The FY2008 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues

The FY2008 National Defense Authorization

Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues

(name redacted), Coordinator

Specialist in Military Manpower Policy

(name redacted)

Specialist in National Defense

(name redacted)

Specialist in Military Manpower Policy

(name redacted)

Specialist in Military Manpower Policy

February 6, 2008

Congressional Research Service

7-....

www.crs.gov

RL34169

CRS Report for Congress

Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

The FY2008 National Defense Authorization Act

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, Senatepassed, 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.

Congressional Research Service

The FY2008 National Defense Authorization Act

Contents

Selected Family Matters..............................................................................................................1

Cold War Victory Medal..............................................................................................................3

Continuation of Authority To Assist Local Educational Agencies that Benefit Dependents

of Members of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense Civilian Employees ...................4

Disregarding Periods of Confinement of Members in Determining Benefits for

Dependents Who Are Victims of Abuse by the Member............................................................5

Continuation/Modification of Authority for Members of the Armed Forces to Designate a

Recipient for a Portion of the Death Gratuity............................................................................6

Recoupment of Annuity Amounts Previously Paid, but Subject to Offset for Dependency

and Indemnity Compensation ...................................................................................................7

*Survivor Benefit Plan Annuity Offset for Dependency and Indemnity Compensation.................8

Annuities for Guardians and Caretakers of Dependent Children Under Survivor Benefit

Plan .........................................................................................................................................9

*Effective Date of “Paid-Up” Coverage under the Military Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) ........... 10

Army/Marine Corps End Strength ............................................................................................. 11

Hardship Duty Pay.................................................................................................................... 11

*Modifying Reserve Retirement Authorities.............................................................................. 12

POW/MIA Operations............................................................................................................... 13

*Military Pay Raise................................................................................................................... 13

*Concurrent Receipt ................................................................................................................. 14

Moving Reserve “GI Bill” Educational Benefits from Title 10 to Title 38 .................................. 15

*Role of National Guard Bureau and National Guard Bureau Chief........................................... 16

*Tricare Fee Increases............................................................................................................... 22

*Retiree Tricare Coverage and Employer Group Health Plans ................................................... 23

*Tricare Pharmacy Fees ............................................................................................................ 24

*Treatment of Tricare Retail Pharmacy Network Under Federal Procurement of

Pharmaceuticals ..................................................................................................................... 25

Contacts

Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 26

Congressional Research Service

The FY2008 National Defense Authorization Act

E

ach 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, 2007, reported by the Committee on Armed Services on May

11, 2007 (H.Rept. 110-146), 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. 110181, 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.

Congressional Research Service

1

The FY2008 National Defense Authorization Act

H.R. 1585

House-passed Version

H.R. 1585

Senate-passed Version

P.L. 110-181

The House report contains language

that requires the Secretary of

Defense, in consultation with the

Centers 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.”

No similar provision.

No language was included but such

requests for reports are often

honored by the Department of

Defense.

Section 577 would protect child

custody arrangements for parents

who are members of the Armed

Forces who are deployed in support

of a contingency operation.

No similar provision.

The House language became Section

584 of the law with a clarifying

amendment added by the Senate

pertaining to the Servicemembers

Civil Relief Act.

Section 578 limits simultaneous

deployments to combat zones of

dual-military couples who have

minor dependents.

Section 1072 expresses the sense of

the Congress that single parents and

dual-service couples with

dependents should develop a family

care plan consistent with DOD

Instruction 1342.19. Also, when

such parents are required to deploy

to certain areas, requests for

deferments due to unforeseen

circumstances should be evaluated

rapidly and appropriate steps should

be taken to ensure adequate care of

the children.

The Senate language became Section

586 of the law with the adding of

“an amendment that would require

the Secretary of Defense to

establish appropriate procedures to

ensure that an adequate family care

plan is in place for a member of the

armed forces with minor

dependents who is a single parent

or whose spouse is also a member

of the armed forces when the

member may be deployed in an area

for which imminent danger pay is

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.”

Section 580 calls for a study of

feasibility of establishing a pilot

program on family-to-family support

for families of members of the

National Guard and Reserves

undergoing deployment.

