Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing on National Guard Empowerment

  • November 9th, 2011

Its crunch time National Guard community! If you’ve never sent your Senator an email for his or her support, the time to do it is now!

The Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) has scheduled a full committee hearing at 10:00 am on November 10th
(Thursday) to discuss the proposal to create a permanent seat on the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JSC) for the Chief of the National Guard Bureau (CNGB). Witnesses include the sitting members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who unanimously oppose this initiative, and the Chief of the National Guard Bureau.

The House of Representatives already passed this legislation and, to date, 68 Senators have supported elevating the CNGB to the JCS, including the majority of the Senate Armed Services Committee; and the initiative has received endorsements by the National Governor’s Association, Veterans of Foreign Wars, the American Legion, Adjutant Generals Association of the United States, and the President of the United States as a campaign promise in his Blueprint for Change in 2008.

However, SASC leadership and current members of the Joint Chiefs have outspokenly opposed elevating the CNGB to the JCS, and have called this hearing to speak out against passing S. 1025 in the Senate.

Contact your Senate co-sponsors and members of the SASC (see list of current SASC co-sponsors below) to ensure their continued support of this historic legislation (sample letter available). If a Senator is not a co-sponsor, please contact them and urge their support. Webcast of the hearing available here: http://armed-services.senate.gov/Webcasts.htm.
It may also be available on C-SPAN.

MG (Ret) Gus Hargett Jr, President of the National Guard Associatio of the United States, said in an interview this morning that “The Army is its own brand, the Air Force is its own brand. But, you know, the Guard is the only component out there that’s really two brands. They’re the citizen-soldier in peace time and and they’re the guys called to active federal service in war time.” To read the full interview, click here.

SASC DEMOCRATIC CO-SPONSORS
Daniel K. Akaka (Hawaii)
Ben Nelson (Nebraska)
Claire McCaskill (Missouri)
Mark Udall (Colorado)
Kay R. Hagan (North Carolina)
Mark Begich (Alaska)
Joe Manchin III (West Virginia)
Jeanne Shaheen (New Hampshire)
Kirsten E. Gillibrand (New York)
Richard Blumenthal (Connecticut)

SASC REPUBLICAN CO-SPONSORS
Scott P. Brown (Massachusetts)
Kelly Ayotte (New Hampshire)
Lindsey Graham (South Carolina)
David Vitter (Louisiana)

SASC DEMOCRATS (NOT SIGNED ON)
Joseph I. Lieberman (Connecticut)
Jack Reed (Rhode Island)
Carl Levin (Michigan)

SASC REPUBLICANS (NOT SIGNED ON)
John McCain (Arizona)
James M. Inhofe (Oklahoma)
Jeff Sessions (Alabama)
Saxby Chambliss (Georgia)
Roger F. Wicker (Mississippi)
Rob Portman (Ohio)
Susan M. Collins (Maine)
John Cornyn (Texas)

Share

Two-Thirds in Senate Now Support National Guard Empowerment!

  • November 3rd, 2011

WASHINGTON (Nov. 3, 2011) ― Sixty-eight senators have now declared their support for legislation that would give the National Guard a permanent, unfiltered voice at the Pentagon.

The latest effort in the Senate to further empower the nation’s citizen-soldiers began in May when Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., introduced the National Guard Empowerment and State-National Defense Integration Act of 2011 (S. 1025). Sixty-four senators (list below) have since signed on as co-sponsors.

Among the bill’s provisions is language to give the Guard’s senior officer, the chief of the National Guard Bureau, a seat on the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Two more senators ― Sen. Daniel K. Inouye, D-Hawaii, and Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb.― have said they will join their 66 colleagues in supporting a Guard “seat at the table” when provisions of S. 1025 are added as amendments to the fiscal 2012 defense authorization bill later this year.

The House approved similar language in May, meaning it now only needs Senate approval to be sent to President Barack Obama, who promised to add the Guard to the Joint Chiefs in his 2008 campaign booklet, The Blueprint for Change: Barack Obama’s Plan for America.

