Archived Issue: May/June 2007

Legislative Updates and NAUS Issues of Interest

Update on SBP/DIC Offset and Paid Up Premiums

Several bills have been introduced in the new Congress to end the Survivor Benefit Plan/Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (SBP/DIC) offset and accelerate the SBP "paid-up" benefit for military retirees who have paid premiums at least 30 years and are age 70 or older.

As readers know, SBP is purchased coverage similar to an insurance program that requires the military member to forfeit a significant portion of their retired pay from DoD in order to provide for their survivors. DIC is provided through the VA as remuneration whenever a servicemember dies due to a service-connected illness or injury.

And despite the fact that these two distinctly different payments are made for entirely different reasons, current law directs a dollar-for-dollar reduction in the payable SBP annuity for each dollar of DIC compensation a survivor receives.

NAUS-endorsed legislation in the 110th Congress to address these inequities includes S. 935, authored by Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) which calls for an immediate repeal of the offset and stepping up the implementation date of the "paid-up" provision to October 1st of this year.

Upon introducing his bill, Sen. Nelson aptly cited the crux of the issue noting, "Our Federal civil servants receive both their purchased survivor income protection annuity and any disability compensation for which they may be entitled — without offset. Why on earth would we treat our 100 percent disabled military retirees any differently, especially after they have given the best years of their lives and their health in service to the Nation?"

In the House, Rep. Solomon Ortiz (D-TX) introduced H.R. 1927, a bill identical to Senator Nelson's S. 935. In introducing the NAUS endorsed bill, Ortiz said, "The painful offset between [the] two programs has done precisely the opposite of what it is intended to do — protect the surviving loved one."

In late March, Rep. Henry Brown (R-SC) introduced H.R. 1589, the "Military Surviving Spouses Equity Act" which would also repeal the offset but not address the "paid-up" feature. And Rep. Jim Saxton (R-NJ) resubmitted legislation that seeks to accelerate the paid up provision. Saxton's bill is numbered H.R. 784.

Lawmakers have gotten a lot of play out of these two issues and the time to produce visible results is long overdue. Help get the NAUS message across by visiting our online Capwiz section and sending your elected officials an email or letter on the need for SBP reform. Remind them that Congress is charged with the overall responsibility of caring for military members and ensuring that their survivors are provided for. While they can never fully repay a servicemember for his dedication and commitment to this nation, nor recompense surviving family members after the loss of a loved one, Congress can do much better.

We invite you to use our Capwiz message service to send a request to your members of Congress asking them to cosponsor and pass elimination of the SBP-DIC offset and acceleration of the "paid-up" provision.

Concurrent Receipt Update

With the start of the 110th Congress NAUS again started work on our goal of Full Concurrent Receipt of both Military Retired Pay and VA Disability Pay without any offset of either. We also are pushing hard to include disabled veterans who were forced to retire (Chapter 61) before they could complete a full career. They deserve credit for the time they spent in uniform before circumstances beyond their control forced their exit from the military.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) started this legislative session with continued strong support of Concurrent Receipt and has expanded his efforts to include medically retired (Chapter 61) veterans with less than 20 years of service.

S. 439 introduced by Sen. Reid, is the Senate companion bill to a bill introduced by Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL), H.R. 1436. Both bills seek to expand concurrent receipt to all retirees, regardless of disability level but still leave current phase-in dates in effect. Additionally, the bills would extend eligibility for Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC) to medical retirees.

S. 986, also introduced by Sen. Reid, is an important bill that addresses the issue of extending CRSC to Chapter 61 medical retirees. This is a NAUS legislative goal that needs to be addressed. Medical retirees deserve credit for the time they spent in uniform before they were forced into early retirement because of a service-related injury. These veterans should not have to worry about an unfair policy that denies them payment of military retirement and VA disability compensation.