Section 583 requires the Secretary

of Defense to enhance and improve

programs to provide family support

for families of deployed

servicemembers.

The House language became Section

583 of the law with the Senate

adding a provision “that would

combine the House and Senate

provisions to require a study to

determine the most effective means

to enhance and improve family

support programs for families of the

regular and reserve components of

the armed forces before, during, and

after deployment.”

Section 581 requires a study

regarding improving support

services for the children of

members of the National Guard and

Reserve undergoing deployment.

Section 1034 requires the Secretary

of Defense to submit a report

regarding the impact on military

families of multiple deployments as a

part of Operation Iraqi freedom and

Operation Enduring Freedom.

Congressional Research Service

Section 584 calls for the

enhancement of support services for

children of those undergoing

deployment.

Section 585 requires the Secretary

of Defense to conduct a study on

improving support services for the

children of those undergoing

deployment.

Section 586 requires a study on the

establishment of a pilot program on

family-to-family support for those

deployed.

2

The FY2008 National Defense Authorization Act

H.R. 1585

House-passed Version

No similar provision.

H.R. 1585

Senate-passed Version

Section 581 creates a DOD Military

Family Readiness Council.

Section 582 directs the Secretary of

Defense to develop a policy and

plans for the support of military

family readiness.

Section 515 would establish a DOD

working group to identify and assess

the reintegration needs of members

of the reserve components

returning from operational

deployments overseas.

Section 516 would require the

creation of a national combat

reintegration program, “Yellow

Ribbon Reintegration Program,” to

provide National Guard families

information, services, referral

opportunities throughout the

deployment cycle.

Section 683 calls for the creation of

a “Yellow Ribbon Reintegration

Program” to assist National Guard

and reserve members and their

families.

Section 587 calls for a pilot program

on family readiness and

servicemember reintegration.

P.L. 110-181

These sections became Section 581

of the law with the House adding an

amendment that would include the

senior enlisted advisors of the

Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air

Force, or the spouse of a senior

enlisted member from each service

as a member of the Department of

Defense Military Family Readiness

Council.

Section 582 incorporated the Senate

language with a House amendment

that would authorize the Secretary

to create State Deployment Cycle

Support Teams to administer the

Yellow Ribbon Reintegration

Program at the State level and

would authorize outreach programs

to educate service members and

their families about the Yellow

Ribbon Reintegration Program.

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): (name redacted), x7-.....

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 26, 1991, are eligible.

H.R. 1585

House-passed Version

H.R. 1585

Senate-passed Version

P.L. 110-181

The House bill contains a 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.

No similar provision.

No language was reported.

Congressional Research Service

3

The FY2008 National Defense Authorization Act

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): (name redacted), x7-.....

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. 1585

House-passed Version

H.R. 1585

Senate-passed Version

The House provision (Section 562)

authorizes $50 million to local educational

agencies that have military dependents

comprising at least 20 percent of the

average daily attendance and also

authorizes $15 million to local educational

agencies that experience “significant

increases or decreases in average daily

attendance” of military dependent

students due to changes in force

structure, base closure and realignment,

and from changes resulting from the

relocation of personnel to other bases.

Section 561 authorizes $35

million to local educational

agencies that benefit the

children of members of the

armed forces and DOD civilian

employees, and $10 million in

assistance to schools with

enrollment changes due to base

closures, force structure

changes or force relocations.

Section 571 authorized $30.0

million for continuation of

assistance to eligible local agencies

impacted by enrollment of DOD

military and civilian employee

dependents, and $10.0 million for

assistance to agencies with

significant changes in enrollment of

children due to base closures, force

structure changes, or force

relocations.

No similar provision.

Section 562 provides impact

aid for military dependent

children with severe disabilities.

Section 572 provided impact aid for

military dependent children with

severe disabilities.

No similar provision.

Section 563 provides aid to

agencies impacted by nonDOD employees affected by

the base realignment and

closings.

Section 573 provided aid to

agencies impacted by non-DOD

employees affected by the base

realignment and closings.

Section 561 provides authority for

payment of private boarding school tuition

for military dependents in overseas areas

not served by DOD schools.