“Our elected officials in Washington are sending a clear message,” said retired Maj. Gen. Gus L. Hargett Jr., the president of the National Guard Association of the United States. “But this is so much more than about giving the Guard a voice in final resource decisions. It’s about the nation’s defense and security.

“The primary role of the Joint Chiefs is to advise the president, the secretary of defense and the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security,” he said. “Without the Guard as a statutory participant at the table, our civilian leaders won’t always have unfiltered information on Guard capabilities and cost-effectiveness. Nor will they have direct access to the Guard’s domestic-response expertise. Twenty years ago, this was nice-to-know information. Today, it’s critical.”

The NGB chief currently participates as an invited guest in some discussions with the Joint Chiefs. However, he is not a mandatory participant and is often excluded from meetings. Nor does he have the ability to nominate Guard officers for positions that require Senate confirmation.

S. 1025 would enable the NGB chief to sit with the heads of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines ― none of whom have ever served in the Guard ― and provide the Guard, for the first time, permanent representation among the nation’s senior military officers.

In addition to overall numbers, adding the Guard to the Joint Chiefs enjoys wide bi-partisan and geographic support in the Senate. Forty-four Democrats, 23 Republicans and one Independent support the effort. And 42 states have at least one senator formally backing it.

Plus, the nation’s governors and several other associations, including the Veterans of Foreign War, have endorsed a Guard seat at the table.

National Guard Empowerment and State-National Defense Integration Act of 2011

Introduced by Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.

Co-sponsors and the date they formally signed on:

Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii (July 11, 2011)
Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn. (June 7, 2011)
Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H. (July 12, 2011)
Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont. (June 15, 2011)
Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska (May 23, 2011)
Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo. (Sept. 6, 2011)
Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M. (June 8, 2011)
Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn. (June 27, 2011)
Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo. (July 26, 2011)
Sen. John Boozman, R-Ark. (June 16, 2011)
Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. (Aug. 2, 2011)
Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass. (June 23, 2011)
Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio (June 23, 2011)
Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C. (Sept. 6, 2011)
Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash. (Sept. 6, 2011)
Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md. (Sept. 6, 2011)
Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del. (Sept. 6, 2011)
Sen. Bob Casey, D- Pa. (July 7, 2011)
Sen. Daniel Coats, R-Ind. (June 15, 2011)
Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D. (Sept. 21, 2011)
Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del. (May 26, 2011)
Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn. (May 23, 2011)
Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho (Oct. 6, 2011)
Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill. (Sept. 13, 2011)
Sen. Michael Enzi, R- Wyo. (Sept. 15, 2011)
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. (July 7, 2011)
Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn. (July 21, 2011)
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y. (May 26, 2011)
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa (June 13, 2011)
Sen. Kay R. Hagan, D-N.C. (July 22, 2011)
Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa (July 5, 2011)
Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev. (Sept. 21, 2011)
Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D. (July 27, 2011)
Sen. Mike Johanns, R-Neb. (Oct. 11, 2011)
Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis. (Oct. 6, 2011)
Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D. (May 26, 2011)
Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn. (June 27, 2011)
Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La. (July 25, 2011)
Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg, D-N.J. (June 13, 2011)
Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah (Sept. 22, 2001)
Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind.  (June 21, 2011)
Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va. (June 20, 2011)
Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo. (July 28, 2011)
Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J. (June 13, 2011)
Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore. (July 7, 2011)
Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md. (Oct. 5, 2011)
Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kan. (Sept. 7, 2011)
Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash. (July 11, 2011)
Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark. (June 15, 2011)
Sen. Jim Risch, R-Idaho (July 29, 2011)
Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan. (Sept. 22, 2011)
Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va.  (June 15, 2011)
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. (June 8, 2011)
Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y. (Oct. 3, 2011)
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H. (June 16, 2011)
Sen. Olympia J. Snowe, R-Maine (June 20, 2011)
Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich. (July 7, 2011)
Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont. (June 9, 2011)
Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa. (Oct. 20, 2011)
Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo. (Oct. 3, 2011)
Sen. David Vitter, R-La. (July 27, 2011)
Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va. (Sept. 23, 2011)
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I. (June 29, 2011)
Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore. (June 8, 2011)

# # #

Reporters, Editors & Producers: Retired Maj. Gen. Gus L. Hargett Jr. is available for interviews or to appear as a subject matter expert on defense issues related to the National Guard. Contact John Goheen at (202) 789-0031 to schedule an interview or appearance.

