The House and Senate Armed Services Committees provided an early indication of how they will approach a controversial proposal contained in the President’s budget request for fiscal 2009.

Letters from the Armed Services Committees to the House and Senate Budget Committees outlined their needs for 2009.  Both committees’ rejected the Administration’s proposal to increase TRICARE fees for retirees under age 65.

The House letter, signed by Chairman Ike Skelton, D-Mo., and Ranking Member Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., stated that the Administration’s budget request “proposed increases in enrollment and deductibles within the TRICARE health program and the military pharmaceutical program.  The Committee believes that these proposed fees would adversely affect many military families and will not support them.”

Likewise, the letter from the Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich and Ranking Member John McCain, R-Ariz., outlined their opposition to the proposed increases.  “With respect to the base budget, we are concerned about the Administration’s proposal to reduce the apparent cost of running the Defense Health Program in FY2009” by “assuming $1.2 billion in discretionary savings based on a proposal to impose higher premiums and co-payments on military retirees – a proposal that Congress rejected when it was requested in the FY2008 budget.”  Sens. Levin and McCain asked that the Budget Committee’s resolution reject the fee increases for military personnel, retirees or dependents.  

The House committee also addressed the President’s proposed 3.4 percent pay raise for military personnel.  While they did not specify what percent pay raise they find appropriate, they do state that “they believe an increase above the 3.4 percent would help achieve the goal of eliminating the pay gap between military and private sector jobs.”

Eliminating the pay gap and barring any TRICARE fee increases are top priorities for AUSA

Last week, AUSA President Gen. Gordon R. Sullivan, USA Ret., met with House Budget Committee Chairman Rep. John Spratt, D-S.C., for an in-depth discussion of items contained in the letter and other pressing issues.

Gen. Sullivan reiterated his steadfast objection to raising TRICARE fees.  He believes any erosion of health care benefits is unacceptable.  He also touched on his concern about the size of the defense budget in the out years and the need for an increase in active duty Army end strength to 700,000; 358,000 for the Army National Guard and 206,000 for the Army reserve funded within the Army base budget.  

Another concern both Gen. Sullivan and Rep. Spratt share is the significant rise of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Traumatic Brain Injuries (TBI) in military personnel returning from combat.  Gen. Sullivan thanked Rep. Spratt for providing $3.2 billion more than the Administration’s request for veterans’ programs.  The $3.2 billion will include funding to enhance mental health, PTSD and TBI programs

Army Deputy Chief of Staff: $250-$260 Billion Needed per Year

Several key congressional staff members joined AUSA, Army and defense industry leaders at the Institute of Land Warfare breakfast last week.

In his address to the group, Army Deputy Chief of Staff LTG Stephen Speakes said that in order to maintain its forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, increase its size, train and equip soldiers, repair war-worn equipment and modernize its battle fleet, the Army requires funding of $250 billion to $260 billion a year which equals half of the $515 billion requested in the President’s budget submission for fiscal 2009.

Of the $515 billion requested by the Defense Department for 2009, the Army’s request was $140 billion.  It also expects to receive additional funding from the emergency supplemental spending request.

LTG Speakes, whose office is responsible for integrating resources and Army programs and modernizing Army equipment, added that the Army gets half its funding from the base budget and half from the supplemental funding.  “Our ability to grow, sustain and improve the quality of the force” is largely tied up in supplemental funding.

LTG Speakes also acknowledged that emergency supplemental funding will dry up in the future and that Army leaders are trying to shift much of the funding to the base budget.  He suggested that the base budget request for next year will be significantly larger than this year’s.

"Everybody wants their program nested comfortably in the base and not out in the supplementals," LTG Speakes said.  But the Army must determine which of its "enduring requirements" belong there, he said.  "We're working now this spring on a strategy that makes sense for today and the future and will be able to survive scrutiny" from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the White House and Congress.

 While a reduction in troops in Iraq would reduce the need for funds devoted to operations, LTG Speakes said the Army is "out of balance" and that fixing the problem will require more money.