Section 564 provides authority

for payment of private boarding

school tuition for military

dependents in overseas areas

not served by DOD schools.

This language was accepted and

expanded to include private

boarding schools in the United

States.

Congressional Research Service

P.L. 110-181

4

The FY2008 National Defense Authorization Act

H.R. 1585

House-passed Version

H.R. 1585

Senate-passed Version

P.L. 110-181

No similar provision.

Section 566 provides

emergency assistance for local

educational agencies that enroll

military dependent children.

No language was reported.

No similar provision.

Section 565 designates

educational agencies that are

“heavily impacted.”

No language was reported.

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): (name redacted), x7-.....

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 member had retired under normal circumstances.”1

1

U.S. Department of Defense, Financial Management Regulation, Vol. 7B, Chap. 59, June 2001: 59-1.

Congressional Research Service

5

The FY2008 National Defense Authorization Act

H.R. 1585

House-passed Version

H.R. 1585

Senate-passed Version

P.L. 110-181

Section 641 of the House bill 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.”

No similar provision.

No language was included.

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): (name redacted), x7-.....

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.

Congressional Research Service

6

The FY2008 National Defense Authorization Act

H.R. 1585

House-passed Version

H.R. 1585

Senate-passed Version

P.L. 110-181

Section 642 of the House bill would

make this designation authority

permanent by removing the Sept.

30, 2007 termination date.

Section 651 of the Senate bill

modifies the law by striking the

existing list of beneficiaries and

replacing it with a new list by the

order of eligible beneficiaries

(subject to certain qualifications): 1)

any individual designated in writing,

2) the surviving spouse, 3) children,

4) parents, 5) an executor or

administrator of the estate, and, 6)

other next of kin. The Senate also

included report language addressing

the need for pre-deployment

counseling on survivor benefits and

directing the Secretary of Defense

to review such counseling.

Section 645 stated “The House

recedes with an amendment that

would make the provision effective

no later than July 1, 2008; provide

for notification of the spouse if an

election were made under this

authority that would exclude a

current spouse from any portion of

the death gratuity benefit; provide

for partial designations in 10 percent

increments; and provide [death

gratuity elections made)] ... before

the enactment of this provision, or

before enactment of the

amendments ... Public Law 110-28,

would remain lawful and effectual.”

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, by (name red

acted) and (name redacted).

CRS Point of Contact (POC): (name redacted), x7-.....

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 SBPeligible 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.

Congressional Research Service

7

The FY2008 National Defense Authorization Act

H.R. 1585

House-passed Version

H.R. 1585

Senate-passed Version

P.L. 110-181

The House provision (Section 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.

No similar provision.

No language was included.

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, by (name redacted).

CRS Point of Contact (POC): (name redacted), x7-.....

*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-fordollar basis by DIC.

Congressional Research Service

8

The FY2008 National Defense Authorization Act

H.R. 1585

House-passed Version

The House provision (Section 644)

authorizes a monthly survivor

indemnity allowance “equal to $40

or the same amount of the SBP

annuity subject to the DIC offset

should it be a lesser amount.”

These payments become effective

October 1, 2008 and terminate

effective March 1, 2016.

H.R. 1585

Senate-passed Version

Section 658 would eliminate the

offset of the SBP annuity by the

amount of DIC.

P.L. 110-181

The report language limited the

survivor indemnity allowance to

survivors of service members who

were entitled to retired pay, or

would be entitled to reserve

component retired pay but for the

fact they were not yet 60 years of

age, would increase the monthly

allowance for FY2009 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, by (name redacted).

CRS Point of Contact (POC): (name redacted), x7-.....

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. 1585

House-passed Version

H.R. 1585

Senate-passed Version

No similar provision.

The Senate bill contains a 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.”

Congressional Research Service

P.L. 110-181

No language was reported.

9

The FY2008 National Defense Authorization Act

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, by (name redacted).

CRS Point of Contact (POC): (name redacted), x7-.....

*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 socalled “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, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, H.Rept. 109-360, 109th

Cong., 1st Sess. H.R. 1815, December 18, 2005 and U.S. Congress, Conference Committee, John

Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, H.Rept. 109-702, 109th Cong.,

2nd Sess. H.R. 5122, September 29, 2006).