Freshman Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL), son of the long-time champion of Concurrent Receipt Rep. Mike Bilirakis, resumed the fight where his father had left off with introduction of H.R. 89, the "Combat-Related Special Compensation Act." This bill would extend CRSC to Chapter 61 retirees with less than 20 years of service. We expect support for this bill to continue.

Rep. Bilirakis also introduced H.R. 303, which is the same bill and number his father had introduced in the past several congresses. The NAUS-endorsed bill allows the immediate receipt of military retired pay and veterans disability compensation for all retirees with a service-connected disability regardless of disability level.

H.R. 333, introduced by Rep. Jim Marshall (D-GA), is an all encompassing bill which extends concurrent receipt to those retirees rated as less than 50 percent disabled, eliminates the phase-in period for concurrent receipt and extends eligibility for concurrent receipt and combat-related special compensation to Chapter 61 retirees.

Your help is needed to gain support for all these bills. Please contact your elected officials and ask them to co-sponsor these bills.

NAUS Testimony to The Task Force on the Future of Military Health Care

As readers of the NAUS Journal know, Congress mandated the Department of Defense to establish a task force — called the Task Force on the Future of Military Health Care — to consider funding for the TRICARE benefit in this year's National Defense Authorization Act (please see March/April USJ).

One of the main purposes of the DoD selected, fourteen-member task force is to assess the TRICARE fee structure for retired military and their families. The task force is directed to submit an interim report this May, and a final report in December to the Armed Services Committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives.

In January, task force members heard Dr. David S.C. Chu, Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, call for increasing TRICARE enrollment fees and deductibles for retirees under age 65, a proposal that was defeated by Congress last year but renewed this year by the administration.

On March 7, NAUS along with four partner members of The Military Coalition presented testimony calling on the task force to reject the PentagonÕs plan for $1.8 billion in higher fees.

NAUS told the panel that its military members find few things more callous than hearing top-officials in the defense department say that the costs of military earned benefits "have gotten to the point where they are hurtful...and taking away from the nationÕs ability to defend itself."

Such outrageous statements from the defense department, "raise serious concern about the direction [our nation is] taking, because we know that the brave men and women who served this country are not the enemy of national security," we told the task force.

"The National Association for Uniformed Services® finds it very difficult," we said, "to hear top officials seeming to say to those who wore the uniform 30 years ago or so that they now have to pay more for the promises made for a career in uniform, especially now that their job is done and they are out of our military."

According to the DoD, the Pentagon plan to increase TRICARE fees and related changes would "ensure US military capability and national defense," since dollar "savings," taken from the pockets of retired military and their families, would be applied directly to critical military requirements. In other words, benefits earned in career military service must be "choked back" because their costs threaten our national security.

Another of the assertions behind the Pentagon's plan for higher TRICARE fees, NAUS cited before the task force, "is to have working-age retirees and family members pay a larger share of TRICARE costs or use civilian health plans offered by employers."

We told the Task Force, "According to its own projections, DoD estimates that by 2011, if the changes they suggest were made, 144,000 retirees currently enrolled in the TRICARE programs would bail out and go to another option and an estimated 350,000 retirees who would have earned the benefit would never come into it."

"If successful," NAUS said, "the DoD plan would drive half a million people to make a choice that they might otherwise not want to make... We are deeply troubled that DoD would aim to discourage retirees from using their earned benefits."

NAUS also told the panel that "Many of our members... tell us that they believe this panel is chosen by DoD, hand-selected, to endorse the Pentagon plan for steep increases." Immediately, panel members gave NAUS their "personal assurances" that they were "not predisposed toward higher fee increases."

Only minutes later in the hearing, however, several members of the select task force talked about "using the stick (higher costs) rather than the carrot to change behavior" and spoke of the "economics" of the earned benefit, not the "value" of it or how it was earned.

NAUS also pointed out that "the current defense budget, at the height of the war on terror, represents only a little more than 4 percent of the gross national product, as opposed to the average of 5.7 percent of GNP in the peacetime years between 1940 and 2000." Not only are we seeing the squeeze put on healthcare benefits, but many other defense programs are being put in the vise as well (see related USJ story on readiness).

