Bill Us!

Majority Leader Frist’s refusal to allow consideration of contentious amendments puts the FY 2006 Defense Authorization Bill behind the legislative power curve.

MOAA’s main question as this column went to press was: “Why on earth can’t the Senate act on the FY 2006 Defense Authorization Bill (S. 1042)?”

The House passed its version of the bill (H.R. 1815) way back in May. The Senate brought its bill to the floor briefly in July, but Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) yanked it from further consideration because he didn’t like the long list of amendments senators of both parties intended to offer. As if the Senate hasn’t managed to deal with 200 or 300 amendments to the defense bill virtually every year.

As inaction dragged into September, MOAA President Vice Adm. Norb Ryan Jr., USN-Ret., wrote the majority leader to express his “very great concern over the protracted delay” on this key bill.

“When our country is at war and our forces so urgently need the support of their nation and their elected leaders, the defense bill should be Congress’ first priority,” wrote Ryan. “We readily acknowledge that there are many contentious issues in the bill that remain to be resolved. But nothing can be achieved through inaction or refusal to allow any debate on their merits. Leaders of both parties have expressed willingness to limit the number of amendments and debate time for these issues, in the interest of completing action. All that is required is your agreement.”

As this article went to press in early October, there were some indications of a break in the logjam.

One option being considered was to attach the Defense Authorization Bill to the Defense Appropriations Bill (H.R. 2863).

That would be highly unusual, because there’s a big difference between the two. The authorization bill (overseen by the Armed Services Committee) provides statutory authority for everything from pay raises to weapons procurement. The appropriations bill (under the Appropriations Committee) provides the funding to pay for the programs specified in the authorization bill.

Congressional rules normally bar putting authorizing provisions in an appropriations bill, to make sure the legislators with the purse strings don’t usurp all the other committees’ authority.
The Armed Services committees hate it when the appropriations bill gets passed before the authorization bill, because this reversal of precedence makes it seem as if their job isn’t important.

But the need to get funds approved for the new fiscal year (which began Oct. 1), combined with the majority leader’s derailment of the normal authorization process, put great pressure on Senate Armed Services Committee Chair John Warner (R-Va.) and ranking minority member Carl Levin (D-Mich.) to find a way ­— any way — to get their bill passed.

At press time, it remained to be seen what effect this unusual ploy might have on the prospects for amendments such as Sen. Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) on concurrent receipt and Sen. Bill Nelson’s (D-Fla.) Survivor Benefit Plan fixes. MOAA was continuing to generate grassroots support for those amendments and others. Hopefully, by the time you read this column, action will have been completed

Blunt Talk

MOAA addresses priorities with key House leader.

MOAA President Vice Adm. Norb Ryan Jr., USN-Ret., and Government Relations Director Col. Steve Strobridge, USAF-Ret., were among a small group of association leaders invited to the Capitol in mid-September to discuss legislative priorities with House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) — the third-ranking Republican in the House of Representatives [since this meeting took place, Blunt has been elevated to acting house majority leader].

Common themes to virtually all associations’ inputs included the importance of fully funding VA health care, “seamless transition” from military to VA care for returning wounded members, and the need to provide fairer compensation and protections for disabled veterans and retirees.

Ryan highlighted several more issues:

• The need for a larger defense budget and a larger Army, rather than continuing to scrimp on money and manpower relief for overstressed forces. “For the Office of Management and Budget to ask Congress to impose a moratorium on any further military benefit improvements when our troops are suffering the full brunt of war is outrageous,” Ryan said. “Congress needs to take the lead on these issues and do the right thing, as it has done in the past.”
   
• The importance of providing permanent health coverage for all drilling Guard and Reserve members.
   
• The urgent need to fix the unfair deduction of VA survivor benefits from Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) annuities and the inordinate delay in implementing paid-up SBP coverage, which inflicts a 30 percent premium penalty on “greatest generation” retirees.
   
• The need to end the disability offset to retired pay for retirees who have been rated “unemployable” by the VA.

Blunt said that the House leaders are committed to making sure the VA has the funds it needs. He also agreed that, “We need to treat the Guard and Reserve better in every way. That means getting the current force right-sized and refocused. We’ve shifted too much responsibility to the Guard and Reserve.