H.R. 1585

House-passed Version

H.R. 1585

Senate-passed Version

No similar provision.

Section 659 would move the

effective date of the “paid-up”

provision from October 1, 2008 to

October 1, 2007.

P.L. 110-181

No language was reported.

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, 2008, effective date.

Reference(s): CRS Report RL31664, The Military Survivor Benefit Plan: A Description of Its

Provisions, by (name redacted).

CRS Point of Contact (POC): (name redacted), 7-.....

Congressional Research Service

10

The FY2008 National Defense Authorization Act

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. 1585

House-passed Version

H.R. 1585

Senate-passed Version

P.L. 110-181

Section 401 authorizes an FY2008

end strength of 525,400 for the

Army and 189,000 for the Marine

Corps.

Section 401 authorizes an FY2008

end strength of 525,400 for the

Army and 189,000 for the Marine

Corps.

Section 401 authorized a FY2008

end strength of 525,400 for the

Army and 189,000 for the Marine

Corps.

Section 402 establishes a new

minimum strength levels of 525,400

for the Army and 189,000 for the

Marine Corps.

No similar provision.

Section 402 established a new

minimum strength level of 525,400

for the Army and 189,000 for the

Marine Corps.

Section 403 authorizes additional

increases in FY2009-FY2010 of

22,000 for the Army (to 547,400)

and 13,000 for the Marine Corps (to

202,000).

No similar provision.

Section 403 authorized additional

increases in FY2009-FY2010 of

22,000 for the Army (to 547,400)

and 13,000 for the 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 (name redacted).

CRS Point of Contact (POC): Charles Henning at x7-.....

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).

Congressional Research Service

11

The FY2008 National Defense Authorization Act

H.R. 1585

House-passed Version

H.R. 1585

Senate-passed Version

The House provision (Section 624)

increases the maximum amount of

Hardship Duty Pay from $750 to

$1500 per month.

The Senate provision (Section 617)

also increases the maximum monthly

amount of Hardship Duty Pay to

$1500, and authorizes payment of a

lump sum in advance or a monthly

rate.

P.L. 110-181

Section 617 increased the maximum

amount of Hardship Duty Pay to

$1500 a month and authorizes

payment of a lump sum in advance or

a 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 (name redacted).

CRS Point of Contact (POC): Charles Henning at x7-.....

*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. 1585

House-passed Version

H.R. 1585

Senate-passed Version

No similar provision.

Section 655 of the Senate bill would

reduce the age for receipt of retired

pay for members of the Ready

Reserve by three months for each

aggregate of 90 days of specified

duty performed in any fiscal year

since September 11, 2001. Specified

duty includes active duty under any

provision of law referred to in 10

USC 101(a)(13)(B), active duty

under 10 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 60.

P.L. 110-181

Section 647 of the law was nearly

identical to the Senate provision, but

only applies to duty performed in a

fiscal year after the date of

enactment of the National Defense

Authorization Act for FY2008.

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,

Congressional Research Service

12

The FY2008 National Defense Authorization Act

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 (name redacted).

CRS Point of Contact (POC): (name redacted) at x7-.... or Charles Henning at x7-.....

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. 1585

House-passed Version

H.R. 1585

Senate-passed Version

P.L. 110-181

The House report recommends fully

supporting POW/MIA efforts by increasing

the amounts allocated by:

No similar provision.

No language was reported.

+$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 (name re

dacted).

CRS Point of Contact (POC): Charles Henning at x7-.....

*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.

Congressional Research Service

13

The FY2008 National Defense Authorization Act

H.R. 1585

House-passed Version

H.R. 1585

Senate-passed Version

The House provision, in Section 601,

supports a 3.5 percent (0.5 percent

above the President’s Budget) acrossthe-board pay raise that would be

effective January 1, 2008.

The Senate, in Section 601,

supports a 3.5 percent across-theboard pay raise effective January 1,

2008.

Section 601 authorized a 3.5

percent across-the-board pay raise

retroactive to January 1, 2008.

