in the bill. 

The rule was aimed at limiting an expected flood of amendments and ensuring that the full Senate would wrap up its version of the bill before the Memorial Day recess. In the process, it also effectively barred consideration of much-needed improvements for survivors and disabled retirees because the defense bill didn’t already contain provisions on those issues. Among the amendments that failed the so-called relevancy rule were:

• Sen. Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) amendment to end the disability offset to retired pay;
• Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) proposal to make otherwise-qualifying combat-disabled Guard and Reserve retirees eligible for the new combat-related special compensation; and
• Sen. Mary Landrieu’s (D-La.) initiative to phase out the SBP benefit reduction for 
  military survivors age 62 and older.

We’re not naive about congressional leaders’ reluctance to address what they see as expensive benefit changes that the administration doesn’t support. And we understand the need for action on vitally important bills such as this.

But it’s wrong to refuse to even let these important initiatives come to the floor for consideration. In the future, our legislative sponsors will be on guard against efforts to impose such unfair bars to legitimate floor amendments. 

However, Reid subsequently proved that parliamentary procedures can cut both ways. 

The normal (if little-known) process, after the Senate passes its Defense Bill, is to call up the House-passed version, substitute the Senate-passed bill, and vote to approve proceeding to conference committee negotiations with House leaders to finalize a compromise bill. This pro forma process also is done by unanimous consent. 

But this time Reid used his right to object and insisted that he should have an opportunity to offer his concurrent receipt amendment during the procedural action on the House-passed bill.

After a couple of days of leadership wrangling, leaders pushed through a new unanimous consent agreement to consider five specific amendments — one of which was Reid’s. 

With an opportunity to vote on the issue on June 3, the Senate adopted the full-concurrent-receipt amendment by voice vote.

Unfortunately, we were not able to win the same level of Senate leadership support for an SBP amendment.

Retired Pay  | House cosponsors in concurrent-receipt hot seat.

Marshall Seeks Discharge Petition

There’s another reason concurrent receipt could be back on the legislative table this year. The House version of the defense bill contained no provision on this subject, but Rep. Jim Marshall (D-Ga.) has initiated a discharge petition on the House concurrent receipt bill (Rep. Mike Bilirakis’ (R-Fla.) H.R. 303). 

A discharge petition is an unusual maneuver that, if signed by a majority of House members, can force a floor vote on a specific bill. It’s unusual to press a discharge petition, except as a means to embarrass the leadership for inaction. One reason is that, even if a floor vote in the House is successful, it can’t become law unless the Senate passes it, too.

But the Senate’s recent approval of the Reid amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill could alter the picture considerably. With 297 House members currently cosponsoring H.R. 303 and only 218 signatures necessary to force a floor vote, many representatives will have some explaining to do if they don’t sign the discharge petition. The fact that the House voted unanimously to approve similar legislation last fall only adds to the pressure.

This is the nightmare scenario for House leadership—finding themselves right back in the concurrent receipt battle they went through last year, with both chambers having voted for it overwhelmingly and the administration threatening to veto it.

But the inconsistency of voting to send troops into two wars in the past 18 months, voting to stop docking servicemembers’ retired pay for any disability compensation they earn, and then failing to fix the problem for the vast majority of disabled retirees is for House leadership and the administration to explain.

We hope our members will urge their representatives to sign Marshall’s discharge petition on H.R. 303.

You can help by visiting MOAA’s Web site at http://capwiz.com/moaa/home/ and clicking on the “Sign H.R. 303 Discharge Petition” link to send a message to your representative—and by using MOAA’s toll-free hot line to Capitol Hill, (877) 762-8762, to urge your representative to sign Marshall’s discharge petition on H.R. 303.

TRICARE  | Pentagon will have to help Standard beneficiaries find providers.

Defense Bill Pushes Health Care Access

Both the House and Senate versions of the FY 2004 Defense Authorization Act include provisions aimed at improving health care access for TRICARE Standard beneficiaries. These provisions are the culmination of a concerted lobbying effort by MOAA and The Military Coalition (TMC) to educate legislators and their staffs about real problems with TRICARE Standard. 

The Department of Defense (DoD) and its contractors like to tout their statistics for TRICARE Prime, the military’s HMO-style plan. But they don’t like to talk about TRICARE Standard, in which beneficiaries face much greater problems finding participating providers. DoD doesn’t even track statistics on Standard providers, many of whom refuse to accept new patients.

We’re pleased that legislators and staffers in both chambers appreciate the problems and are pushing serious efforts to find solutions. Let’s talk about some specifics. 

The Senate version of the Defense bill requires the Pentagon to collect information on where the problems are: how many providers participate by location and how many of them accept new Standard patients. The bill would require designation of a senior official to be held accountable for getting information to beneficiaries and helping them find participating providers. 

This designee also would be responsible for taking action to recruit enough Standard providers to meet beneficiary needs by location—including recommending payment increases. The Senate would require the General Accounting Office to review the adequacy of DoD’s efforts on a regular basis. 

The House language goes into greater detail and would direct the secretary of defense to develop an outreach program to assist Standard beneficiaries. This outreach program would require that DoD: 

• provide every Standard beneficiary information about TRICARE benefits, costs, sources to find providers, and assistance in resolving problems;
• ensure that beneficiaries who need assistance locating a TRICARE -authorized provider get that assistance;
• institute a systematic approach to identify the number and location of TRICARE Standard beneficiaries; and
• actively work to recruit and retain enough Standard providers to meet beneficiary needs. 

The House provision would require DoD to provide Congress a specific plan to accomplish these goals, along with an implementation schedule, by next March. 

