The FY2008 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
The FY2008 National Defense Authorization Act:
Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
Updated February 6, 2008
David F. Burrelli, Coordinator
Specialist in National Defense
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Richard A. Best, Jr., Charles A. Henning, and Lawrence Kapp
Specialists in National Defense
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
The FY2008 National Defense Authorization Act:
Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
Summary
Military personnel issues typically generate significant interest from many
Members of Congress and their staffs. Ongoing military operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan in support of what the Bush Administration terms the Global War on
Terror, along with the emerging operational role of the Reserve Components, have
further heightened interest and support for a wide range of military personnel policies
and issues.
CRS selected a number of issues addressed by Congress as it considered the
FY2008 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1585/S. 1547/H.R. 4986). In
each case, a brief synopsis is provided that includes background information, a
comparison of the House-passed, Senate-passed, and public law provisions, and a
brief discussion of the issue. This update reflects the actions taken on the various
House and Senate provisions in H.Rept 110-477, the conference report to accompany
H.R. 1585, which was filed on December 6, 2007. Note: due to objections by the
Administration to language that might have led to a freeze on Iraqi assets in U.S.
banks contained in H.R. 1585, President Bush vetoed the bill. The bill was
reconsidered by the House and Senate, and reissued (without the Iraqi language) as
H.R. 4986. H.R. 4986 became P.L. 110-181.
Where appropriate, other CRS products are identified to provide more detailed
background information and analysis of the issue. For each issue, a CRS analyst is
identified and contact information is provided. Note: some issues were addressed in
last year’s National Defense Authorization Act and discussed in CRS Report
RL33571, The FY2007 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military
Personnel Policy Issues, concerning that legislation. Those issues that were
previously considered in CRS Report RL33571 are designated with a “*” in the
relevant section titles of this report.
This report focuses exclusively on the annual defense authorization process. It
does not include appropriations, veterans’ affairs, tax implications of policy choices
or any discussion of separately introduced legislation.
Updates to this report are not anticipated.
Contents
Selected Family Matters.............................................3
Cold War Victory Medal............................................6
Continuation of Authority To Assist Local Educational Agencies that Benefit
Dependents of Members of the Armed Forces and Department of
Defense Civilian Employees.....................................7
Disregarding Periods of Confinement of Members in Determining Benefits
for Dependents Who Are Victims of Abuse by the Member............9
Continuation/Modification of Authority for Members of the Armed Forces
to Designate a Recipient for a Portion of the Death Gratuity...........10
Recoupment of Annuity Amounts Previously Paid, but Subject to Offset for
Dependency and Indemnity Compensation.........................11
*Survivor Benefit Plan Annuity Offset for Dependency and Indemnity
C om pens at i on ...............................................13
Annuities for Guardians and Caretakers of Dependent Children Under
Survivor Benefit Plan.........................................14
*Effective Date of “Paid-Up” Coverage under the Military Survivor
Benefit Plan (SBP)............................................15
Army/Marine Corps End Strength....................................16
Hardship Duty Pay................................................17
*Modifying Reserve Retirement Authorities............................18
POW/MIA Operations.............................................19
*Military Pay Raise...............................................20
*Concurrent Receipt..............................................21
Moving Reserve “GI Bill” Educational Benefits from Title 10 to Title 38.....22
*Role of National Guard Bureau and National Guard Bureau Chief..........23
*Tricare Fee Increases.............................................32
*Tricare Pharmacy Fees............................................34
*Treatment of Tricare Retail Pharmacy Network Under Federal Procurement of
P harm aceut i cal s .............................................35
The FY2008 National Defense Authorization
Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy
Issues
Each year, the Senate and House Armed Services Committees report their
respective versions of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). They
contain numerous provisions that affect military personnel, retirees and their family
members. Provisions in one version are often not included in another, treated
differently, or, in certain cases, they are identical. Following passage of each by the
respective legislative body, a Conference Committee is typically convened to resolve
the various differences between the House and Senate versions. If a Conference
Committee reports its final version of the Authorization Act, the bill is returned to
the House and Senate for their consideration. Upon final passage the act is sent to the
President for approval.
In the course of a typical authorization cycle, congressional staffs receive many
constituent requests for information on provisions contained in the annual NDAA.
This report highlights those personnel-related issues that seem to generate the most
intense constituent interest, and tracks their status in the FY2008 House and Senate
versions of the NDAA. The House bill, H.R. 1585, was introduced on March 20,
146), and passed by the House on May 17, 2007. The Senate bill, S. 1547, was
introduced on June 5, 2007 and reported by the Committee on Armed Services on
that day (S.Rept. 110-77), and reported by the Select Committee on Intelligence on
June 29, 2007 (S.Rept. 110-125). On October 1, 2007, the Senate passed its version
after striking everything after the enacting clause of H.R. 1585 and inserting the text
of S. 1547 as amended by the Senate. The entries under “H.R. 1585 House-passed
Version” and “H.R. 1585 Senate-passed Version” in the following pages are based
on language in the House- and Senate-passed bills, respectively, unless otherwise
indicated. On December 6, 2007, the conference report (H.Rept. 110-477) was filed.
On December 12, 2007, the House agreed to the conference report (397-27) and two
days later, the Senate agreed to the conference report (92-3). Objecting to language
in the bill regarding a possible freeze on Iraqi assets held in U.S. banks, the President
vetoed it on December 28, 2007. The bill was returned to the House and Senate, the
language was removed, and the bill was renumbered: H.R. 4986. The House passed
the bill on January 16, 2008 (396-46), the Senate passed the bill on January 22, 2008
(91-3), and signed into law on January 28, 2008 (P.L. 110-181,122 Stat. 3). The new
version did not change any of the provisions discussed in this report.
Each presentation in this report offers the background on a given issue,
compares House and Senate language on the issue, discusses the proposed and
enacted language, identifies other relevant CRS products, and designates a CRS issue
expert. Note: some issues were addressed in last year’s National Defense
Authorization Act and discussed in CRS Report RL33571, The FY2007 National
Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues, concerning
that legislation. Those issues that were previously considered in CRS Report
RL33571 are designated with a “*” in the relevant section titles of this report.
Selected Family Matters
Background: The House and Senate Committees are concerned about the state of military families,
particularly with regard to readiness and deployments.
H.R. 1585H.R. 1585P.L. 110-181
House-passed VersionSenate-passed Version
The House report containsNo similar provision.No language was included but
language that requires thesuch requests for reports are
Secretary of Defense, inoften honored by the
consultation with the CentersDepartment of Defense.
for Disease Control and
Prevention, to conduct a study
“of the level of risk of child
abuse and neglect among
military minor dependents that
may result due to the increased
operational tempo of service
members.”
Section 577 would protect childNo similar provision.The House language became
custody arrangements forSection 584 of the law with a
parents who are members of theclarifying amendment added by
Armed Forces who are deployedthe Senate pertaining to the
in support of a contingencyServicemembers Civil Relief
operation.Act.
Section 578 limits simultaneousSection 1072 expresses theThe Senate language became
deployments to combat zones ofsense of the Congress thatSection 586 of the law with the
dual-military couples who havesingle parents and dual-serviceadding of “an amendment that
minor dependents.couples with dependents shouldwould require the Secretary of
develop a family care planDefense to establish appropriate
consistent with DOD Instructionprocedures to ensure that an
1342.19. Also, when suchadequate family care plan is in
parents are required to deploy toplace for a member of the armed
certain areas, requests forforces with minor dependents
deferments due to unforeseenwho is a single parent or whose
circumstances should bespouse is also a member of the
evaluated rapidly andarmed forces when the member
appropriate steps should bemay be deployed in an area for
taken to ensure adequate care ofwhich imminent danger pay is
the children.authorized. The procedures
should allow the member to
request a deferment of
deployment due to unforeseen
circumstances, and the request
should be considered and
responded to promptly.”