Share

Legislative Alert

  • September 15th, 2011

The Issue: Oppose the recommendation of the Defense Business Board to eliminate the present military retirement pay benefit

Immediate Action Required:  Contact your Senators and Representative to urge them to aggressively oppose any recommendation by the Defense Business Board to eliminate military retirement pay

On July 21, 2011 the Defense Business Board (DBB) Task Group published its recommendation to eliminate the current military retirement pay benefit as the way forward in “optimizing the Department’s military retirement system” which it criticized as being “more generous and expensive compared to the private sector.”

In lieu of the current military retirement pay benefit for both active and reserve military members, the DBB Task Group is recommending a mandatory Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) program that would vest after 3 to 5 years, and be payable at age 60 to 65. The Task Group touts its TSP recommendation as one that “will enable the system to be fiscally sustainable and recruit and retain the highest personnel required for our nation’s defense” by allowing military retirement funds held in a TSP to be “invested in higher yielding equities and bonds.”

The DBB Task Group was drawn exclusively from corporate executives from a variety of defense contracting, banking, mortgage servicing, corporate outsourcing, commodity futures exchange, and venture capitalist communities. Only two members of the Task Group served in the military, and that was for short active duty tour in the late 1970’s. The methodology of the Task Force was to interview upper echelon leadership in the Pentagon and retired flag officers, and did not include a broad cross section of those serving members of the military, their families or any military or veteran support organizations.

Recommendations regarding recruitment and retention were based on corporate budget cutting principals from the private sector that knows little about military service, and is dangerously out-of-touch with the realities of those who serve. If these recommendations were to be endorsed by Defense Secretary Panetta and subsequently enacted into law by Congress, the effect on military recruitment and retention would be devastating.

Equating retirement compensation of military service with that of civilian employment may look fair to a corporate executive, but not to those who have served in uniform. As an example, under this system, when a military member retires after 20 years, it is assumed that person will have the experience and qualifications to obtain credible civilian employment. However, while many of the specialties gained in the military, such as being a pilot, maintenance, information technology, intelligence and others may translate to comparable civilian jobs, many do not. The result, a significant number of military members who served our country for 20 years and then retire without an immediate annuity, would be at a significant disadvantage when it comes to finding civilian employment.

While some adjustments to military pay and benefits may be in order, we cannot let this particular effort succeed. Please contact your Senators and Representative to urge them to oppose the recommendations of the DBB Task Group as being totally out-of-touch with the employment realities members of the military will face following retirement.

TAKE THE FOLLOWING ACTION: 

By using the “Write to Congress” feature on the EANGWV Web site at located to the right of this page, you can IMMEDIATELY e-mail your elected representatives.  This is the quickest and most effective method of expressing your views to Congress. Also, contact your friends and family and urge them to use Write to Congress as well. 

Share

Military Tax Benefits – Is West Virginia Keeping Pace?

  • February 18th, 2011

OHIO – 51,302 total military personnel with nearly 43,000 of them being National Guard and reserves

Veterans Bonus for serving during Persian Gulf War, Afghanistan, and/or Iraq is tax exempt
Military pay for Ohio residents stationed outside of Ohio – 100% exemption
Military retirement income – 100% exemption

KENTUCKY – 54,922 total military personnel with about 18,500 of them being National Guard and reserves

Military pay – 100% tax exempt as of January 1, 2010

MARYLAND – 57,235 total military personnel with over 26,000 of them being National Guard and reserves