It’s the implementation that will be the key to solving long-standing problems with TRICARE Standard. But the specific requirements established by both Armed Services committees demonstrate a serious commitment and a big step in the right direction.

The Senate bill also would address health care continuity problems for families of mobilized Guard and Reserve members, thanks to a bipartisan amendment offered successfully by Sens. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Mike DeWine (R-Ohio), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), and Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.).

The proposal addresses a principle endorsed by MOAA and The Military Coalition—that Guard and Reserve members’ families shouldn’t have to switch health plans or doctors when the member is called to active duty. 

In recent years, activated families have had to switch from their employer’s coverage to TRICARE and then switch back again upon demobilization. In our view, these families should be offered a choice between year-round TRICARE coverage (for which they would pay a premium when not on active duty) and having DoD pay part or all of their existing civilian health care premiums during periods of recall. DoD and all other federal agencies already are authorized to pay the family premiums under the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program when federal civilian guardmembers and reservists are called to extended active duty. 

Many details of the proposed legislation remain to be ironed out, and the whole package will be subject to negotiations with the House, which did not have a similar provision in its version of the bill. But we’re encouraged that this important issue is now on the table.

Taxes  | Military homeowners, drilling reservists still wait for relief.

Tax Bill Drops Military Breaks

During deliberations of President George W. Bush’s proposed tax package, it appeared we were on the verge of victory on a long-needed tax provision. Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Max Baucus (D-Mont.) were successful in getting capital gains equity for military homeowners and a deduction for drilling reservists included in the tax-cut package (H.R. 2). 

The provision would count time away from home on military orders as continued occupancy for capital gains purposes and allow deduction of reservists’ drill-related travel expenses.

Frustratingly, the provision was stripped from the bill as part of a high-level deal between White House and congressional leaders on the tax cut package to ensure its passage by both houses. As a result, much-needed and long-overdue fixes to current tax law affecting the uniformed services have been delayed yet again. 

The provision is hung up over the maximum reserve tax deduction ($1,500 a year in the House bill, unlimited in the Senate bill), the maximum length of the military orders exemption period for homeowners (five years in the House, 10 years in the Senate), and the distance from home the member must be assigned to qualify for the home tax exemption (150 miles in the House versus 50 miles in the Senate). The bill also appears to be a victim of House leaders’ resentment of the Senate’s insistence on a much smaller overall tax cut than the House. This has made House leaders unwilling to concede to the Senate’s broader military tax relief proposal.

Let’s put things in perspective. First, the House and Senate each have passed this bill three separate times in the past 12 months.

Second, the House and Senate now are haggling over about $24 million a year. Compared to the $350 billion (with a “b”) tax cut Congress just passed, this is merely a drop in the bucket.

Third, military people have been waiting six long years for this action. The government has provided other Americans a trillion dollars in tax breaks over that period—and Congress is still bickering about the troops’ last nickel. 

Enough is enough. 

House and Senate leaders have an obligation to get off the dime, come to an agreement, and pass this long-overdue legislation. 

Legislation | Administration objects to combat pay, reserve commissary benefits.

OMB Grinch Strikes Again

In late May, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released a statement of administration policy on H.R. 1588, the FY 2004 Defense Authorization Act. In addition to articulating the White House position on missile defense, procurement, and other operations issues, the OMB statement shows a shocking lack of sensitivity in opposing several compensation fixes for servicemembers who just won two wars.
Specifically, the position paper opposes the House’s modest manning increase, which we consider the least that can be done to relieve a much-overstressed force. Incredibly, it objects to making permanent the Imminent Danger Pay and Family Separation Allowance increases approved by both the House and Senate — and which the president already approved for troops deployed this year. 

OMB even objected to a mostly cosmetic change extending full commissary privileges to drilling and gray-area reservists. This group already gets 24 visits a year. The change would allow them to stop having to present a morale-troubling “second-class patron” card and save reserve units millions of dollars a year now spent on administering those cards. 

Maybe this shouldn’t come as a surprise after the White House’s adamant opposition to concurrent receipt. But it’s another low point. 

The administration has called on the military to risk life and limb in two major conflicts in 18 months. America’s troops successfully overthrew the Taliban, uprooted al-Qaida, and ousted Saddam Hussein from power. Now, with the fighting done, their civilian leaders are opposing measures earned and needed to improve their lives. 

The OMB statement says these initiatives would “divert resources unnecessarily.” What resource is more important than our men and women in uniform whom Defense leaders always cite as “our most valuable asset?” 

It’s unlikely that the president would veto the Defense bill because of these relatively minor upgrades, so we believe Congress won’t be deterred from passing them. But OMB’s letter offers a jarring and grossly inappropriate contrast to the well-earned showers of praise the troops have been hearing for their sacrifice and success. 

Constitution  | House passage likely, Senate uncertain.

Panel OKs Flag Amendment

On May 21, by a vote of 18–13, the House Judiciary Committee approved H.J. Res. 4, a proposed constitutional amendment that would allow Congress to pass legislation to prohibit desecration of the U.S. flag. Constitutional amendments must be approved by both chambers of Congress by a two-thirds majority and then ratified by three-quarters of the states. The amendment itself, if ratified by the states, wouldn’t outlaw flag desecration but would only grant Congress the authority to enact such a law. 

The House has passed this measure four times in the past eight years and appears likely to do so again in 2003. The Senate has never passed a flag desecration amendment and has not yet indicated when it will consider one. Although the Senate Judiciary Committee may approve the House resolution, most Hill watchers think a vote in the full Senate still may fall a couple votes short of the necessary two-thirds majority. 

MOAA supports passage of this proposed amendment so the matter can be referred to the states, where the people can decide the issue.