In Section 606, the House also

supports a guaranteed pay raise of 0.5

percent above the ECI for FY2009

through FY2012.

No similar provision.

No language was reported.

P.L. 110-181

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

(name redacted).

CRS Point of Contact (POC): Charles Henning at x7-.....

*Concurrent Receipt

Background: Since the enactment of Concurrent Receipt legislation in FY2003, the CombatRelated 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. 1585

House-passed Version

H.R. 1585

Senate-passed Version

The House provision in Section 645

would expand CRSC eligibility to

include military retirees (to include

Chapter 61) with a minimum of 15

years of creditable service and a

disability rated at least 60%.

The Senate, in Section 653, would

expand CRSC eligibility to include all

service members eligible for retired

pay, to include those retired under

Chapter 61 and almost all reserve

retirees, effective January 1, 2008. It

excludes 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.

Section 641 expanded CRSC

eligibility to include all service

members eligible for retired pay, to

include those retired under Chapter

61 and most reserve retirees, other

than those retired under 10 USC

12731b, effective January 1, 2008.

No similar provision.

Section 660 would grant

Concurrent Receipt eligibility to

100% Unemployables retroactive to

December 31, 2004.

Section 642 expanded Concurrent

Receipt to include those who are

rated as 100% unemployable by the

Department of Veterans’ Affairs,

retroactive to December 31, 2004

and payable on October 1, 2008.

Congressional Research Service

P.L. 110-181

14

The FY2008 National Defense Authorization Act

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 (name redacted).

CRS Point of Contact (POC): Charles Henning at x7-.....

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. 1585

House-passed Version

H.R. 1585

Senate-passed Version

Section 525 would recodify chapters

1606 (MGIB-SR) and 1607 (REAP) of title

10 USC, and Chapter 33 of Title 38.

No similar provision.

P.L. 110-181

Section 535 required the Secretary

of Defense, in cooperation with

the Secretary 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.

Congressional Research Service

15

The FY2008 National Defense Authorization Act

Reference(s): CRS Report RL34549, A Brief History of Veterans’ Education Benefits and Their

Value, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).

CRS Point of Contact (POC): (name redacted) at x7-.....

*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. 1585

House-passed Version

H.R. 1585

Senate-passed Version

Section 1611(a) 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, through the Chairman of the

Joint Chiefs of Staff, on such matters.

Section 533(d) specifies that—in

addition to the Chief’s current duties

as principal advisor to the Secretaries

and Chiefs of Staff of the Army and Air

Force on National Guard matters—the

Chief is also an advisor to the

Secretary of Defense, through the

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,

“on matters involving non-federalized

National Guard forces and other

matters as determined by the

Secretary of 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.

Congressional Research Service

P.L. 110-181

Section 1811(d) specified that –

in addition to the Chief’s

current duties as principal

advisor to the Secretaries and

Chiefs of Staff of the Army and

Air Force on National Guard

matters – the Chief is also a

principal adviser to the

Secretary of Defense through

the Chairman of the Joint

Chiefs of Staff, “on matters

involving non-federalized

National Guard forces and on

other matters as determined by

the Secretary of Defense.”

16

The FY2008 National Defense Authorization Act

H.R. 1585

House-passed Version

H.R. 1585

Senate-passed Version

P.L. 110-181

Section 1611(b) would make 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.

No similar provision.

No language was reported.

Section 1611(c) would change the

grade of the Chief of the National

Guard Bureau from Lieutenant

General (O-9) to General (O-10).

Both Section 533(b) and Section

1802(b)(2) would change the grade of

the Chief of the National Guard

Bureau from Lieutenant General (O-9)

to General (O-10).

Section 1811(b) changed the

grade of the Chief of the

National Guard Bureau from

Lieutenant General (O-9) to

General (O-10).

Section 1611(d) would change the way

the Chief of the NGB is recommended

for appointment. It would leave intact

the current procedure for

recommending candidates for this

position, but add a new requirement

for the Secretary of Defense to set up

a process for identifying the “best

qualified officer or officers whom the

Secretary of Defense will recommend

for consideration by the President for

appointment as Chief of the National

Guard Bureau.” A key component of

this selection process would be the

requirement to “incorporate the

requirements of Section 601(d)” of

Title 10 (See discussion below).