“Last year, you told us that fixing the SBP age-62 benefit was an important priority,” Blunt told the group. “We took that to heart, fought hard for it, and won. I’m listening just as hard this year.”

No Diet COLA

Katrina’s inflation bubble is mostly gas.

A recent inflation spike will probably make the 2006 COLA for Social Security, military retired pay, the Survivor Benefit Plan, and other federal annuitants the largest they’ve seen in 14 years.

The CPI shot up another .6 percentage point in August, and that trend appeared likely to continue in September. If so, it appeared at press time that the 2006 COLA could be in the vicinity of 3.8 percent.

The last time military retirees had a larger COLA was the 5.4 percent COLA in 1991.
Final inflation figures for the fiscal year weren’t due to be announced until mid-October, well after this issue went to press.

Cheap Tricks

Other spending belies poor-mouthing of military health budget.

There they go again. Former Pentagon Comptroller Dov Zakheim, testifying at a Sept. 14 House Armed Services Committee hearing, mouthed the administration’s now all-too-familiar attack on military personnel spending.

Zakheim, now a senior executive at a consulting firm, told the committee that something must be done to rein in military personnel expenses — especially health care expenses — to ensure there would be enough money for new weapons systems.

Military Personnel Subcommittee Chairman John McHugh (R-N.Y.) expressed concern that the Senate has included a provision in its version of the FY 2006 Defense Authorization Bill that would spend about $4 billion over five years to provide health care benefits for all drilling Guard and Reserve members. Zakheim said he shared that concern.

“I don’t do this to deny something to reservists, but doing this [spending on reserve health care] denies everybody by not putting weapons in their hands,” Zakheim claimed.

MOAA doesn’t buy that for one minute.

Our national leaders have said that we can afford hundreds of billions to rebuild Iraq, and we can afford to provide hundreds of billions more in tax cuts even while we’re at war. When asked recently what it would cost the government to help rebuild New Orleans, President George W. Bush said, “We’ll spend whatever it costs.”

Now, when we’re calling our Guard and Reserve members away from their families and civilian jobs and requiring them to lay their lives on the line every day, we’re supposed to accept claims that providing health continuity for their families will somehow wreck the defense budget?

That just doesn’t pass the laugh test. Rather than blaming military personnel costs for busting the budget, government leaders need to get their spending priorities straight.

Nothing — repeat, nothing — should have a higher budget priority than fair treatment for the servicemembers and families who are being asked to bear the entire load of national sacrifice in the global war on terrorism.

The answer, as House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) has said time and again, is that we need a larger defense budget. For the last 60 years — counting only the peacetime years in that span — the country has spent an average of 6.5 percent of the GDP on defense. Today’s defense budget ­— in wartime — represents less than half that share of national wealth.

The United States is the richest country in the world, and our executive and legislative branch leaders have a fundamental responsibility to propose a defense budget that’s sufficient to meet all of our defense needs — for both people and weapons, not one or the other.

If the administration fails to propose a sufficient budget for this purpose, it’s Congress’ obligation to increase the budget to meet the need. And when Congress approves long-overdue and much-needed benefit improvements for the troops, it’s Congress’ obligation to provide the additional funds needed to pay for them.

When government leaders start blaming military people for any budget shortage, it’s a blatant refusal of those leaders to take responsibility for their own budgeting obligations, plain and simple

TMC Cochairs Support Vets

Coalition pushes concurrent receipt, service-connection rules at Veterans’ Disability Benefits Commission hearing.

The Military Coalition’s (TMC) Veterans Committee cochairs, MOAA’s Col. Bob Norton, USA-Ret., and Master Sgt. Morgan Brown, USAF-Ret., of the Air Force Sergeants Association, provided TMC recommendations to the Veterans’ Disability Benefits Commission at a Sept. 15 hearing.

Norton and Brown covered a range of significant topics, including the issues described below.

• Disability and survivor compensation rates are insufficient in many cases, especially for severely disabled retirees and survivors of members whose premature death was caused by military service.
   
• Military and civilian working conditions are so different that comparing military compensation programs with civilian counterparts is useful only in establishing a benefit floor for veterans. The government has a higher obligation to those disabled in the course of protecting the nation than most civilian employers feel for their disabled employees.
   
