Posted on: Monday, March 15, 2004
MILITARY UPDATE
Congress begins debate on military entitlements
By Tom Philpott
With public enthusiasm and private hand-wringing, Congress this month began debating two initiatives that military associations and lawmakers have identified as quality-of-life priorities for the 2005 budget: Reform of the Survivor Benefit Plan and the opening of TRICARE to drilling reservists.
Advocates for widows and reservists gained some traction in early March despite rising worries over budget deficits and fresh warnings from defense officials that boosting entitlements won't improve readiness.
The Senate on March 10 amended its 2005 budget resolution to allow room for legislation that would open TRICARE, the military's triple healthcare option, to drilling reservists, National Guard members and families.
They would pay a modest premium, perhaps $500 a year for individual coverage and $1800 for families, on top of TRICARE usual fees and co-payments.
The amendment by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., directs Senate appropriators to cover the $5.6 billion cost, over five years, using unspent money earmarked for reconstruction projects in Iraq.
The amendment also supports a 50-percent rise in Montgomery GI bill education benefits for reservists.
On SBP reform, Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., said she expected the Republican-led Senate to reject her amendment, which seeks $498 million over five years to finance her bill, S 1916.
It would phase out over 10 years the sharp drop in monthly SBP that occurs when surviving spouses turn 62 and become eligible for Social Security.
Payments typically drop from 55 percent of the covered annuity down to as low as 35 percent.
"I don't think it's going to pass, but I'm going to offer it anyway," Landrieu said, "because I would like my colleagues on the other side to be on the record in saying we can afford $2.6 trillion in tax cuts but we can't afford $2 billion (over 10 years) to help out military families."
SBP reform and Reserve TRICARE also were issues in the House as the budget committee weighed amendments to its spending ceilings.
Rep. Jim Nussle, R-Iowa, committee chairman, promised to impose more fiscal discipline this year. But if the chairman's markup of the budget resolution fails to include SBP reform, Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Texas, has promised an amendment to finance HR 3763, a bill identical to Landrieu's but introduced by Rep. Jeff Miller, R-Fla.
With 12 of 21 Republicans on the House Budget Committee having co-sponsored Miller's bill, Edwards hoped to force colleagues to choose between helping military survivors and adhering to the will of Republican leaders.
One Democratic staffer said his party learned much in last year's showdown over concurrent receipt, also known as the veterans disability tax.
Democrats threatened then to use a discharge petition to force a vote on legislation that the White House opposed but that many Republicans had co-sponsored. That pressure urged Republicans into a compromise that boosted the incomes of a few hundred thousand disabled retirees.
Democrats figure that with enough pressure, Republicans will give in. Or if they refuse, veterans groups will take them to task.
The Miller/Landrieu bills, crafted with help from a service association, has made SBP reform look more affordable.
It would lower short-term costs by offering enrollment to retirees who would pay higher premiums. Also, it would lengthen to 10 years the phase out of the benefit drop at age 62. Last year's bill proposed a five-year phase out.
The House Armed Services Committee got behind the 10-year reform plan in late February, asking the budget committee to set aside the money.
New estimates from the Congressional Budget Office put the cost at $498 million over five years, small enough that proponents hope even Nussle might support it rather than expose committee Republicans to charges of hypocrisy when forced to vote on the bill.
Some Republican committee staffers, however, see the Miller bill as a ruse. They view the real cost as $800 million a year, rising to more than $1 billion.
Pressure to reduce entitlements comes from senior defense officials.
David Chu, undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, told the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 2 that opening TRICARE to reservists and their families could cost $1 billion a year "with little payoff in readiness."
The same would be true, he suggested, with initiatives to enhance SBP or to lower the age at which reserve retirement benefits begin, or to remove the concurrent receipt ban on all retirees with disabilities.
"More long-term entitlements are not the answer to our readiness issues," Chu said.
Steve Strobridge, co-chair of The Military Coalition, an umbrella group of service associations and veteran groups, said entitlement gains are overdue, and that critics like Chu are losing credibility.
Will advocates for widows and reserve forces win this entitlements debate?
Election-year politics, the strain of war and genuine concern about the deficit among lawmakers all will be factors.
Questions, comments and suggestions are welcomed. Write to Military Update, P.O. Box 231111, Centreville, VA 20120-1111, or send e-mail to: milupdate@aol.com. Or visit Tom Philpott's Web site.