Section 533(a) would add new

requirements for an officer to be

recommended for appointment as

Chief of the National Guard Bureau,

including a recommendation by the

Secretary of the Army or Air Force; a

determination by the Chairman of the

Joint Chiefs of Staff that the officer has

“significant joint duty experience”; a

determination by the Secretary of

Defense that the officer’s assignments

and experiences provide a detailed

knowledge of the status and capabilities

of National Guard forces and missions;

that the officer possesses a level of

operational experience, 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 1811(a) was virtually

identical to the Senate

provision.

Section 1611(e) would repeal the

prohibition in 10 USC 10502(b) on

officers 64 years of age or older from

holding the position of Chief, NGB.

Section 533(c) is identical to House

provision.

Section 1811(c) repealed the

prohibition in 10 USC 10502(b)

on officers 64 years of age or

older from holding the position

of Chief, NGB.

Section 1625 amends 10 USC 14511—

which requires the mandatory

separation of reserve officers in the

grade of major general or rear admiral

(O-8) or higher to retire at age 64 –

to allow the Secretary of Defense to

defer such separation for reserve

officers in the rank of lieutenant

general/vice admiral (O-9) or

general/admiral (O-10) to the age of

66 and to allow the President to make

a similar deferral to age 68.

Section 533(e) amends 10 USC 14512 which requires the mandatory

separation of officers holding certain

offices, including the Chief of the NGB,

at age 66 - to allow the President to

defer the retirement of the Chief of

the NGB to age 68.

Section 1825 deleted the

reference to the Chief of the

NGB in 10 USC 14512, and

amended 10 USC 14511 to

allow the Secretary of Defense

to defer separation for reserve

officers in the rank of

lieutenant general/vice admiral

(O-9) or general/admiral (O10) up to age 66 and allowed

the President to make a similar

deferral up to age 68.

Congressional Research Service

17

The FY2008 National Defense Authorization Act

H.R. 1585

House-passed Version

H.R. 1585

Senate-passed Version

P.L. 110-181

Section 1611(f) would require 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.

No similar provision.

No language was reported.

Section 1612(a) would change the

National Guard Bureau from a “joint

bureau of the Department of the

Army and the Department of the Air

Force” to a “joint activity of the

Department of Defense.”

Section 1802(a)(1) is identical to the

House provision.

Section 1812(a) changed the

National Guard Bureau from a

“joint bureau of the

Department of the Army and

the Department of the Air

Force” to a “joint activity of

the Department of Defense.”

No similar provision

Section 1802(a)(2) would 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.

No language was reported.

Section 1613(a) would assign a new

function to the NGB: facilitating and

coordinating the use of National

Guard personnel and resources for

certain types of operations –

“operations conducted under title 32,

or in support of State missions” – with

other federal agencies, the Adjutants

General of the States, U.S. Joint

Forces Command, and the combatant

command whose geographic

responsibility includes the United

States (i.e. U.S. Northern Command).

Section 1802(c)(1) would assign a new

function to the NGB: facilitating and

coordinating the use of National Guard

personnel and resources for certain

types of operations – “contingency

operations, military operations other

than war, natural disasters, support of

civil authorities, and other

circumstances”– with other federal

agencies and the States.

Section 1813(a) assigned a new

function to the NGB: Assisting

the Secretary of Defense in

facilitating and coordinating the

use of National Guard

personnel and resources for

certain types of operations –

“operations conducted under

title 32, or in support of State

missions” – with other federal

agencies, the Adjutants General

of the States, U.S. Joint Forces

Command, and the combatant

command whose geographic

responsibility includes the

United States (i.e., U.S.

Northern Command).

Congressional Research Service

18

The FY2008 National Defense Authorization Act

H.R. 1585

House-passed Version

H.R. 1585

Senate-passed Version

Section 1613(b) would transfer

authority for prescribing the NGB

charter from the Secretaries of the

Army and Air Force to the Secretary

of Defense, who would be required to

develop the charter in consultation

with the Secretaries of the Army and

Air Force, and the Chairman of the

Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Section 532(a)(1) is virtually identical

to the House provision.