H.R. 1585H.R. 1585P.L. 110-181
House-passed VersionSenate-passed Version
Section 580 calls for a study ofSection 583 requires theThe House language became
feasibility of establishing a pilotSecretary of Defense to enhanceSection 583 of the law with the
program on family-to-familyand improve programs toSenate adding a provision “that
support for families of membersprovide family support forwould combine the House and
of the National Guard andfamilies of deployedSenate provisions to require a
Reserves undergoingservicemembers.study to determine the most
deployment.effective means to enhance and
Section 584 calls for theimprove family support
Section 581 requires a studyenhancement of supportprograms for families of the
regarding improving supportservices for children of thoseregular and reserve components
services for the children ofundergoing deployment. of the armed forces before,
members of the National Guardduring, and after deployment.”
and Reserve undergoingSection 585 requires the
deployment. Secretary of Defense to conduct
a study on improving support
Section 1034 requires theservices for the children of
Secretary of Defense to submitthose undergoing deployment.
a report regarding the impact onSection 586 requires a study on
military families of multiplethe establishment of a pilot
deployments as a part ofprogram on family-to-family
Operation Iraqi freedom andsupport for those deployed.
Operation Enduring Freedom.
No similar provision.Section 581 creates a DODThese sections became Section
Military Family Readiness581 of the law with the House
Council. adding an amendment that
would include the senior
Section 582 directs theenlisted advisors of the Army,
Secretary of Defense to developNavy, Marine Corps, and Air
a policy and plans for theForce, or the spouse of a senior
support of military familyenlisted member from each
readiness.service as a member of the
Department of Defense Military
Family Readiness Council.
H.R. 1585H.R. 1585P.L. 110-181
House-passed VersionSenate-passed Version
Section 515 would establish aSection 683 calls for theSection 582 incorporated the
DOD working group to identifycreation of a “Yellow RibbonSenate language with a House
and assess the reintegrationReintegration Program” to assistamendment that would
needs of members of the reserveNational Guard and reserveauthorize the Secretary to create
components returning frommembers and their families.State Deployment Cycle
operational deploymentsSupport Teams to administer
overseas.Section 587 calls for a pilotthe Yellow Ribbon
program on family readinessReintegration Program at the
Section 516 would require theand servicememberState level and would authorize
creation of a national combatreintegration.outreach programs to educate
reintegration program, “Yellowservice members and their
Ribbon Reintegration Program,”families about the Yellow
to provide National GuardRibbon Reintegration Program.
families information, services,
referral opportunities
throughout the deployment
cycle.
Discussion: These provisions show the growing concerns in Congress regarding the effects of
military service on military families, particularly for those undergoing deployment.
Reference(s): None.
CRS Point of Contact (POC): David F. Burrelli, x7-8033.
Cold War Victory Medal
Background: Congress authorized the Cold War Recognition Certificate ten years ago as part of
the FY1998 National Defense Authorization Act (Section 1084). Its was created to recognize the
contributions and sacrifices of our armed forces and government civilians whose service contributed
to victory in the Cold War. Members of the armed forces and federal government civilian employees
who served the United States during the Cold War period, from September 2, 1945, to December
H.R. 1585H.R. 1585P.L. 110-181
House-passed VersionSenate-passed Version
The House bill contains aNo similar provision.No language was reported.
provision (Section 556) that
requires the Secretary of
Defense to design and issue a
Cold War Victory Medal for
anyone who served honorably
for a minimum of 180 days
during the same period.
Discussion: A number of veterans’ organizations have supported efforts to create this medal in
recognition of the service members’ role in the Cold War.
Reference(s): None.
CRS Point of Contact (POC): David F. Burrelli, x7-8033.
Continuation of Authority To Assist Local Educational
Agencies that Benefit Dependents of Members of the Armed
Forces and Department of Defense Civilian Employees
Background: In 1950, Congress enacted P.L. 81-815 and P.L. 81-874. These laws (later made
permanent) provide money from the Department of Defense to local school agencies for construction
and educational activities in recognition of the impact of the dependents of Defense personnel who
attend these schools. Local schools are supported, to a large extent, by the state tax base. In many
cases, military personnel pay taxes to their home state which may not be the state where they are
serving. Arguably, this assistance minimizes the impact these dependents have on schools near
military facilities.
H.R. 1585H.R. 1585P.L. 110-181
House-passed VersionSenate-passed Version
The House provision (SectionSection 561 authorizes $35Section 571 authorized $30.0
562) authorizes $50 million tomillion to local educationalmillion for continuation of
local educational agencies thatagencies that benefit theassistance to eligible local
have military dependentschildren of members of theagencies impacted by
comprising at least 20 percentarmed forces and DOD civilianenrollment of DOD military and
of the average daily attendanceemployees, and $10 million incivilian employee dependents,
and also authorizes $15 millionassistance to schools withand $10.0 million for assistance
to local educational agenciesenrollment changes due to baseto agencies with significant
that experience “significantclosures, force structurechanges in enrollment of
increases or decreases inchanges or force relocations. children due to base closures,
average daily attendance” offorce structure changes, or force
military dependent students duerelocations.
to changes in force structure,
base closure and realignment,
and from changes resulting from
the relocation of personnel to
other bases.
No similar provision.Section 562 provides impact aidSection 572 provided impact aid
for military dependent childrenfor military dependent children
with severe disabilities.with severe disabilities.
No similar provision.Section 563 provides aid toSection 573 provided aid to
agencies impacted by non-DODagencies impacted by non-DOD
employees affected by the baseemployees affected by the base
realignment and closings.realignment and closings.
Section 561 provides authoritySection 564 provides authorityThis language was accepted and
for payment of private boardingfor payment of private boardingexpanded to include private
school tuition for military school tuition for military boarding schools in the United
dependents in overseas areasdependents in overseas areasStates.
not served by DOD schools.not served by DOD schools.
No similar provision.Section 566 providesNo language was reported.
emergency assistance for local
educational agencies that enroll
military dependent children.
H.R. 1585H.R. 1585P.L. 110-181
House-passed VersionSenate-passed Version
No similar provision.Section 565 designatesNo language was reported.
educational agencies that are
“heavily impacted.”
Discussion: The law will augment impact aid laws in cases where there is a substantial military
presence (and, in certain cases, civilian presence) and/or when military personnel policy or base
structure changes bring about ‘significant’ changes in the average daily student attendance. This
assists many states in adjusting to changed education needs pursuant to changes in military basing
strategies, etc.
Reference(s): None.
CRS Point of Contact (POC): David F. Burrelli, x7-8033.
Disregarding Periods of Confinement of Members in
Determining Benefits for Dependents Who Are Victims of
Abuse by the Member
Background: In the past, military members, including those eligible to retire, who were convicted
of abuse or domestic violence could receive a sentence that included loss of military benefits. As
a result, family members, especially those who suffered abuse, lost access to military benefits,
including retired pay and health care, at a time when they were most in need of these benefits. On
October 23, 1993, Congress enacted P.L. 102-484, which “authorizes various benefits for the spouses
and former spouses of retirement-eligible members who lose eligibility for retired pay as a result of
misconduct involving abuse of dependents. Generally, the spouses and former spouses are provided
the same rights and benefits that they would have had if there had been no abuse and the member1
had retired under normal circumstances.”
H.R. 1585H.R. 1585P.L. 110-181
House-passed VersionSenate-passed Version
Section 641 of the House billNo similar provision.No language was included.
states “[I]n determining ...
whether a member of the armed
forces became eligible to be
retired from the armed forces on
the basis of years of service so
that a spouse or dependent child
of the member is eligible to
receive payment under this
subsection, the Secretary
concerned shall consider as
creditable service by the
member any periods of
confinement served by the
member before convening
authority action on the record of
trial related to the misconduct
that resulted in the termination
of the eligibility of the member
to receive retired pay.”
Discussion: By example, a member of the armed services who is arrested and confined for abuse
prior to reaching eligibility for retirement, may remain confined long enough to qualify for retirement
except that such time in confinement is not creditable toward retirement. If it had been enacted, the
House language would have allowed those confined to have the time in confinement prior to the
actions of a convening authority terminating retirement eligibility, to count toward that retirement
eligibility.