NAUS asked the task force members "to reject the DoD proposed increases and propose that adequate funding is provided to maintain the value of the healthcare benefit provided those men and women willing to undergo the hardships of a military career."

We said, "Your leadership is required to help demonstrate that the promised earned benefits of a military career remain a high priority... Our former soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines have kept faith and kept a strong defense. And today we are better for it."

In summation we said, "It is imperative that members of this panel do the right thing. To do otherwise would send the wrong signal to those who now serve and have served in America's Armed Forces, especially in a time of war. Approving such a message (the Pentagon plan) would not be well received by the military community, and would, if adopted, adversely influence retention and recruitment."

NAUS will continue to monitor task force and congressional actions that would place unreasonable costs on earned benefits. We will work for you and keep you informed. And we urge you to join the fight to protect the promised benefits of a military career. Use our Capwiz message service to send your concerns to your Representative and Senators.

NAUS-Endorsed Legislation on National Guard and Reserve Retirement

Recently NAUS combined with other member organizations of The Military Coalition (TMC), to support legislation, introduced by Rep. Tom Latham (R-IA) in the House, H.R. 1428, and Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) in the Senate, S. 648, that would modernize the retirement system of our National Guard and Reserve.

As readers of the USJ know, NAUS supports legislation to upgrade the retirement benefits available to those who choose to serve a career in the Reserve. The current retirement system is outdated and does not reflect the increasing mission of these Americans in our national defense and homeland security responsibilities. Lowering the retirement age for members of the National Guard and Reserve would recognize the importance of this service in today's military. As a nation, we cannot afford to take their service for granted or let it go unnoticed.

In a NAUS-endorsed TMC support letter, we wrote that H.R. 1428 and S. 648 would provide greatly needed improvements to an outdated Guard and Reserve retirement system built for the Cold War and a "strategic reserve" environment. Both bills recognize that today's operational reservists must forego substantial opportunities to advance their civilian careers and to build a reasonable civilian retirement because of their required military duty. To offset inevitable economic loss and to create incentives for continued service for a full career in the Guard and Reserve, the reserve retirement system must be modernized.

H.R. 1428 and S. 648 would reduce the minimum age for retirement by three months for each three months served on active duty for a contingency operation and for related emergency duty. For those who continue to do so much to protect the homeland and to fight the Global War on Terror, this bill makes sense and is critical to sustaining the all volunteer Guard and Reserve in the new operational reserve environment.

These bills represent a very positive step in helping sustain the Guard and Reserve as full partners in our operating forces. With TMC, NAUS strongly supports H.R. 1428 and S. 648. And we urge you to contact your members of Congress to help secure its enactment.

Total Force Montgomery G.I. Bill

In mid February, Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) and Rep. Vic Snyder (D-AR) introduced a pair of companion bills to modernize educational benefits and equitably recognize the National Guard and Reserve. S. 644 and H.R. 1102, share the same title, the "Total Force G.I. Bill," and are fully endorsed by NAUS.

Both bills would consolidate the Active Duty and Selected Reserve MGIB programs under a single authority at the Department of Veterans Affairs.

In late February, the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel held a hearing on the initial Total Force Montgomery G.I. proposals. In testimony provided to that committee, NAUS noted the importance of moving authority for the program out of the "darkness" of DoD management, where it has been neglected, to the "light" of VA jurisdiction, where the general program can be given the serious attention it deserves.

NAUS firmly believes that the benefits offered to Guard and Reserve should keep pace with our nation's increased reliance on these citizen warriors as an operational force. Shifting statutory authority is the critical "first step" toward fixing many of the problems with the MGIB benefit and NAUS sincerely appreciates these first steps being taken to establish an educational benefit that meets the needs of the "Total Force."