• TMC believes any condition incurred in the course of service should be considered service-connected, unless it was incurred through misconduct or other inappropriate behavior, recognizing that military members are on duty 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Limitation to combat-related conditions would be inappropriate. Disabled veterans are disadvantaged by their disabilities for life, regardless of whether they were incurred in combat. Compensation should be for the disability’s effects on the member, rather than for the instrument of its cause.
   
• TMC supports the presumption that certain cancers and other conditions are service-connected based on research and experience demonstrating that servicemembers who endured certain duty assignments or other service conditions (e.g., Agent Orange exposure, nuclear testing) are significantly more likely to have incurred the specific illness.
   
• TMC is concerned by reports that some returning Guard and Reserve members are being hurried through the transition process and separated before obtaining adequate treatment for their service-incurred injuries or illnesses. Members anxious to get home to their families — and faced with the prospect of spending time in medical hold — are susceptible to suggestions that they separate and get care from the VA. They may later find that getting VA care is more difficult than they were led to believe, particularly if their service-related conditions weren’t properly documented before they left active duty. DoD has a responsibility to fully document and treat Guard and Reserve members’ conditions, seek treatment options near their homes and families, and medically retire them when appropriate, rather than hastily transferring responsibility to the VA.
   
• All disabled military retirees should be relieved of the unfair disability offset to retired pay. Once the commission validates the appropriate compensation standards for VA disability compensation, it should assert in clear terms that retired pay earned by service should not be reduced if the member also has the misfortune of incurring a service-connected disability.

Capitol Hot Line Hijacked

Calls to legislators are free for members, but not for MOAA.

It first, we were pleased to see a jump in use of MOAA’s toll-free Capitol Hill hot line, thinking our members were calling their legislators to support MOAA’s issues.

Then we realized that a number of outside groups were publicizing MOAA’s toll-free number to spur calls to Congress for a variety of liberal or conservative causes.

Some groups think such toll-free lines are government-funded. They don’t realize (and usually don’t care) that MOAA pays for every call over our Capitol Hill hot line. But we don’t fund other groups’ causes, so we’ve terminated the previous hot line number and instituted a new one. MOAA members now can call legislators toll-free at (866) 272-MOAA (6622).

DACMC Interim Report Due

Advisory committee to give benefits input to Rumsfeld.

The Defense Advisory Committee on Military Compensation (DACMC) met Sept. 21 to discuss issues for potential inclusion in the group’s interim report to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. The secretary appointed DACMC to make recommendations for adjusting the philosophy and mechanics of military compensation programs. In earlier meetings, DACMC heard input from representatives from DoD and the services, various government agencies and consultants, and military associations (including MOAA).
 
The committee discussed several possible options, including:

• allowing additional retirement credit for service beyond 30 years,
   
• exploring government matching of members’ Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) contributions,
   
• earlier vesting of retirement benefits,
   
• delaying the point at which retirement annuities are payable,
   
• encouraging longer careers for servicemembers with unique skills,
   
• increasing health care enrollment fees annually based on increases in retired pay,
   
• consolidating some special and incentive pays, and
   
• modifying mandatory retirement rules for specific specialties.

DACMC Chair Adm. Donald Pilling, USN-Ret., emphasized that these issues still are under review. He said the concepts DACMC ultimately recommends will be turned over to the next Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation for consideration when that group convenes next year. Pilling also reiterated the committee’s intent that any major changes should not affect anyone already serving but should apply only to future entrants.

DACMC’s published guidelines are that any changes must:

• be viewed as fair to the current force;
   
• have aspects that appeal to force managers, force members, and Congress;
   
• provide the incentive structure to meet all-volunteer force readiness goals; and
   
• entail no added cost.

Many past compensation studies foundered because of the extraordinary difficulty of meeting such competing objectives. For example, putting more money into vesting and TSP government matching would require substantially larger payments to separating members who currently receive none. Under a revenue-neutral requirement, that would have to be funded by reducing retirement compensation for members who serve a career. But taking money from people who stay to pay people who leave is hardly a formula for meeting long-term retention and readiness needs.