CRS Point of Contact (POC): David F. Burrelli, x7-8033.
1 U.S. Department of Defense, Financial Management Regulation, Vol. 7B, Chap. 59, June
Continuation/Modification of Authority for Members of the
Armed Forces to Designate a Recipient for a Portion of the
Death Gratuity
Background: The Death Gratuity is one of a number of benefits available to the survivors of
military personnel. Its purpose is to provide an immediate cash payment to survivors until other
benefits, if any, become available. Under law, the beneficiary(ies) are designated in order of
eligibility with the surviving spouse first, followed by the children. If so designated by a service
member, others can receive this benefit including parents or siblings. Recently, it was reported that
a service member, a single parent, died while on active duty and that her financially struggling
parents who had custody of the surviving child were unable to access this benefit. P.L. 110-28 (May
25, 2007) contained language that allows a covered service member to designate up to 50 percent
of the death gratuity (in 10% increments) to a person other than the recipient under law. This
authority ends September 30, 2007.
H.R. 1585H.R. 1585P.L. 110-181
House-passed VersionSenate-passed Version
Section 642 of the House billSection 651 of the Senate billSection 645 stated “The House
would make this designationmodifies the law by striking therecedes with an amendment that
authority permanent byexisting list of beneficiaries andwould make the provision
removing the Sept. 30, 2007replacing it with a new list byeffective no later than July 1,
termination date.the order of eligible2008; provide for notification
beneficiaries (subject to certainof the spouse if an election were
qualifications): 1) anymade under this authority that
individual designated in writing,would exclude a current spouse
2) the surviving spouse, 3)from any portion of the death
children, 4) parents, 5) angratuity benefit; provide for
executor or administrator of thepartial designations in 10
estate, and, 6) other next of kin. percent increments; and provide
The Senate also included report[death gratuity elections made)]
language addressing the need... before the enactment of this
for pre-deployment counselingprovision, or before enactment
on survivor benefits andof the amendments ... Public
directing the Secretary ofLaw 110-28, would remain
Defense to review suchlawful and effectual.”
counseling.
Discussion: The law allowed service members to designate a beneficiary but also created a specific
list of other such beneficiaries if the member did not designate a beneficiary in writing.
Reference(s): CRS Report RL32769, Military Death Benefits: Status and Proposals, David F.
Burrelli and Jennifer R. Corwell.
CRS Point of Contact (POC): David F. Burrelli, x7-8033.
Recoupment of Annuity Amounts Previously Paid, but
Subject to Offset for Dependency and Indemnity
Compensation
Background: The Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) provides an annuity for the survivors of those who
die while serving in the Armed Forces and those who have retired from the Armed Forces. For those
receiving retired pay, a portion of that pay is withheld for those participating in the SBP. For the
surviving spouses of those who die of injuries or illness suffered in the line of duty, the Department
of Veterans Affairs provides a monetary benefit known as Dependency and Indemnity Compensation
or DIC. If a surviving spouse or former spouse is eligible to receive both benefits, the SBP benefit
is offset on a dollar-for-dollar basis. If the DIC is paid to an SBP-eligible surviving spouse or former
spouse, a percentage (or possibly all) of the deceased retiree’s original contributions to the SBP will
be returned to the surviving spouse or former spouse. If the SBP is offset by DIC, that proportion of
deductions from the deceased retiree’s retired pay which financed the offset portion of the SBP will
be refunded. SBP payments can be restored, if the beneficiary becomes ineligible for DIC and
remains eligible for SBP, provided that the refunded SBP payments are returned.
H.R. 1585H.R. 1585P.L. 110-181
House-passed VersionSenate-passed Version
The House provision (SectionNo similar provision.No language was included.
643) requires that any
Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP)
payments previously paid to a
surviving spouse or former
spouse that are subject to the
mandatory offset associated
with payments of
Dependency and Indemnity
Compensation by the
Department of Veterans
Affairs be recouped only to
the extent that the amount
exceeds any SBP premiums
to be refunded by the
Department of Defense.
Further, it requires four actions
be taken when notifying an
individual of recoupment: 1) A
single notice of the amount to
be recouped, 2) a written
explanation of the statutory
requirements for this
recoupment, 3) a detailed
accounting of the determination
of the amount to be recouped,
and, 4) contact information for a
person who can provide
information and answer
questions concerning the
recoupment actions.
Discussion: Military widow(er)s are often confused or uninformed when one benefit offsets the
other resulting in a return of payments made and any subsequent recoupments that may result. Often,
these widow(er)s feel that money has been unfairly taken away from them. It was expected that the
House provision would remove any uncertainty as to what happens during the recoupment process
when an over payment is made. This language was not included in the law.
Reference(s): CRS Report RL31664, The Military Survivor Benefit Plan: A Description of Its
Provisions, David F. Burrelli.
CRS Point of Contact (POC): David F. Burrelli, x7-8033.
*Survivor Benefit Plan Annuity Offset for Dependency and
Indemnity Compensation
Background: As explained on the previous page, a surviving spouse or former spouse who is
eligible to receive both a Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) annuity and benefits under Dependency and
Indemnity Compensation (DIC), will have the SBP benefit reduced or offset on a dollar-for-dollar
basis by DIC.
H.R. 1585H.R. 1585P.L. 110-181
House-passed VersionSenate-passed Version
The House provision (SectionSection 658 would eliminate theThe report language limited the
644) authorizes a monthlyoffset of the SBP annuity by thesurvivor indemnity allowance to
survivor indemnity allowanceamount of DIC.survivors of service members
“equal to $40 or the samewho were entitled to retired pay,
amount of the SBP annuityor would be entitled to reserve
subject to the DIC offset shouldcomponent retired pay but for
it be a lesser amount.” Thesethe fact they were not yet 60
payments become effectiveyears of age, would increase the
October 1, 2008 and terminatemonthly allowance for FY2009
effective March 1, 2016.to $50, and increases the
monthly allowance by $10
every year through FY2013.
Discussion: Under the law, SBP-eligible surviving spouses or former spouses who are also eligible
to receive DIC, receive an additional payment of up to $50 per month and slightly more in
subsequent years.
Reference(s): CRS Report RL31664, The Military Survivor Benefit Plan: A Description of Its
Provisions, David F. Burrelli.
CRS Point of Contact (POC): David F. Burrelli, x7-8033.
Annuities for Guardians and Caretakers of Dependent
Children Under Survivor Benefit Plan
Background: Under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) military service members and participating
retirees can, upon their death, provide an annuity to certain survivors, including spouses, former
spouses, and/or dependent children. In certain cases, a member may wish to designate a dependent
child as the beneficiary, however the child may be too young to be financially responsible. This is
also true if the eligible dependent child is mentally incapacitated.
H.R. 1585H.R. 1585P.L. 110-181
House-passed VersionSenate-passed Version
No similar provision.The Senate bill contains aNo language was reported.
provision (Section 652) that
creates a new category of
beneficiary under SBP:
“Guardian or Caretaker of
Dependent Children.”
According to the Senate report:
“A person who is not married
and has one or more dependent
children upon becoming eligible
to participate in the Plan may
elect to provide an annuity
under the Plan to a natural
person (other than a natural
person with an insurable
interest in the person ... or a
former spouse) who acts as a
guardian or caretaker to such
child or children.”
Discussion: Under the Senate language, a guardian or caretaker of dependents could be designated
as a beneficiary. This could be helpful in those instances where the dependent child(ren) is/are very
young or mentally incapacitated. This language was not included in the law.
Reference(s): CRS Report RL31664, The Military Survivor Benefit Plan: A Description of Its
Provisions, David F. Burrelli.
CRS Point of Contact (POC): David F. Burrelli, x7-8033.