Overseas pay – up to $15,000 exemption
Military retirement income – up to $5000 exemption

VIRGINIA – 123,686 total military personnel with almost 40,000 of them being National Guard and reserves

Overseas pay – up to $15,000 exemption

Military Basic Pay – up to $15,000 exemption – provided they are on extended active duty for more than 90 days. For every $1.00 of income over $15,000, the maximum subtraction is reduced by $1.00. For example, if your basic pay is $16,000, you are entitled to deduct only $14,000. You are not eligible for the subtraction if your military basic pay is $30,000 or more.
Virginia National Guard income – up to $3000 exemption – The wages or salaries received by any person for active and inactive service in the National Guard of the Commonwealth of Virginia, not to exceed the amount of income derived from thirty-nine calendar days of such service or $3,000, whichever amount is less. However, only those persons in the ranks of 03 (Captain) and below shall be entitled to the deductions specified herein.

PENNSYLVANIA – 56,472 total military personnel with nearly 53,000 of them being National Guard and reserves
Military Active Duty Pay while serving out of state – 100% exemption – all other military pay for residents of Pennsylvania is taxed at the normal rate.

WEST VIRGINIA – 12,495 total military personnel with almost 11,797 of them being National Guard and reserves

Military retirement income – up to $20,000 exemption
Proposed WV Senate Bill 4 would provide 100% military pay exemption

SB4 along with our current $20,000 retirement exemption would make West Virginia the most military friendly state in our region!

Please write your representatives today!

Share

Legislative Alert 10-23

  • October 20th, 2010

The Issue: Authorizing Veteran Status for National Guard and Reserve Members Entitled to Reserve Retirement Pay

Immediate Action Required: Contact your Senators and ask them to expeditiously pass H.R. 3787, previously passed by the House of Representatives and now before the Senate. This bill would authorize National Guard and Reserve members entitled to Reserve retirement pay the honor of claiming Veteran status.

The House of Representatives passed H.R.3787 – The Honor America’s Guard-Reserve Retirees Act, September 28, 2010 and sent the bill to the Senate for its approval. This cost-neutral bill provides an opportunity for a divided Congress to come together post election in support of our Reserve Component members.

Many members of Congress may not know that a Reserve Component member can complete a full Guard or Reserve career but not earn the title of “Veteran of the Armed Forces of the United States” – unless the member has served on Title 10 active duty for other than training purposes.

Today, National Guard member’s performing Operation Noble Eagle duty or protecting our Southwestern border in a Title 32 status may one day retire from the Guard but not qualify to be classified as a Veteran of our Armed Forces.

Title 38 (Veteran’s Benefits) excludes career reservists from the definition of “veteran” who have not served on Title 10 (active duty) for other than training purposes. Drill training, annual training, active duty for training and Title 32 duty are currently not qualifying service to earn veteran status.

This cost neutral bill would not bestow any benefits other than the honor of claiming “veteran” status for Reserve Component members who completed a 20 year career but were never ordered to Title 10 active service.

TAKE THE FOLLOWING ACTION: 

By using the “Write to Congress” feature on the right, you can IMMEDIATELY e-mail your elected representatives.  This is the quickest and most effective method of expressing your views to Congress. Also, contact your friends and family and urge them to “Write to Congress” as well.

Share

Legislative Alert 10-20 Army National Guard Black Hawk Modernization

  • September 9th, 2010

LEGISLATIVE ALERT #10-20 September 8, 2010

The Issue: Army National Guard Black Hawk Modernization

Immediate Action Required:  Contact your Senators and urge them to request additional funding for the National Guard to help modernize the National Guard H-60 Black Hawk fleet

The Army National Guard operations tempo is the highest it has ever been in support of the full spectrum of state missions including search and rescue, utility/lift, disaster relief, fire fighting, medical evacuation, all while sustaining combat deployments to Iraq, Afghanistan and the Balkans. The result of these sustained operations is wearing out the National Guard H-60 Black Hawk Helicopter fleet much faster than planned.