P.L. 110-181

Section 1813(b) transferred

authority for prescribing the

NGB charter from the

Secretaries of the Army and

Air Force to the Secretary of

Defense, who would be

required to develop the

charter in consultation with the

Secretaries of the Army and

Air Force, and the Chairman of

the 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.”

Section 1614 requires that the

Secretary of Defense, shall annually

prepare and submit to the Congress a

plan for “coordinating the use of the

National Guard and members of the

Armed Forces on active duty when

responding to natural disasters, acts of

terrorism, and other man-made

disasters identified...in subsection (e).”

The “other man-made disasters”

identified include different types of

nuclear, biological, chemical, explosive,

and natural incidents.

Section 1806 is nearly identical to the

House provision, with the exception

that the response plan – in addition to

addressing the specified types of

nuclear, biological, chemical, explosive,

and natural incidents – shall also

address “any other hazards identified in

a national planning scenario developed

by the Homeland Security Council.”

Section 1814 required the

Secretary of Defense to

prepare and submit a plan to

Congress for “coordinating the

use of the National Guard and

members of the Armed Forces

on active duty when

responding to natural disasters,

acts of terrorism, and other

man-made disasters

identified...in subsection (e).”

The other “other man-made

disasters” identified include the

same ones listed in the House

and Senate passed versions,

along with “any other hazards

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 in

consultation with the commander of

U.S. Northern Command and the

Chief of the National Guard Bureau;

and the Chief of the National Guard

Bureau must assist the Secretary of

Defense by gathering relevant

information from governors, adjutants

general, and other state authorities.

Same as House language.

The plan must be developed in

consultation with the Secretary

of Homeland Security, the

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of

Staff, the commander of U.S.

Northern Command, the Chief

of the National Guard Bureau;

and the Chief of the National

Guard Bureau must assist the

Secretary of Defense by

gathering relevant information

from governors, adjutants

general, and other state

authorities.

Congressional Research Service

19

The FY2008 National Defense Authorization Act

H.R. 1585

House-passed Version

H.R. 1585

Senate-passed Version

P.L. 110-181

The plan must set forth two versions

of response: one using only members

of the National Guard and one using

both National Guard and active duty

personnel.

Same as House language.

The plan must set forth two

versions of response as

indicated in the House and

Senate language.

The plan shall cover the following

matters: coordination protocols,

operational 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.

Same as House language.

The plan shall cover the

matters set out in the House

and Senate language.

No similar provision.

Section 1802(b)(3) would 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.

No language was reported.

Section 1615(a) would require the

Secretary of Defense to determine

“military unique capabilities needed to

be provided by the Department of

Defense to support civil authorities in

an incident of national significance or a

catastrophic incident.”

Section 1802(c)(2) would require the

Chief of the National Guard Bureau to

“identify gaps between Federal and

State capabilities to prepare for and

respond to emergencies” and “to make

recommendations to the Secretary of

Defense on programs and activities of

the National Guard for military

assistance to civil authorities to

address such gaps.” To meet this new

requirement, the Chief would have the

new powers – in the realm of military

assistance to civil authorities—

including validating requirements,

developing doctrine and training

requirements, acquiring equipment and

supplies, assisting the Secretary of

Defense in budget preparation, and

administering funds. These activities

are to be carried out “in coordination

with the Adjutants General of the

States” and “in consultation with the

Secretary of the Army and the

Secretary of the Air Force.”

Sections 1815(a) was nearly

identical to the House language

in Section 1615(a) except that

it required the Secretary of

Defense to consult with the

Secretary of Homeland

Security in determining the

“military unique capabilities

needed to be provided by the

Department of Defense to

support civil authorities in an

incident of national significance

or a catastrophic incident.”

Section 1615(b) would require the

Secretary of Defense, in coordination

with the Secretaries of the Military

Departments and the Chairman of the

Joint Chiefs of Staff, to develop and

implement a plan for funding these

capabilities, and certain other

capabilities related to homeland

defense, domestic emergency

response, and providing military

support to civil authorities.