*Effective Date of “Paid-Up” Coverage under the Military
Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP)
Background: The military Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) provides annuities to the survivors of
military personnel and retirees. The SBP is funded, in part, via deductions in the retired pay of
participants. In 1999, Congress reduced the cost of the SBP to certain retirees by enacting the so-
called “paid-up” provision. Under this language, reduction in retired pay made to cover the retiree’s
share cease when two conditions are met: (1) the retiree reaches age 70; and (2) the retiree has
participated in the SBP for 360 months. As enacted, these provisions become effective October 1,
2008 (P.L. 105-261, 112 Stat. 2045, October 17, 1998). Language was included in the Senate
version of the National Defense Authorization Act for both Fiscal Year 2006 and 2007 to move the
effective date of this provision to October 1, 2005, and October 1, 2006, respectively. This language
was dropped by the Conference Committees (U.S. Congress, Conference Committee, Nationalthst
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, H.Rept. 109-360, 109 Cong., 1 Sess. H.R. 1815,
December 18, 2005 and U.S. Congress, Conference Committee, John Warner National Defensethnd
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, H.Rept. 109-702, 109 Cong., 2 Sess. H.R. 5122,
September 29, 2006).
H.R. 1585H.R. 1585P.L. 110-181
House-passed VersionSenate-passed Version
No similar provision.Section 659 would move the No language was reported.
effective date of the “paid-up”
provision from October 1, 2008
to October 1, 2007.
Discussion: The SBP was created on September 21, 1972. It is possible for military retirees who
entered the service prior to 1978 to both reach the age of 70 and participate in the SBP for 360
months but be prevented from benefitting under the “paid-up” provision because of the October 1,
Reference(s): CRS Report RL31664, The Military Survivor Benefit Plan: A Description of Its
Provisions, by David F. Burrelli.
CRS Point of Contact (POC): David F. Burrelli, 7-8033.
Army/Marine Corps End Strength
Background: Even though engaged in combat operations in Afghanistan since 2001 and in Iraq
since 2003, the Bush Administration and the Department of Defense (DOD) have, until recently,
resisted congressional calls to permanently increase the end strength of the Army and Marine Corps
(although they did accede to temporary increases). Even the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR)
released on February 6, 2006, recommended an Army end strength of 482,400 and a Marine Corps
end strength of 175,000. On January 19, 2007, DOD announced that it would seek approval to
increase permanent active Army end strength by 65,000 to 547,400 and permanent active Marine
Corps end strength by 27,000 to 202,000, both by FY2012. In response to the request for increased
end strength, the respective committees reported the following:
H.R. 1585H.R. 1585P.L. 110-181
House-passed VersionSenate-passed Version
Section 401 authorizes anSection 401 authorizes anSection 401 authorized a
FY2008 end strength of 525,400FY2008 end strength of 525,400FY2008 end strength of 525,400
for the Army and 189,000 forfor the Army and 189,000 forfor the Army and 189,000 for
the Marine Corps.the Marine Corps.the Marine Corps.
Section 402 establishes a newNo similar provision.Section 402 established a new
minimum strength levels ofminimum strength level of
525,400 for the Army and525,400 for the Army and
Section 403 authorizesNo similar provision.Section 403 authorized
additional increases in FY2009-additional increases in FY2009-
FY2010 of 22,000 for the ArmyFY2010 of 22,000 for the Army
(to 547,400) and 13,000 for the(to 547,400) and 13,000 for the
Marine Corps (to 202,000).Marine Corps (to 202,000).
Discussion: Increasing the end strength will require increased annual recruiting and retention goals.
It is reasonable to project an annual recruiting goal of 85,000-87,000 for the active Army and 36,000-
38,000 for the active Marine Corps. Based on recent experience, these goals may be difficult to
achieve.
Reference(s): CRS Report RL31334, Operations Noble Eagle, Enduring Freedom, and Iraqi
Freedom: Questions and Answers About U.S. Military Personnel, Compensation, and Force
Structure, by Lawrence Kapp and Charles Henning.
CRS Point of Contact (POC): Charles Henning at x7-8866.
Hardship Duty Pay
Background: Hardship Duty Pay (HDP) is compensation for the exceptional demands of certain
duty, including unusually demanding mission assignments or service in areas with extreme climates
or austere facilities. The maximum authorized amount for HDP was recently increased by Congress
from $300 to $750 per month (P.L. 109-163, Section 627).
H.R. 1585H.R. 1585P.L. 110-181
House-passed VersionSenate-passed Version
The House provision (SectionThe Senate provision (SectionSection 617 increased the
624) increases the maximum617) also increases themaximum amount of Hardship
amount of Hardship Duty Paymaximum monthly amount ofDuty Pay to $1500 a month and
from $750 to $1500 per month.Hardship Duty Pay to $1500,authorizes payment of a lump
and authorizes payment of asum in advance or a monthly
lump sum in advance or arate.
monthly rate.
Discussion: While the maximum authorized rate for HDP is increased to $1500 per month by this
provision, the actual rate paid will be determined by the Secretary of Defense. DOD has currently
set HDP at $100 per month for both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Reference(s): CRS Report RL31334, Operations Noble Eagle, Enduring Freedom, and Iraqi
Freedom: Questions and Answers About U.S. Military Personnel, Compensation and Force
Structure, by Lawrence Kapp and Charles Henning.
CRS Point of Contact (POC): Charles Henning at x7-8866.
*Modifying Reserve Retirement Authorities
Background: Active duty military personnel are eligible for full retirement benefits after 20 years
of active duty, regardless of their age. Reservists are also eligible to retire after 20 years of qualifying
service but do not receive retired pay or access to retiree health benefits until age 60. In light of the
heavy use of the Reserve Component in recent years, a number of legislative proposals has been
introduced to lower the age at which reservists receive retired pay and military retiree health care
benefits.
H.R. 1585H.R. 1585P.L. 110-181
House-passed VersionSenate-passed Version
No similar provision.Section 655 of the Senate bill wouldSection 647 of the law was
reduce the age for receipt of retired paynearly identical to the
for members of the Ready Reserve bySenate provision, but only
three months for each aggregate of 90applies to duty performed
days of specified duty performed in anyin a fiscal year after the
fiscal year since September 11, 2001.date of enactment of the
Specified duty includes active duty under National Defense
any provision of law referred to in 10Authorization Act for
USC 101(a)(13)(B), active duty under 10FY2008.
USC 12301(d); or active service under 32
USC 502(f) if responding to a national
emergency declared by the President or
supported by federal funds. The retired
pay eligibility age could not be reduced
below age 50, and eligibility for retiree
health care benefits would remain at age
Discussion: The law is narrower in scope than some other legislative proposals in the 110th
Congress, such as those that would lower the age for receipt of retired pay and retiree health care
benefits to 55 for all reservists. The law reduced the age at which certain reservists – those who,
after the date of enactment of this bill, serve on active duty for the specified period under the
specified activation authorities – can draw retired pay. However, the retirement age cannot be
reduced below age 50. Additionally, it did not reduce the age at which they can receive retiree
medical benefits; that would remain at age 60.
Reference(s): CRS Report RL30802, Reserve Component Personnel Issues, Questions and Answers,
by Lawrence Kapp.
CRS Point of Contact (POC): Lawrence Kapp at x7-7609 or Charles Henning at x7-8866.
POW/MIA Operations
Background: The Department of Defense (DOD) POW/MIA organization consists of the DOD
Prisoner of War/Missing Personnel Office (DPMO) and two field activities-the Joint POW/MIA
Accounting Command (JPAC) and its subordinate Central Identification Laboratory-Hawaii (CIL-
HI) and the Air Force’s Life Sciences Equipment Laboratory. Over the past several years, Congress
has been concerned about the level of DOD resources being allocated to POW/MIA operations, both
personnel and funding. The FY2007 John Warner National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 109-
364) required DOD to submit a five-year overview of the funding required and requested. The
FY2008 President’s Budget would support 91 percent, or $8.0 million less than, the total funding
required as determined by the overview for FY2008.