The Army National Guard operates more than 700 Black Hawks.  As a result of growth in the Army’s H-60 MEDEVAC helicopter requirement, the Guard’s Black Hawk fleet will grow to 899 helicopters in the next 3 years. When fully equipped, the Army National Guard will own and operate more than 500 older UH-60A models. The UH-60A model is more expensive to operate, cannot operate at higher altitudes and has a 1000 lbs lower payload capability than the newer “L” and “M” models

The Army is modernizing the Black Hawk fleet with two initiatives. It is fielding new UH-60M utility and HH-60M MEDEVAC helicopters, and re-capitalizing and converting UH-60A models to the UH-60L configuration. Currently, these two initiatives are modernizing between 100 and 115 H60s per year; however the pace is not fast enough to keep up with rapidly aging Black Hawk Fleet. At the currently funded rates, the Army will not retire the UH-60A Black Hawk until 2025. And, by 2025, the “A” model Black Hawks will be more than 35 years old.

Please write your Senators and urge them to support accelerating the modernization of the Army National Guard Black Hawk fleet.  Specifically, we are seeking funds for an additional 5 UH-60M Black Hawk Utility helicopters ($84.5M), 5 HH-60M Black Hawk MEDEVAC helicopters ($104.0M) and 10 UH-60A to L upgrade kits ($17.0M) for a total of $205.5M added to the FY11 defense appropriation bill, with language directing  the Army to field these systems to the Army National Guard.

TAKE THE FOLLOWING ACTION:

By using the “Write to Congress” feature provided to the right, you can IMMEDIATELY e-mail your elected representatives.   This is the quickest and most effective method of expressing your views to Congress. Also, contact your friends and family and urge them to “Write to Congress” as well.

Previous Legislative Alerts:
LEGISLATIVE ALERT #10-19 August 18, 2010

The Issue: Post 9/11 GI Bill Improvements for the National Guard

Immediate Action Required:  Contact your Representatives to urge them to co-sponsor H.R. 5933 that would amend the Post 9/11 GI Bill to fully credit Title 32 active duty of National Guard AGRs and all National Guard active duty under Title 32 section 502(f) authorized by the President or Secretary of Defense

The  Educational Assistance for Members of the Armed Forces Who Serve After September 11, 2001 Act, more commonly known as the Post 9/11 GI Bill, was well received by many, but was hurriedly enacted as part of the 2008 Supplemental Appropriations Act, Public Law 110-252. Although the law now provides exceptional educational benefits to military members performing Title 10 active duty service after 9/11, it erroneously does not credit National Guard Title 32 active duty, and limits benefits for full time distance learning, vocational learning and on-the-job training.

Because of this inadvertent mistake, the law effectively denies benefits to our dedicated men and women who have served our country on Title 32 active duty post 9/11 as AGRs, and in domestic operations such as the Katrina, Operation Noble Eagle, Operation Jump Start, airport security operations immediately following the 9/11 attacks, and the ongoing service of the National Guard to protect our borders and provide disaster relief whenever and wherever needed. In practice, the Post 9/11 Bill provides benefits for the domestic active duty service of Reserve AGRs on Title 10 orders, but not members of the National Guard who are performing virtually the identical service on Title 32 orders.

H.R. 5933, Veterans Educational Assistance Improvements Act of 2010, introduced by Representative Walt Minnick (D-ID), would correct this oversight by fully crediting all National Guard Title 32 active duty service under section 502(f) authorized by the President or Secretary of Defense, and the full-time active duty of National Guard AGRs. The bill would also provide expanded benefits for vocational learning, on-the-job training, distance learning and private schooling. Rep David Loebsack (D-IA), who introduced the widely supported H.R. 3554 that would credit Title 32 active duty under the Post 9/11 GI Bill, is a co-sponsor of H.R. 5933.
LEGISLATIVE ALERT #10-18 August 12, 2010

The Issue: Soft Landing Bill for the National Guard and Reserve

Immediate Action Required:  Contact your Senators to urge them to co-sponsor S. 3748 that would substantially enhance post-deployment reintegration efforts for the National Guard and Reserve

In response to both the substandard treatment received earlier this year by the 41st Infantry Brigade Combat Team of the Oregon ARNG by active duty medical forces during demobilization at Fort Lewis, where many members were sent home without being properly evaluated for mental and physical injuries, and a reported 51% June post-deployment unemployment rate for the 41st, Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) has introduced S. 3748. Senator Kay Hagan (D-NC) has co-sponsored the bill.