Early VA Funding Increases Approved

NAUS applauds recent efforts by House and Senate lawmakers to ensure that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is more adequately funded to provide care and treatment to our veterans and troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Within the first week of the new Congress, the House and Senate added $3.5 billion to veterans spending in the FY 2007 Continuing Resolution, H.J. Res. 20. And in the wartime supplemental funding proposal currently under consideration, H.R. 1591, Congress would provide nearly $1.7 billion of additional VA funding in the current year.

The fiscal year 2008 Budget Resolution would designate $43.1 billion for veterans next year, $3.5 billion more than the President requested and an increase of roughly $6.6 billion over current year levels. The recommended increase in funding would reject, for the fifth straight year, the attempts by the Administration to impose new fees and higher pharmaceutical copayments for certain veterans.

As of press time, conferees for the House and Senate were still meeting jointly, trying to iron out their differences and compose single documents that both chambers could agree upon. We caution members that it's not a "done deal" for either measure. The wartime supplemental bill would have to be signed by the President in order to make it "official" and the budget resolution is a non-binding document meaning even after they reach an agreement lawmakers are not obligated to follow the spending plan to a "T."

For the moment, however, the outcome looks very promising. At this writing, lawmakers expected to complete work on these issues by early to mid-May. NAUS will remain vigilant throughout the entire budget and authorization process with our efforts focused on keeping these projected funding levels intact.

Seemless Transition Easing into Civilian Sector

Facilitating a "seamless transition" from DoD to VA healthcare systems for separating servicemembers remains a high priority for NAUS. Forward movement by either government agency toward making this venture a reality has been sluggish at best.

As NAUS has long-maintained, part and parcel to achieving a true "seamless transition" is the timely exchange of medical information. But not all care is provided in military or VA treatment facilities. Physicians in civilian facilities are providing a rapidly growing percentage of care and their ability to share information is equally important for the care of servicemembers.

Recently, DoD officials announced plans for a pilot program to share portions of the military's huge medical database with civilian health care providers in the Tampa Bay, Florida, area. ItÕs the Pentagon's first effort to link its medical records to the private sector.

Doctors participating in the test will employ the same software and technology being used by the military to treat active duty and retired personnel under their care. The test will be implemented on a limited basis with about 500 doctors at three hospitals in the Tampa Bay area as participants. Information on allergies, prescriptions, surgical history, and lab test results will be shared. In time, increasingly detailed data will be made available such as dental records and radiology reports.

DoD plans to expand the program throughout the State of Florida and, ultimately, nationwide. The DoD announcement did not include a specific timetable on when shared information will first become available nor when the network will be expanded.

Regardless of the agency involved, NAUS is working to see that the "hand-off" includes a detailed history of care provided and an assessment of what each patient may require in the future. No separating veteran should ever fall through the bureaucratic cracks and not receive the health care they earned and deserve.

Update: Coast Guard

The United States Coast Guard is a critical part of our homeland security system. Its responsibilities include security to our homeland along the thousands of coastline miles that surround our nation. It is also the lead agency responsible for ensuring the security of all ports in our Nation, including the more than 150 ports that handle the bulk of our Nation's foreign and commercial commerce.

The Coast Guard is also a vital part of our emergency response system, as demonstrated when it was the only Federal agency that could come to the rescue of thousands of Hurricane Katrina victims left stranded in the Gulf.

Unfortunately, the Coast Guard's $24 billion, multiyear Deepwater program to modernize its fleet of ships, planes and helicopters has been compromised by a number of problems including congressional budgetary battles, funding shortfalls and cancellation of the Fast Response Cutter (FRC) contract with outside military contractors. Responsibility for the FRC project has been reassigned to the Coast Guard's own acquisition branch.

A recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report said problems in the design and performance of new ships, faulty cost controls and a general absence of contractor accountability have led to significant delays in the rollout of its fleet of cutters assigned to protect national-security interests.