H.R. 1585H.R. 1585P.L. 110-181
House-passed VersionSenate-passed Version
The House report recommendsNo similar provision.No language was reported.
fully supporting POW/MIA
efforts by increasing the
amounts allocated by:
+$0.2 M for DPMO
+$7.5M for JPAC
+$0.3M for Life Sciences
Laboratory.
Discussion: If supported by appropriations, these increases would fund FY2008 POW/MIA
operations at 100% of the requirement as determined by the overview mandated by P.L. 109-364.
This is report language and is not contained in the law itself.
Reference(s): CRS Report RL33452, POWs and MIAs: Status and Accounting Issues, by Charles
A. Henning.
CRS Point of Contact (POC): Charles Henning at x7-8866.
*Military Pay Raise
Background: Ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, combined with end strength
increases and recruiting challenges, continue to highlight the military pay issue. Title 37 U.S.C. 1009
provides a permanent formula for annual military pay raises that indexes the raise to the annual
increase in the Economic Cost Index (ECI). The FY2008 President’s Budget request for a 3.0
percent military pay raise was consistent with this formula. Congress, in FY2004, FY2005 and
FY2006 approved the raise as the ECI increase plus 0.5 percent.
H.R. 1585H.R. 1585P.L. 110-181
House-passed VersionSenate-passed Version
The House provision, in SectionThe Senate, in Section 601,Section 601 authorized a 3.5
601, supports a 3.5 percent (0.5supports a 3.5 percent across-percent across-the-board pay
percent above the President’sthe-board pay raise effectiveraise retroactive to January 1,
Budget) across-the-board payJanuary 1, 2008.2008.
raise that would be effective
January 1, 2008.
In Section 606, the House alsoNo similar provision.No language was reported.
supports a guaranteed pay raise
of 0.5 percent above the ECI for
FY2009 through FY2012.
Discussion: A military pay raise larger than the permanent formula is not uncommon. Mid-year,
targeted pay raises (targeted at specific grades) have also been authorized over the past several years.
This year’s legislation includes no mention of targeted pay raises.
Reference(s): CRS Report RL33446, Military Pay and Benefits: Key Questions and Answers, by
Charles Henning.
CRS Point of Contact (POC): Charles Henning at x7-8866.
*Concurrent Receipt
Background: Since the enactment of Concurrent Receipt legislation in FY2003, the Combat-
Related Special Compensation (CRSC) benefit has been available to all military retirees with 20 or
more years of active duty who meet other eligibility criteria. Excluded from eligibility have been
reservists and those who were medically retired under Chapter 61 of Title 10 prior to completing 20
years of service. Those who are rated by the VA as 100% Unemployable were originally scheduled
to become eligible for Concurrent Receipt in 2014. The FY2006 NDAA modified this eligibility date
to be October 1, 2009.
H.R. 1585H.R. 1585P.L. 110-181
House-passed VersionSenate-passed Version
The House provision in SectionThe Senate, in Section 653,Section 641 expanded CRSC
645 would expand CRSCwould expand CRSC eligibilityeligibility to include all service
eligibility to include militaryto include all service membersmembers eligible for retired
retirees (to include Chapter 61)eligible for retired pay, topay, to include those retired
with a minimum of 15 years ofinclude those retired underunder Chapter 61 and most
creditable service and aChapter 61 and almost allreserve retirees, other than those
disability rated at least 60%.reserve retirees, effectiveretired under 10 USC 12731b,
January 1, 2008. It excludeseffective January 1, 2008.
reservists who retire under a
special provision (10 USC
12731b), which allows
reservists with a physical
disability not incurred in the
line of duty to retire with
between 15 and 19 creditable
years of reserve service.
No similar provision.Section 660 would grantSection 642 expanded
Concurrent Receipt eligibility toConcurrent Receipt to include
retroactive to December 31,unemployable by the
Affairs, retroactive to December
31, 2004 and payable on
October 1, 2008.
Discussion: The law opened CRSC eligibility to some previously excluded.
Reference(s): CRS Report RL33449, Military Retirement, Concurrent Receipt, and Related Major
Legislative Issues, by Charles Henning.
CRS Point of Contact (POC): Charles Henning at x7-8866.
Moving Reserve “GI Bill” Educational Benefits from Title 10
to Title 38
Background: The original “GI Bill” educational benefit was enacted in 1944 as part of a legislative
act designed to help the millions of World War II servicemembers readjust to civilian life upon
demobilization. This was a “post-service” benefit for veterans. In subsequent versions of the “GI
Bill,” the educational benefit became not just a veterans’ readjustment program, but a military
recruiting incentive as well. In 1984, when Congress established the version of the GI Bill which
came to be known as the “Montgomery GI Bill” (MGIB), the basic benefit for active duty personnel
(MGIB-AD) remained codified in Title 38 (Veterans’ Benefits). A new benefit was also established
for members of the Selected Reserve (MGIB-SR), but this was placed in Title 10 (Armed Forces)
as its purpose to “encourage membership in units of the Selected Reserve” was directly related to
recruiting and retention, not veterans’ readjustment. Over time, the benefit for those eligible for
MGIB-AD increased more rapidly than for those eligible for MGIB-SR, as the programs were
administered and overseen by different executive branch agencies and congressional committees.
In 2004, Congress enacted a new educational benefit called the Reserve Educational Assistance
Program (REAP) for reservists who had served at least 90 days on active duty in support of a
contingency operation. This program was placed in Title 10, although the benefit level was
statutorily linked to the MGIB-AD basic benefit in Title 38.
H.R. 1585H.R. 1585 P.L. 110-181
House-passed VersionSenate-passed Version
Section 525 would recodifyNo similar provision.Section 535 required the
chapters 1606 (MGIB-SR) andSecretary of Defense, in
1607 (REAP) of title 10 USC,cooperation with the Secretary
and Chapter 33 of Title 38.of Veterans’ Affairs, to submit a
report to the congressional
defense and veterans’ affairs
committees on the feasibility
and merits of transferring the
administration of Chapter 1606
and 1607 educational programs
from DoD to the Department of
Veterans’ Affairs. Several
other entities must also review
the report, and the Comptroller
General must submit an
assessment of the report to the
above mentioned committees.
Discussion: Transferring the Montgomery GI Bill – Selected Reserve statutory authority from Title
10 to Title 38 has been advocated by a number of military advocacy groups as a way of ensuring the
Reserve GI Bill payment rates maintain proportional parity with the Active Duty GI Bill.
Reference(s): CRS Report RL33281, Montgomery GI Bill Education Benefits: Analysis of College
Prices and Federal Student Aid Under the Higher Education Act, by Charmaine Mercer and Rebecca
Skinner.
CRS Point of Contact (POC): Lawrence Kapp at x7-7609.
*Role of National Guard Bureau and National Guard Bureau
Chief
Background: There have been long-standing tensions between the senior leadership of the military
services and their respective reserve components regarding policy and resource allocation decisions.
This conflict has resurfaced in the past few years with respect to several decisions which impacted
the Army and Air National Guard. Additionally, the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina
generated great interest in revamping the way in which the federal and state governments prepare
for and respond to disasters or other catastrophic events. Modifying the role which the National
Guard might play in future events has been an area of particular interest, given its unique status as
both a state and federal force. The FY2007 John Warner National Defense Authorization Act (P.L.
109-364, Section 529) directed the Commission on the National Guard and Reserve (CNGR) to
review a number of proposed changes to the role of the National Guard Bureau (NGB) and the
National Guard Bureau Chief and to report its recommendations on these proposals to the House and
Senate Armed Services Committees. The CNGR submitted its “Second Report to Congress”on
March 1, 2007.
Note: The Senate-passed version contains relevant provisions in both Title V and Title XVIII of the
bill. The provisions in Title V were included in the bill reported by the Senate Armed Services
Committee, while the provisions in Title XVIII were the result of an amendment on the Senate floor.