Since the treatment received by the 41st at Fort Lewis is believed to be widespread, S. 3748 would amend Title 10, United States Code, to provide for the retention of members of the reserve components on active duty for a period of 45 days in their home state following demobilization from an extended deployment in contingency operations or homeland defense missions. At the option of the member, the 45 days could be reduced to 14 days. Members would be authorized to use any accrued leave during the 45 day period.

During the retention period, the bill would require: physical and mental evaluations; employment counseling and assistance; marriage and family counseling and assistance; financial management counseling; educational counseling; and counseling on benefits available through the Veterans Administration and Department of Defense.  To the extent practicable, these services would be coordinated through the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program and would allow family participation.

The bill would affect those that are deployed for over 269 days (9 months), and would authorize 45 days of active duty pay and benefits.  It also would require the Department of Defense to pay for the cost from its defense-wide O&M accounts WITHOUT passing on the cost to the Guard or Reserve. Senator Wyden is adamant that this bill be paid by the active duty.

Contact your Senators to urge them to co-sponsor this important legislation for the National Guard and Reserve who deserve much better treatment than they are receiving.

The Issue: Published Premium Rates for the Implementation of TRICARE for Gray Area Retirees (TRR)

Immediate Action Required:  Contact your Representative and Senators to urge them to ask the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to review the accuracy of the premium rates published by the Department of Defense for TRICARE Gray Area Retirees

After considerable pressure from members of NGAUS and other military support organizations, the Department of Defense (DoD) on August 6, 2010, through its TRICARE Management Activity (TMA), finally published the premium rates for the new TRICARE coverage available to our Gray Area retirees; those retired members of the Reserve under the age of 60 who are eligible to collect Reserve retirement pay at age 60.

The monthly premium rates for members only will be $388.31 in 2010 and 408.01 in 2011. However, the monthly rate for member and family will be $976.41 in 2010 and $1,020.60. See the link to the TMA announcement on our web site. These premium rates are significantly greater than anticipated.

The new program will bear the name TRICARE Retired Reserve (TRR), but it is not to be confused with the full TRICARE benefit eligible retired Reserve members will receive at age 60, which is provided at no cost.

The TMA announcement marks the first published details of the long awaited implementation of the breakthrough legislation signed  into law on 28 Oct 2009 in section 705 of the FY2010 National Defense authorization Act (NDAA) which authorized TRICARE Standard eligibility for Gray Area retires at full premium cost to DoD. With respect to the premium to be charged for the coverage, the law provides: The monthly amount of the premium in effect for a month for TRICARE Standard coverage under this section shall be the amount equal to the cost of coverage that the Secretary determines on an appropriate actuarial basis. See 10 USC 1076 e (d)(3)

NGAUS has known that the premium for the coverage would be the full cost to the government, but was led to believe by TMA in earlier meetings that the cost would be $177.21 for an individual member and $705.89 for a family, which would reflect the actual cost to the government in providing TRICARE Standard under the TRICARE Reserve Select (TRS) program. (TRS beneficiaries pay only 28% of the full TRS cost of coverage to the government. The current TRS rates of $49.62 for member only and $197.65 for member and family are 28% of the full government coverage costs which are $177.21 for an individual member and $705.89 for a family.)

Write or meet with your Representatives and Senators to urge them to ask the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to review the actuarial accuracy of these published rates. As you may recall, a similar GAO review of TRS rates in 2007 led DoD to reduce TRS premiums by nearly half.