In April, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinern (R-FL), the ranking member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, called on Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff to pull together a "plan of action" to upgrade the aging fleet.

In a letter to Secretary Chertoff, Ros-Lehtinern stated her concerns "...that operational delays and schedule slippages have increased the risk of the Coast Guard failing to meet its overall homeland-security objectives in a timely and fiscally responsible manner. The American people need leadership and a firm plan of action ... to improve program management, strengthen contractor accountability and promote cost control through increased competition among contractors."

NAUS shares Rep. Ros-Lehtinen's concerns and urges the Department of Homeland Security and Congress to work together to get the Coast Guard's plans back on track for a modern operational U.S. Coast Guard fleet. We commend the dedicated men and women of the Coast Guard and commandant Adm. Thad W. Allen for their outstanding service to the nation. They deserve our support as they work to strengthen America's national security.

NAUS also notes that recent legislation, S. 924, introduced by Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA), would take a big step toward fixing the many problems that plague the Deepwater program. The bill would ensure responsible management of allocated dollars and give the Coast Guard the tools it needs to ensure open competition and overcome past blunders.

At press time, the Coast Guard announced a major restructuring of the Deepwater program, saying it will assume control from the Lockheed Martin — Northrop Grumman contracor consortium, which had broad program management powers as the "lead systems integrator." The Service will also decommission the eight Island class patrol boats it moored in December. These cutters had been reconfigured and lengthened (to 123 feet) under the Deepwater program at a cost of about $100 million — only to learn the the lengthened hull can't take the stress of operations.

America's WWII Merchant Mariners

In April 18 testimony submitted to the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, NAUS reviewed the story of service in the Merchant Marine preceding and during World War II and endorsed H.R. 23, the Belated Thank You to Merchant Mariners of World War II Act of 2007, a bill to recognize the contribution made by the men and women who served in the United States Merchant Marine between the years 1941 and 1946.

We told the Committee that we thought recognition of these Merchant Mariners was long overdue. America's Merchant Marine kept Europe supplied during the Second World War. Nearly 8,000 lost their lives in the battle of the Atlantic.

H.R. 23 would extend a $1,000 monthly benefit package to those few surviving World War II mariners who now number approximately 10,000. It would also grant these merchant seamen, whose average age today is 83, the status of "veteran" under the Social Security Act to allow a small enhancement of their retirement under Social Security.

The bill is called "The Belated Thank You" because these seamen had borne arms during wartime in the defense of their country but had not been granted any benefits. No low interest home loans were available to Merchant Mariners. No lifetime compensation for related war injuries and disabilities, no use of VA hospitals, no priority for local, state, and federal jobs, no Social Security credit for wartime service.

"Members of the Merchant Marine," we said, "served on ships that engaged the enemy, lost their ships because of enemy action, were physically wounded or disabled as a result of enemy action, became prisoners of war, and served in combat and war zones under threat of attack by enemy air or submarine."

We reminded the members of the veterans' affairs committee that German U-boats sank one of every 6 ships that left U.S. ports at the start of the war. "The Atlantic Ocean was alive with German submarines, traveling in 'wolf packs,' ready to sink transport of critical supplies of oil, raw materials and food to England and Russia."

During the war period, it is reported that more than 8,000 merchant seamen lost their lives or were declared missing in action, and an additional 609 merchant seamen became prisoners of war. An estimated 731 vessels were sunk with another 40 ships and crews lost without a trace.

Regarding the service of the Merchant Marine, Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, on National Maritime Day, 1945, said, "The officers and men of the Merchant Marine, by their devotion to duty in the face of enemy action, as well as natural dangers of the sea, have brought us the tools to finish the job. Their contribution to final victory will be long remembered."