Congressional Research Service

Section 1815 (b) was identical

to the House language in

Section 1615(b).

20

The FY2008 National Defense Authorization Act

H.R. 1585

House-passed Version

H.R. 1585

Senate-passed Version

Section 1614(d) requires the Secretary

of Defense, acting through the

Chairman of the 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.”

P.L. 110-181

No language similar to Section

1614(d) of the House bill was

reported.

Section 1614(c) requires the Secretary

of Defense to include a request for

funds sufficient to carry out the plan

required by Section 1614(b) in the

budget materials submitted for each

fiscal year.

Section 1802(c)(3) requires that the

budget justification documentation

submitted to the Congress by the

President each fiscal year specify

separate amounts “for training and

equipment for the National Guard for

purposes of military assistance to civil

authorities and for other domestic

operations during such fiscal year.”

Section 1815(c) required the

Secretary of Defense to include

a request for funds sufficient to

carry out the plan required by

Section 1815 (b) in the budget

materials submitted for each

fiscal year.

Section 1615(f) specifies that the

written policy guidance 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.”

No similar provision.

Section 1815(e) was identical

to the House provision.

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.

Congressional Research Service

21

The FY2008 National Defense Authorization Act

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 statelevel 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 FY2007 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): (name redacted) at x7-.....

*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.

Congressional Research Service

22

The FY2008 National Defense Authorization Act

H.R. 1585

House-passed Version

Section 701 would extend to Sept.

30, 2008 the prohibition in the

FY2007 Authorization Act on DOD

increasing premiums and co-pays for

Tricare Prime, and inpatient care

charges for Tricare Standard.

H.R. 1585

Senate-passed Version

Section 713 extends prohibition

on Tricare fee increases through

Sept. 30, 2008.

P.L. 110-181

Section 701 extended prohibition

of Tricare fee increases through

Sept. 30, 2008.

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-.....

*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.

Congressional Research Service

23

The FY2008 National Defense Authorization Act

H.R. 1585

House-passed Version

H.R. 1585

Senate-passed Version

P.L. 110-181

Report language urges DOD to

implement clarifications that certain

common employer benefit programs

do not constitute improper

incentives.

No similar provision.

No language was reported.

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-.....

*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-passed Version

H.R. 1585

Senate-passed Version

Section 702 would freeze current

co-payment levels through the end

of FY2008.

Section 714 would maintain current

pharmacy co-payment levels through

the end of FY2008. Section 715

expresses sense of Congress that

DOD “has options to constrain the

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.”

P.L. 110-181

Section 702 froze current copayment levels through the end of

FY2008. It retains co-payment levels

of $3 (generics), $9 (formularies),

and $22 (nonformularies).

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.”

Congressional Research Service

24

The FY2008 National Defense Authorization Act

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-.....

*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. 1585

House-passed Version

H.R. 1585

Senate-passed Version

Section 703 authorizes DOD to

exclude pharmaceuticals from the

DOD retail pharmacy benefits

program that are not available at the

same price that is reflected in the

Federal Supply Schedule.

Section 701 provides, effective

October 1, 2007, that the Tricare

Retail Pharmacy Program “shall be

treated as an element of the

Department of Defense for

purposes of the procurement of

drugs.”

P.L. 110-181

Section 703 provided, that after the

date of enactment, the Tricare

Retail Pharmacy Network shall be

treated as an element of DOD for

purposes of procurement of

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-.....

Congressional Research Service

25

The FY2008 National Defense Authorization Act

Author Contact Information

(name redacted), Coordinator

Specialist in Military Manpower Policy

[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

(name redacted)

Specialist in Military Manpower Policy

[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

(name redacted)

Specialist in National Defense

[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

(name redacted)

Specialist in Military Manpower Policy

[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

Congressional Research Service

26

EveryCRSReport.com

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the

Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on

issues that may come before Congress.

EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The

reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to

the public.

Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts

who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made

any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.

CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in

the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without

permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a

third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or

otherwise use copyrighted material.

Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public

understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in

connection with CRS' institutional role.

EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim

copyright on any CRS report we have republished.