H.R. 1585H.R. 1585P.L. 110-181
House-passed VersionSenate-passed Version
Section 1611(a) specifies that --Section 533(d) specifies that --Section 1811(d) specified that –
in addition to the Chief's currentin addition to the Chief’sin addition to the Chief’s current
duties as principal adviser to thecurrent duties as principalduties as principal advisor to the
Secretaries and Chiefs of Staffadvisor to the Secretaries andSecretaries and Chiefs of Staff of
of the Army and Air Force onChiefs of Staff of the Army andthe Army and Air Force on
National Guard matters-- theAir Force on National GuardNational Guard matters – the
Chief is also the principalmatters -- the Chief is also anChief is also a principal adviser
adviser to the Secretary ofadvisor to the Secretary ofto the Secretary of Defense
Defense, through the ChairmanDefense, through the Chairmanthrough the Chairman of the
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, onof the Joint Chiefs of Staff, “onJoint Chiefs of Staff, “on matters
such matters.matters involving non-involving non-federalized
federalized National GuardNational Guard forces and on
forces and other matters asother matters as determined by
determined by the Secretary ofthe Secretary of Defense.”
Defense.”
Section 1802(b) specifies that --
in addition to the Chief's current
duties as principal adviser to the
Secretaries and Chiefs of Staff
of the Army and Air Force on
National Guard matters-- the
Chief is also the principal
adviser to the Secretary of
Defense and to the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on
such matters.
H.R. 1585H.R. 1585P.L. 110-181
House-passed VersionSenate-passed Version
Section 1611(b) would makeNo similar provision.No language was reported.
the Chief an adviser on National
Guard matters to the
commander of the combatant
command whose geographic
responsibility includes the
United States (i.e. the
Commander of U.S. Northern
Command) and to the Secretary
of Homeland Security.
Section 1611(c) would changeBoth Section 533(b) andSection 1811(b) changed the
the grade of the Chief of theSection 1802(b)(2) wouldgrade of the Chief of the National
National Guard Bureau fromchange the grade of the Chief ofGuard Bureau from Lieutenant
Lieutenant General (O-9) tothe National Guard Bureau fromGeneral (O-9) to General (O-10).
General (O-10). Lieutenant General (O-9) to
General (O-10).
Section 1611(d) would changeSection 533(a) would add newSection 1811(a) was virtually
the way the Chief of the NGB isrequirements for an officer to beidentical to the Senate provision.
recommended for appointment. recommended for appointment
It would leave intact the currentas Chief of the National Guard
procedure for recommendingBureau, including a
candidates for this position, butrecommendation by the
add a new requirement for theSecretary of the Army or Air
Secretary of Defense to set up aForce; a determination by the
process for identifying the “bestChairman of the Joint Chiefs of
qualified officer or officersStaff that the officer has
whom the Secretary of Defense“significant joint duty
will recommend forexperience”; a determination by
consideration by the Presidentthe Secretary of Defense that
for appointment as Chief of thethe officer’s assignments and
National Guard Bureau.” A keyexperiences provide a detailed
component of this selectionknowledge of the status and
process would be thecapabilities of National Guard
requirement to “incorporate theforces and missions; that the
requirements of Section 601(d)”officer possesses a level of
of Title 10 (See discussionoperational experience,
below).professional military education,
and expertise in national
defense and homeland defense
commensurate with the advisory
role of the position; and that the
officer possesses such other
qualifications as the Secretary
of Defense prescribes.
Section 1611(e) would repealSection 533(c) is identical to Section 1811(c) repealed the
the prohibition in 10 USCHouse provision.prohibition in 10 USC 10502(b)
H.R. 1585H.R. 1585P.L. 110-181
House-passed VersionSenate-passed Version
age or older from holding theolder from holding the position
position of Chief, NGB.of Chief, NGB.
Section 1625 amends 10 USCSection 533(e) amends 10 USCSection 1825 deleted the
14511 – which requires the14512 - which requires thereference to the Chief of the
mandatory separation of reservemandatory separation ofNGB in 10 USC 14512, and
officers in the grade of majorofficers holding certain offices,amended 10 USC 14511 to allow
general or rear admiral (O-8) orincluding the Chief of the NGB,the Secretary of Defense to defer
higher to retire at age 64 – toat age 66 - to allow theseparation for reserve officers in
allow the Secretary of DefensePresident to defer the retirementthe rank of lieutenant
to defer such separation forof the Chief of the NGB to agegeneral/vice admiral (O-9) or
reserve officers in the rank of68.general/admiral (O-10) up to age
lieutenant general/vice admiral66 and allowed the President to
(O-9) or general/admiral (O-10)make a similar deferral up to age
to the age of 66 and to allow the68.
President to make a similar
deferral to age 68.
Section 1611(f) would requireNo similar provision.No language was reported.
the Secretary of Defense to
recommend to the President the
best qualified officer or officers
to serve as the Chief,
determined under the new
process set up by the
amendment contained in
Section 1611(d), within 120
days of enactment.
Section 1612(a) would changeSection 1802(a)(1) is identicalSection 1812(a) changed the
the National Guard Bureau fromto the House provision.National Guard Bureau from a
a “joint bureau of the“joint bureau of the Department
Department of the Army and theof the Army and the Department
Department of the Air Force” toof the Air Force” to a “joint
a “joint activity of theactivity of the Department of
Department of Defense.”Defense.”
No similar provisionSection 1802(a)(2) wouldNo language was reported.
change the purpose of the
National Guard Bureau from
serving as a channel of
communications on National
Guard matters between the
Departments of the Army and
Air Force and the States, to
channel of communications on
National Guard matters among
(1) the Secretary of Defense,
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the
commanders of the combatant
commands of the United States,
(2) the Departments of the
Army and Air Force, and (3) the
States.
H.R. 1585H.R. 1585P.L. 110-181
House-passed VersionSenate-passed Version
Section 1613(a) would assign aSection 1802(c)(1) wouldSection 1813(a) assigned a new
new function to the NGB:assign a new function to thefunction to the NGB: Assisting
facilitating and coordinating theNGB: facilitating andthe Secretary of Defense in
use of National Guard personnelcoordinating the use of Nationalfacilitating and coordinating the
and resources for certain typesGuard personnel and resourcesuse of National Guard personnel
of operations – “operationsfor certain types of operations –and resources for certain types of
conducted under title 32, or in“contingency operations,operations – “operations
support of State missions” –military operations other thanconducted under title 32, or in
with other federal agencies, thewar, natural disasters, supportsupport of State missions” – with
Adjutants General of the States,of civil authorities, and otherother federal agencies, the
U.S. Joint Forces Command,circumstances”– with otherAdjutants General of the States,
and the combatant commandfederal agencies and the States.U.S. Joint Forces Command, and
whose geographic responsibilitythe combatant command whose
includes the United States (i.e.geographic responsibility
U.S. Northern Command).includes the United States (i.e.,
U.S. Northern Command).
Section 1613(b) would transferSection 532(a)(1) is virtuallySection 1813(b) transferred
authority for prescribing theidentical to the Houseauthority for prescribing the
NGB charter from theprovision.NGB charter from the Secretaries
Secretaries of the Army and Airof the Army and Air Force to the
Force to the Secretary ofSecretary of Defense, who would
Defense, who would be requiredbe required to develop the charter
to develop the charter inin consultation with the
consultation with theSecretaries of the Army and Air
Secretaries of the Army and AirForce, and the Chairman of the
Force, and the Chairman of theJoint Chiefs of Staff.
Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Section 1813(a) also specified
that the NGB charter reflect “the
role of the National Guard
Bureau in support of the
Secretary of the Army and the
Secretary of the Air Force.”