Note: A “Gray Area” retiree is a retired  member of the Reserve components under the age of 60 who is eligible to collect Reserve Retirement pay at age 60. The period between retirement and age 60 is called the “gray area” for these retirees.

You may view all legislative alerts here.

Share

Legislative Alert #10-16

  • July 30th, 2010

LEGISLATIVE ALERT #10-16

The Issue: Delays in the Implementation of TRICARE for Gray Area Retirees

Immediate Action Required: Contact your Representative and Senators to urge them to demand that the Department of Defense and White House implement TRICARE for Gray Retirees without further delay

The President signed important legislation for our Gray Area retirees into law on 28 Oct 2009 as part of the Fiscal Year 2010 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). This new law authorizes TRCARE eligibility for our Gray Area retirees at full premium cost to the Department of Defense (DoD), which means the benefit comes at no cost to the government.

Shortly after passage of the law, the TRICARE Management Activity (TMA) assured military support organizations and Congress that the program would be on-line by October 1, 2010. However, for no apparent reason, DoD Health Affairs and TMA delayed sending the proposed rules for implementation to OMB until July 2, 2010. This late start to a 90 day period for open comment of the proposed rules puts the promised start date of October 1, 2010 in serious jeopardy.

Barring immediate congressional and Presidential intervention, implementation of TRICARE for our Gray Area retires will remain stalled. Our retired members deserve much better!

Please contact your Representative and Senators to urge them to take immediate action to demand that the Department of Defense and the President implement the TRICARE for Gray Retirees program as soon as possible.

Note: A “Gray Area” retiree is a retired member of the Reserve components under the age of 60 who is eligible to collect Reserve Retirement pay at age 60. The period between retirement and age 60 is called the “gray area” for these retirees.
TAKE THE FOLLOWING ACTION:

By using the “Write to Congress” feature provided to the right, you can IMMEDIATELY e-mail your elected representatives. This is the quickest and most effective method of expressing your views to Congress. Also, contact your friends and family and urge them to “Write to Congress” as well!

Share

LEGISLATIVE ALERT #10-15 June 29, 2010

  • June 30th, 2010

The Issue: Provide Funding from the 2010 Emergency War Supplemental for Retroactive Early Retirement Credit for the Reserve Component to Sept. 11, 2001

Immediate Action Required:  Contact your Representative to urge their support to include funding in the 2010 Emergency War Supplemental of Retroactive Early Retirement Credit to Sept. 11, 2001

There is still time, but we must act NOW! The FY2008 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was a welcomed first step to improving reserve retirement pay in 60 years! Unfortunately, the law that emerged from conference negotiations applies only to service “after” January 28, 2008, which unfairly excludes the otherwise qualifying service of so many Guard men and women who answered the call following September 11, 2001.

Several pieces of pending legislation that would correct this inequity have stalled because the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) scored cost of $2.1 billion over ten years ($210 million/year) requires that new mandatory spending be offset by a reduction in another program.

However, as the House considers the 2010 Emergency War Supplemental, an option exists that a “one time” appropriation of $2.1 billion could resolve this issue. But, the language must be included in the House version of the bill to be considered during conference negotiations.

The justification for this request is that early retirement credit is a “direct” cost of war, since only the men and women who have served in combat or stateside presidential emergency response receive credit. And, by their service, these Soldiers and Airmen have already made their “deposit” to the appropriate retirement fund, which is the annual source of military retirement pay.

The time to act is now! Since the Senate has completed their work on the war supplemental and the House hasn’t, contact your Representative and urge him/her to actively support an amendment that would fund retroactive early retirement credit for the Reserve Component to 9/11/2001.

TAKE THE FOLLOWING ACTION:
By using the “Write to Congress” feature provided to the right, you can IMMEDIATELY e-mail your elected representatives. This is the quickest and most effective method of expressing your views to Congress.  Also, contact your friends and family and urge them to “Write to Congress” as well.

Legislative Alert complements of NGAUS

Share