We’ll keep you posted on further DACMC progress.

TMC Lauds Hill Champions

Legislators pushed for Guard and Reserve health coverage.

On Sept. 15, The Military Coalition (TMC) presented its highest awards to four legislators and two congressional staff members who have played leading roles in improving compensation and benefit programs for military families and survivors.

TMC cochairs MCPO Joe Barnes, USN-Ret., of the Fleet Reserve Association and MOAA’s Col. Steve Strobridge, USAF-Ret., presented the coalition’s 2005 Award of Merit to Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Reps. Gene Taylor (D-Miss.) and Tom Latham (R-Iowa) for their sponsorship of key bills in the Senate and House that would provide permanent health coverage for all drilling Guard and Reserve members.

Graham and Clinton worked together to win Senate approval for an amendment to the FY 2006 Defense Authorization Bill that would accomplish this. Latham introduced similar legislation in the House, and Taylor led a fight to have it included in the House version of the bill. It was approved by the House Armed Services Committee but later deleted on a budget technicality. But their ardent efforts will ensure vigorous support for the issue when House and Senate leaders meet this year to craft a compromise version of the bill.

TMC also presented its annual Freedom Award to Meredith Moseley, legislative assistant to Graham, and Stephen Peranich, chief of staff to Taylor, for their behind-the-scenes work with the coalition in crafting the legislation and building congressional and public support.

BRAC Backing Strong at Top

Report moves forward ahead of schedule.

President George W. Bush approved and sent the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission report to Congress Sept. 15. BRAC recommendations become law as of Oct. 30 unless disapproved by Congress­ — which appears unlikely.

The BRAC Commission adopted the vast majority of the Pentagon’s recommendations, including 22 of 33 major base closures sought by DoD:

Army

• Riverbank Army Ammunition Plant, Calif.
• Forts Gillem and McPherson, Ga.
• Newport Chemical Depot, Ind.
• Kansas Army Ammunition Plant
• Selfridge Army Activity, Mich.
• Mississippi Army Ammunition Plant
• Fort Monmouth, N.J.
• Umatilla Chemical Depot, Ore.
• Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant, Texas
• Deseret Army Depot, Utah
• Fort Monroe, Va.

Navy

• NAS Atlanta
• NAS Brunswick, Maine
• Naval Station Pascagoula, Miss.
• NAS Willow Grove, Pa.
• Naval Station Ingleside, Texas

Air Force

• Kulis Air Guard Station, Alaska
• Onizuka Air Force Station, Calif.
• Cannon AFB, N.M. (must assume a new mission by Dec. 31, 2009, to prevent closure)
• Brooks City Base, Texas
• General Mitchell International Airport ARS, Wis.

The commission opted to disregard DoD proposals to close Hawthorne Army Depot, Nev.; Naval Support Activity, Corona, Calif.; Submarine Base New London, Conn.; Naval Shipyard Portsmouth, Maine; and Ellsworth AFB, S.D.

Major realignments proposed include:

• moving the Walter Reed Army Medical Center mission to the National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, Md., complex, which will be renamed Walter Reed National Medical Center;
   
• consolidating Wilford Hall Medical Center at Lackland AFB, Texas, with San Antonio Regional Medical Center operations near Fort Sam Houston;
   
• making Pope AFB, N.C., an Army airfield; n moving thousands of defense jobs from leased offices in Northern Virginia to Fort Belvoir, Va.; Marine Corps Base Quantico, Va.; and Fort Meade, Md.
   
• moving thousands of defense jobs from leased offices in Northern Virginia to Fort Belvoir, Va.; Marine Corps Base Quantico, Va.; and FortMeade, Md.

MOAA will monitor BRAC implementation to protect health care and other interests of members in affected locations.

— Contributors are Col. Steve Strobridge, USAF-Ret., director; Col. Mike Hayden, USAF-Ret.; Col. Lee Lange, USMC-Ret.; Col. Bob Norton, USA-Ret.; Col. Jim Young, USAF-Ret.; Cmdr. René Campos, USN-Ret.; Cmdr. John Class, USN-Ret.; Cynthia Dougherty; and Cass Vreeland, MOAA’s Government Relations Department.