H.R. 1585H.R. 1585P.L. 110-181
House-passed VersionSenate-passed Version
Section 1614 requires that theSection 1806 is nearly identicalSection 1814 required the
Secretary of Defense, shallto the House provision, with theSecretary of Defense to prepare
annually prepare and submit toexception that the response planand submit a plan to Congress for
the Congress a plan for– in addition to addressing the“coordinating the use of the
“coordinating the use of thespecified types of nuclear,National Guard and members of
National Guard and members ofbiological, chemical, explosive,the Armed Forces on active duty
the Armed Forces on activeand natural incidents – shallwhen responding to natural
duty when responding to naturalalso address “any other hazardsdisasters, acts of terrorism, and
disasters, acts of terrorism, andidentified in a national planningother man-made disasters
other man-made disastersscenario developed by theidentified...in subsection (e).”
identified...in subsection (e).”Homeland Security Council.”The other “other man-made
The “other man-made disasters”disasters” identified include the
identified include differentsame ones listed in the House
types of nuclear, biological,and Senate passed versions,
chemical, explosive, and naturalalong with “any other hazards
incidents. identified in a national planning
scenario developed by the
Homeland Security Council.”
This plan must be submitted no
later than June 1, 2008, with an
update no later than June 1, 2010.
The plan must be developed inSame as House language.The plan must be developed in
consultation with theconsultation with the Secretary of
commander of U.S. NorthernHomeland Security, the
Command and the Chief of theChairman of the Joint Chiefs of
National Guard Bureau; and theStaff, the commander of U.S.
Chief of the National GuardNorthern Command, the Chief of
Bureau must assist the Secretarythe National Guard Bureau; and
of Defense by gatheringthe Chief of the National Guard
relevant information fromBureau must assist the Secretary
governors, adjutants general,of Defense by gathering relevant
and other state authorities. information from governors,
adjutants general, and other state
authorities.
The plan must set forth twoSame as House language.The plan must set forth two
versions of response: one usingversions of response as indicated
only members of the Nationalin the House and Senate
Guard and one using bothlanguage.
National Guard and active duty
personnel.
H.R. 1585H.R. 1585P.L. 110-181
House-passed VersionSenate-passed Version
The plan shall cover theSame as House language.The plan shall cover the matters
following matters: coordinationset out in the House and Senate
protocols, operationallanguage.
procedures, command
structures, and lines of
communications, as well as
identifying training and
equipment needed for both
National Guard and active duty
personnel to provide military
assistance to civil authorities.
No similar provision.Section 1802(b)(3) wouldNo language was reported.
require the Chief of the
National Guard Bureau to
submit an annual report to
Congress on the requirements of
the States and Territories with
respect to military assistance to
civil authorities which the Chief
has validated, along with
information on whether or not
funding will be requested for
these requirements in the next
budget.
H.R. 1585H.R. 1585P.L. 110-181
House-passed VersionSenate-passed Version
Section 1615(a) would requireSection 1802(c)(2) wouldSections 1815(a) was nearly
the Secretary of Defense torequire the Chief of theidentical to the House language
determine “military uniqueNational Guard Bureau toin Section 1615(a) except that it
capabilities needed to be“identify gaps between Federalrequired the Secretary of Defense
provided by the Department ofand State capabilities to prepareto consult with the Secretary of
Defense to support civilfor and respond to emergencies”Homeland Security in
authorities in an incident ofand “to make recommendationsdetermining the “military unique
national significance or ato the Secretary of Defense oncapabilities needed to be
catastrophic incident.” programs and activities of theprovided by the Department of
National Guard for militaryDefense to support civil
assistance to civil authorities toauthorities in an incident of
address such gaps.” To meetnational significance or a
this new requirement, the Chiefcatastrophic incident.”
would have the new powers – in
Section 1615(b) would requirethe realm of military assistanceSection 1815 (b) was identical to
the Secretary of Defense, into civil authorities -- including the House language in Section
coordination with thevalidating requirements,1615(b).
Secretaries of the Militarydeveloping doctrine and training
Departments and the Chairmanrequirements, acquiring
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, toequipment and supplies,
develop and implement a planassisting the Secretary of
for funding these capabilities,Defense in budget preparation,
and certain other capabilitiesand administering funds. These
related to homeland defense,activities are to be carried out
domestic emergency response,“in coordination with the
and providing military supportAdjutants General of the States”
to civil authorities. and “in consultation with the
Secretary of the Army and the
Section 1614(d) requires theSecretary of the Air Force.”No language similar to Section
Secretary of Defense, acting1614(d) of the House bill was
through the Chairman of thereported.
Joint Chiefs of Staff, to ensure
“appropriate assignment of
responsibilities, coordination of
efforts, and prioritization of
renouncing [resourcing] by the
appropriate combatant
commands, the military
departments, and the National
Guard Bureau.”
H.R. 1585H.R. 1585P.L. 110-181
House-passed VersionSenate-passed Version
Section 1614(c) requires theSection 1802(c)(3) requires thatSection 1815(c) required the
Secretary of Defense to includethe budget justificationSecretary of Defense to include a
a request for funds sufficient todocumentation submitted to therequest for funds sufficient to
carry out the plan required byCongress by the President eachcarry out the plan required by
Section 1614(b) in the budgetfiscal year specify separateSection 1815 (b) in the budget
materials submitted for eachamounts “for training andmaterials submitted for each
fiscal year.equipment for the Nationalfiscal year.
Guard for purposes of military
assistance to civil authorities
and for other domestic
operations during such fiscal
year.”
Section 1615(f) specifies thatNo similar provision.Section 1815(e) was identical to
the written policy guidancethe House provision.
which the Secretary of Defense
provides to the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff for the
preparation and review of
contingency plans (required by
10 USC 113(g)(2)), must
include “plans for providing
support to civil authorities in an
incident of national significance
or a catastrophic incident, for
homeland defense, and for
military support to civil
authorities.”
Discussion: A number of the provisions in the law track closely with recommendations contained
in the CNGR’s Second Report to Congress, including the following:
!4 Star Rank for NGB Chief. The law (Section 1811(b)) increased the rank
of the Chief of the National Guard Bureau from lieutenant general to general,
as advocated by CNGR Recommendation 13.
!NGB Charter. The law (Section 1813(b)) transferred authority for
prescribing the NGB charter to the Secretary of Defense, consistent with
CNGR Recommendation 12.
!NGB a joint activity of DOD. The law (Section 1812(a)) established the
NGB as a joint activity of the Department of Defense, consistent with CNGR
Recommendation 9.
!NGB Chief Advisory Role. Section 1811(c) of the law corresponded closely
with the first part of CNGR Recommendation 10.
!New Function of the NGB. Section 1813(a) of the law was consistent with
CNGR Recommendation 11.
In other areas, the law differs somewhat from the CNGR recommendations:
!Determining Requirements and Budgeting for Domestic Response
Capabilities. Section 1815 of the law was similar in certain respects to the
recommendations provided by the CNGR, but differed in other areas. A
description of these similarities and differences is beyond the scope of this
report. See CNGR recommendations 1, 3, 4, and 5.
!Planning for Disasters and Terrorism. The requirement for a plan to
respond to natural disasters or terrorist attacks contained in Section 1814 of
the law was different than what was recommended by the CNGR. CNGR
Recommendation 19 proposed that "U.S. Northern Command should develop
plans for consequence management and support to civil authorities that
account for state-level activities and incorporate the use of National Guard
and Reserve forces as first military responders."
The following topic was not specifically addressed by the CNGR:
!Selection of NGB Chief. The provision (Section 1811(a)) modifying the
process for recommending an officer as Chief of the National Guard Bureau
concerned a topic which was not specifically addressed in the CNGR report.
The law brought the recommendation process for NGB Chief into greater
harmony with the process used for recommending officers for other O-9 and
O-10 positions. Specifically, it added requirements related to joint duty
experience and capability to serve effectively in the position. This provision
was generally consistent with language on page 94 the CNGR Report which
states “...reserve component officers should be held to the same standards as
applied to active component officers under Goldwater-Nichols, although the
methods of attaining those standards may be different. If all officers must
meet the same qualifications for promotion to any grade, the legitimacy of the
selection of reserve component officers to senior grades and of their
nominations to positions of importance and responsibility will be
unassailable.”
Reference(s): CRS Report RL33571, The FY 2007 National Defense Authorization Act, Selected
Military Personnel Policy Issues, pp. 34-36. Commission on the National Guard and Reserves,
Second Report to Congress, March 1, 2007, available at [http://www.cngr.gov].