And in the Pacific theatre, Gen. Douglas MacArthur said, "I wish to commend to you the valor of the merchant seamen participating with us in the liberation of the Philippines. With us they have shared the heaviest enemy fire. On this island I have ordered them off their ships and into foxholes when their ships became untenable targets of attack. At our side they have suffered in bloodshed and in death. The caliber of efficiency and the courage they displayed in their part of the invasion of the Philippines marked their conduct throughout the entire campaign in the southwest Pacific area. They have contributed tremendously to our success. I hold no branch in higher esteem than the Merchant Marine services."

NAUS also reminded lawmakers that Canada approved a tax-free compensation package for its merchant mariners and surviving spouses seven years ago with a lump-sum payment of between $5,000 to $24,000 to eligible Canadian mariners who served during the First and Second World Wars and the Korean War.

We urge Congress to approve H.R. 23 and extend these benefits to those once young men who went to sea as crewmembers of the Merchant Marine during World War II. These forgotten heroes have struggled for more than six decades for acceptance among their military brethren and the public. And it is unthinkable that these brave men — who honorably gave voluntary wartime service to their country — should be given a cold shoulder by the nation they proudly served.

To read the full statement, please go to www.naus.org, click on "What We Do" then click on "Testimony."

USFSPA Fight Moves to Supreme Court

On February 12, the group known as USFSPA Litigation Support Group (ULSG) began the process of filing an appeal before the US Supreme Court to challenge the Uniformed Services Former Spouse Protection Act.

Backed by more than 3,000 members, the ULSG first went to the federal trial court in Alexandria, Virginia. When the trial court denied relief, the veterans appealed to the United States Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia. Again they were denied relief and now the veterans have taken the issue to Supreme Court to hear the appeal.

The veterans' challenge in the Supreme Court includes the contention that the law has been applied retroactively to persons who were already in the military — and some even were already retired — well before the USFSPA empowered divorce courts to divide retired pay. The petition also asserts that the USFSPA is unevenly applied in numerous State courts, resulting in wildly varying treatment of divorced veterans' retired pay depending on the State where the divorce proceedings are handled. The lawsuit also contends that the USFSPA and the government do not sufficiently protect divorced veterans against the government's implementation of court orders issued without sufficient basis in law.

ULSG officer and retired Army Master Sergeant Ronald King said: "The USFSPA was a badly written law in the first place that has caused financial devastation to countless veterans. We hope that the Supreme Court will recognize the impact of this law and that it will agree to hear our appeal." NAUS agrees with the petitioners.

NAUS Testifies on USFSPA Reform

In testimony before the House Armed Forces Subcommittee on Military Personnel, NAUS Legislative Director Rick Jones called for hearings to be held on the USFSPA to reopen several important issues that would assist in the "rebalancing" of the Act to improve it for all concerned.

Among the issues Jones cited as matters that needed rebalancing is the elimination of an imputed retirement annuity. Among the issues Jones cited as matters that needed rebalancing is the elimination of an imputed retirement annuity. An active duty service member should not be forced to pay a divorce settlement based on the projected or imputed amount one would be able to pay if the individual had been retired.

He also brought to the attention of the congressional panel the issue known as the "windfall" provision. This provision bases the portion of retirement pay given to a former spouse on the military member's pay at the time of retirement, not the amount earned at the time of the divorce.

Shortly after the testimony was presented NAUS learned that DoD had sent a number of recommendations to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees to be considered for inclusion in the National Defense Authorization Act to be decided later this year. Among the DoD recommendations:

• Base former spouse award amount on member's grade/years of service at the time of divorce (and not retirement);
• Prohibit award of imputed income while still on active duty; and,
• Permit designation of multiple SBP beneficiaries.

The initial draft of the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act has these DoD suggested changes already incorporated into the main bill. However, we must emphasize that there remains a long road before the Conference Committee determines the final language of the bill. NAUS will continue to push for these and related reforms that better balance federal policy for all parties.

Gen. McCaffrey: "The Consequences of Failure Will be Severe"

Retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey was in Iraq for a week in the middle of March. He wrote an after action report for his colleagues at the United States Military Academy, where he is adjunct professor of International Security Studies.