CRS Point of Contact (POC): Lawrence Kapp at x7-7609.
*Tricare Fee Increases
Background: In early 2006, DOD proposed increases in Tricare Prime enrollment fees for retired
personnel under age 65, but Section 704 of the FY2007 John Warner National Defense Authorization
Act (P.L. 109-364) prohibited increases in premiums, deductibles, copayments, and other charges
between April 1, 2006, and September 30, 2007. In submitting its proposed FY2008 budget, DOD
again proposed fee increases that would provide an estimated $1.9 billion in potential savings for
the year.
H.R. 1585H.R. 1585P.L. 110-181
House-passed VersionSenate-passed Version
Section 701 would extend toSection 713 extends prohibitionSection 701 extended
Sept. 30, 2008 the prohibition inon Tricare fee increases throughprohibition of Tricare fee
the FY2007 Authorization ActSept. 30, 2008.increases through Sept. 30,
on DOD increasing premiums2008.
and co-pays for Tricare Prime,
and inpatient care charges for
Tricare Standard.
Discussion: The FY2007 Authorization Act requested two separate reports on defense health care
budget issues, one by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and another by a DOD Task
Force on the Future of Military Health Care. Both reports favored increases in the portion of costs
borne by beneficiaries, but GAO found that although DOD is unlikely to realize estimated savings
($9 billion over a five-year period), it would achieve “significant savings.” Although there remains
considerable opposition to fee hikes among beneficiaries, the two Armed Services committees have
expressed an intention to seek an eventual “comprehensive and prudent” approach to changes to
health care budget issues. The conference report stated: “The conferees urge [DOD] to continue to
identify opportunities to improve the quality and effectiveness of the military health care system
through improved performance and health care outcomes. The conferees believe that any increase
in TRICARE program cost sharing should be made only after implementation of improvements in
the health care program, after consideration of the comprehensive reports mandated by Congress.
. . and following consultation with military beneficiary advocates.”
Reference(s): Government Accountability Office, Military Health Care: TRICARE Cost-Sharing
Proposals Would Help Offset Increasing Health Care Spending but Projected Savings are Likely
Overestimated, GAO-07-647, May 2007; Department of Defense, Task Force on the Future of
Military Health Care, Interim Report, May 2007.
CRS Point of Contact (POC): Dick Best, x7-7607.
*Retiree Tricare Coverage and Employer Group Health Plans
Background: Section 707 of the FY2007 John Warner National Defense Authorization Act (P.L.
109-364) prohibited employers from offering incentives to military retirees not to enroll in
employee-sponsored health care plans. Tricare beneficiaries are thus treated in the same way as
Medicare beneficiaries in that they are eligible for government health care plans but they may not
receive any direct inducement to forego employer-sponsored health care plans. The goal of the
legislation was to discourage employer efforts to shift costs of health care coverage to DOD while
not decreasing the earned benefits of retired servicemembers. On the other hand, some employers
offer a variety of different health care options (sometimes known as a cafeteria plan) that permits
employees eligible for Tricare to choose plans that will complement their Tricare coverage and there
has been some confusion in regard to this issue. In addition, some employers, including state
governments, remain opposed to the provision that may increase their health care costs and there has
been discussion of repealing the FY2008 provision.
H.R. 1585H.R. 1585P.L. 110-181
House-passed VersionSenate-passed Version
Report language urges DOD toNo similar provision.No language was reported.
implement clarifications that
certain common employer
benefit programs do not
constitute improper incentives.
Discussion: There remains some confusion among beneficiaries in regard to this provision and
opposition among some employers. The law did not, however, address this issue. A rule that will
provide DOD regulations on employer-sponsored health care is expected to be published soon in the
Federal Register.
Reference(s): None.
CRS Point of Contact (POC): Dick Best, x7-7607.
*Tricare Pharmacy Fees
Background: Currently dependents of active-duty servicemembers and retired servicemembers and
their dependents (up to age 65) must make co-payments of $3 for generic pharmaceuticals, $9 for
formulary drugs and $22 for non-formulary drugs obtained through the Tricare retail pharmacy
program. The Administration has proposed increasing co-payments for generic pharmaceuticals and
formulary drugs to $5 and $15, respectively, along with $22 continuing to be required for non-
formulary drugs. CBO has estimated that banning the proposed increases would increase DOD’s
discretionary costs by $187 million in FY2008.
H.R. 1585 House-passedH.R. 1585 P.L. 110-181
VersionSenate-passed Version
Section 702 would freezeSection 714 would maintainSection 702 froze current co-
current co-payment levelscurrent pharmacy co-paymentpayment levels through the end
through the end of FY2008.levels through the end ofof FY2008. It retains co-
FY2008. Section 715 expressespayment levels of $3 (generics),
sense of Congress that DOD$9 (formularies), and $22
“has options to constrain the(nonformularies).
growth of health care spending
in ways that do not
disadvantage retired members
of the uniformed services, and
should pursue any and all such
options as a first priority.”
Discussion: There is considerable resistance among beneficiaries and their organizations to raising
co-payment rates. GAO has concluded that increases in beneficiaries’ co-payments are unlikely to
permit DOD to achieve the extent of savings it has anticipated but “it is still likely to achieve
significant savings.” The Interim Report of the DOD Task Force on the Future of Military Health
Care concluded that “The portion of costs borne by beneficiaries should be increased to a level below
that of the current FEHBP [Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan] or that of generous private-
sector plans and should be set at or below the level in effect in 1996.” Further, the Task Force
recommended that “Increases in cost-sharing should be phased in over three to five years to avoid
precipitous changes.”
Reference(s): Government Accountability Office, Military Health Care: TRICARE Cost-Sharing
Proposals Would Help Offset Increasing Health Care Spending but Projected Savings are Likely
Overestimated, GAO-07-647, May 2007; Department of Defense, Task Force on the Future of
Military Health Care, Interim Report, May 2007.
CRS Point of Contact (POC): Dick Best, x7-7607.
*Treatment of Tricare Retail Pharmacy Network Under
Federal Procurement of Pharmaceuticals
Background: Pharmaceuticals obtained by DOD are procured under federal pricing rules, but there
has been a dispute regarding pharmaceuticals dispensed by the Tricare retail network: DOD has
maintained that federal pricing rules apply; the pharmaceutical industry disagrees. Although there
had been a provision relating to the issue in the Senate version of the defense authorization bill for
FY2007, no language was included in the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act (P.L.
109-364). The conference report (H.Rept. 109-702) accompanying the final bill stated that
“prescriptions dispensed by the Department of Defense Retail Pharmacy Program qualify for
discounted drug prices under [38 USC] Section 8126.” A court case concerning the issue was
returned to a lower court on a procedural issue and has not been pursued.
H.R. 1585H.R. 1585P.L. 110-181
House-passed VersionSenate-passed Version
Section 703 authorizes DOD toSection 701 provides, effectiveSection 703 provided, that after
exclude pharmaceuticals fromOctober 1, 2007, that thethe date of enactment, the
the DOD retail pharmacyTricare Retail PharmacyTricare Retail Pharmacy
benefits program that are notProgram “shall be treated as anNetwork shall be treated as an
available at the same price thatelement of the Department ofelement of DOD for purposes of
is reflected in the FederalDefense for purposes of theprocurement of
Supply Schedule.procurement of drugs.”pharmaceuticals.
Discussion: Both provisions aim at encouraging pharmacies in the Tricare retail network to obtain
pharmaceuticals at the same price that is available to Federal agencies, including DOD and the VA.
The House version provides flexibility to DOD; the Senate Committee on Armed Services provision
makes federal pricing mandatory after October 1, 2007. There has been considerable resistance to
the proposal from pharmaceutical companies and retail drug stores and some observers say that
making federal pricing mandatory for the Tricare Retail Pharmacy Program could be seen as a
precedent for setting retail prices for pharmaceuticals obtained through Medicare.
Reference(s): None
CRS Point of Contact (POC): Dick Best, x7-7607.