In his March 26 report Gen. McCaffrey writes, "This whole Iraq operation is on the edge of unraveling as the poor Iraqis batter each other to death with our forces caught in the middle."

However, he writes, the overall picture is not irretrievable. "We have very little time left," but "[t]he courage and strength of the US Armed Forces still gives us latitude and time to build the economic and political conditions that might defuse the ongoing civil war."

"Since the arrival of Gen. David Petraeus," McCaffrey writes, "...the situation on the ground has clearly and measurably improved...In my judgment, we can still achieve our objective of a stable Iraq, at peace with its neighbors, not producing weapons of mass destruction, and fully committed to a law-based government."

Gen. McCaffrey warns, however, about the consequences of a premature pullout, "a disaster in Iraq will in all likelihood result in a widened regional struggle which will endanger America's strategic interests (oil) in the Middle East for a generation. We will also produce another generation of soldiers who lack confidence in their American politicians, the media, and their own senior military leadership."

Despite the problems facing the Iraqi government and people, Gen. McCaffrey's assessment remains optimistic for a satisfactory outcome since the surge began. "We have brilliant military and civilian leadership on the ground in Iraq. General Dave Petraeus, LTG Ray Odierno, and Ambassador Ryan Crocker have the country's treasure and combat power at their disposal."

"Our cause is just," Gen. McCaffrey definitively writes. And concludes the report, "We now need a last powerful effort to provide to US leaders on the ground — the political support, economic reconstruction resources, and military strength it requires to succeed."

In a previous must-read report Gen. McCaffrey said, "A successful outcome would potentially usher in a very dramatically changed environment throughout the Middle East and signal in this region the end of an era of incompetent and corrupt government which fosters frustration and violence on the part of much of the population."

With debate split on American policy in Iraq and the Global War on Terror, the observations of Gen. McCaffrey on the situation in the Middle East offer us an understanding about the prospects for success for the way ahead.

During a brief March 28 meeting, Gen. McCaffrey told NAUS President MG William Matz and Legislative Director Rick Jones that the situation in Iraq was a "mess, but it doesn't have to remain that way." He said that the new strategy on security in Iraq is showing signs of real progress, but the road ahead is uncertain without a strong, united commitment.

NAUS knows that success isn't guaranteed, and we are pressing to see that lawmakers on Capitol Hill don't make the possibility of its attainment more difficult.

MG Matz Meets with House Armed Services Chairman, Ike Skelton

At an April Capitol Hill meeting, MG Bill Matz took the opportunity to discuss several issues with House Armed Services Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO). Legislative Director Rick Jones also attended the meeting.

On the issue of TRICARE, Skelton indicated a ready willingness to curb the Pentagon push for higher fees on military families. In comment on the issue, he said that these military retirees earned their benefits and if we can't stop increased costs permanently, we'll have to do it yearly.

Chairman Skelton told Gen. Matz that he shares NAUS' deep concern about the readiness of our forces. According to U.S. Army testimony and briefings, the repair and replacement of equipment such as tanks, Bradley Fighting Vehicles, helicopters and armored Humvees are backlogged and piling up at home depots, unready to deploy.

In recent testimony to the House Appropriations Committee, Marine Gen. Peter Pace reported that 40 percent of Army and Marine Corps equipment is deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan or being repaired in depots, with the remainder spread out among the other forces.

Skelton agreed with Matz that Congress needs to work with the administration to make sure that those in uniform are fully equipped, trained and ready to protect the interests of America in the days and years ahead.

Skelton said the question of our readiness is critical. Over the past 30 years, there have been 12 conflicts involving our military and no one, he said, can know what threats we will need to deter or challenges we will face in the future. NAUS strongly agrees that we must have a ready force in all services.

Chairman Skelton pledged his support for increased funding as an essential first step to improve the readiness of the military force but warned that it will take years to overcome our military readiness problem.