FY 2007 Emergency Supplemental Bill Passes. President Promises Veto

The House and Senate passed the fiscal 2007 emergency supplemental spending bill last week and plan to send it to the White House tomorrow. However, the President has said he will veto the bill, sending the stand-off over the war in Iraq between his administration and Democratic leaders in Congress into a new phase.

The $124.2 billion bill, which would provide more than $100 billion for the Department of Defense includes a $1 billion increase for the National Guard and Reserve equipment; $3.1 billion for the ongoing Base Realignment and Closure program; and $2.1 billion for the Defense health program. However, it also includes troop withdrawal language objectionable to the President.

Specifically, the bill sets a goal for withdrawing most U.S. troops from Iraq no later than March 2008. That timetable is tied to the Iraqi government’s ability to meet certain benchmarks such as gaining control over sectarian militias and the equitable distribution of oil revenues.

The bill requires President Bush to certify that the Iraqis had met the goals. If he does, then redeployment of the troops will begin on Oct. 1. If the goals are not met, then troop withdrawal will begin on July 1. In both cases, troops would have pulled out within 180 days with some exceptions.

President Bush steadfastly maintains that military decisions fall under his purview as commander in chief of the armed forces, while also emphasizing that any withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq before the new Iraqi government can firmly establish itself would hurt military morale and put America in jeopardy.

“And, if the Congress wants to test my will as to whether or not I’ll accept a timetable for withdrawal, I won’t accept one,” he said. “I just don’t think it’s in the interest of our troops.”

House leaders have said that they will try to override the veto even though they do not have the two-thirds majority they need to succeed. The Senate has said that it will not even make an attempt.

What now? If the President does veto the bill, House and Senate Democratic leaders have said that he may not receive the second war supplemental bill for at least a month, citing a recent report released by the Congressional Research Service that estimated the Army could continue operating normally through most of July.

However, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said recently in a letter to Appropriations Committee Chairman Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W. Va., “While some have suggested that the Army can operate this year until July with existing resources and authorities, in reality there are significant limits, costs and disruptions associated with the budgetary maneuvers necessary to continue Army operations. It is a simple fact of life that if the Fiscal Year 2007 supplemental legislation is not enacted soon, the Army faces a real and serious funding problem that will require increasingly disruptive and costly measures to be initiated, negatively impacted readiness and Army personnel and their families.”

Several possible versions of the post-veto war spending bill have been mentioned. One version would provide war funding for a couple of months. However, Senate Democrats worry that a shorter duration would be impractical. The other would provide longer-term funding. Both versions would require benchmarks.

House Minority Leader John Boehner, R- Ohio said he believes the two sides could compromise on benchmarks, but said that Democrats have not “come across the aisle on this issue.”

He said the best approach would be to include benchmarks and attach consequences later. “If you have benchmarks and you have the President reporting every 30 days, then you can have a conversation about consequences.”

The only thing clear is that finding common ground will be a challenge and that the clock is ticking.

AUSA President Gen. Gordon R. Sullivan, USA, Ret., said “Halting a contract here, delaying a family housing repair work order there, laying off part time help, canceling travel and training and curtailing post activities - all possible if the Army does not get its emergency funding right away. The delay will force the Army to use all of its transfer authority and then backfill the affected accounts later. Sounds easy? It isn’t. It is these secondary effects from which the force never recovers. Routine matters are pushed back when the designated funds get cancelled or diverted. Such delay or diversion of funds makes no sense at all.”

Please send a letter to your elected representative to let them know how critical the supplemental is to the Army. Click on “Contact Congress” then after “Elected Officials” type your Zip Code and scroll down to “Complete Work on the 2007 Emergency Supplemental Bill Now.”


Chairman of Airland Subcommittee: Army “Under Severe Stress”

The Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Airland Subcommittee said he believed the Army’s plan to grow to 547,000 soldiers in the active force over the next five years would still leave the service “too small and will take too long” to accomplish.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., said at last week’s hearing, “I possibly believe we need an Army of 600,000. He added the Army was “under severe stress” because of the demand of operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. (To view Sen. Lieberman’s remarks in their entirety, please visit our website, www.ausa.org.)

Those demands have left a relatively small percentage of soldiers assigned to the institutional Army that includes the training base and medical community. “The Army has the smallest amount committed to the institution at 27 percent while the Navy and the Air Force have about 50 percent. To me, that is an unacceptable balance.”

Sen. Lieberman said the Army was facing four great challenges: deploying and sustaining five additional brigade combat teams to Iraq compounded by a lack of equipment for training; correctly gauging the right size of the Army for today’s and tomorrow’s needs; adequately equipping the force; and ensuring that procurement accounts are sufficient and properly organizing and equipping the Army.

Acting Army Secretary Pete Geren, who served in Congress for eight years and was a member of the House Armed Services Committee, said, “We made some decisions in that decade that did not hold up well. I was one who cashed the peace dividend” and shifted 55 percent of the Army’s force structure into the reserve components, effectively changed the Army National Guard and Army Reserve from a strategic to an operational reserve.

Geren said the Army views the future as “years of persistent conflict,” a term that was brought back by the teams that Gen. George Casey, Army Chief of Staff, sent to universities, think tanks, military institutions of higher learning and others to assess the future when he assumed his position in early April.

The threats include counterinsurgency operations; the emergence of near-peer competitors; proliferation of nuclear weapons; biological, chemical and nuclear attacks in the United States; and fundamentalist Islam.

“We’re not looking forward to a very rosy picture” in projecting what the Army would need in 2020, Gen. Casey said. Later in answer to a question, “We are engaged in a long-term struggle with an enemy who has attacked us and will not walk away easily.”

“We cannot allow the demands of today to rob the future. We must not use the Future Combat system as a billpayer,” Geren said about the Army’s $138 billion budget request for Fiscal Year 2008, $20 billion more than for the current fiscal year.

He added later in the hearing that the Army was studying its requirement for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles to replace Humvees now in Iraq. The Army will have 750 of the vehicles by the summer and is forecast to buy 2,000. The first vehicles will be bought through the supplemental spending bill.

The Marine Corps is planning to replace 17,000 Humvees with the MRAP vehicles.


New Legislation Spotlight

Last week, Rep. Gus Bilirakis, R- Fla., introduced H.R. 2027, the Military Pay Improvement Act, which would ensure that the minimum Fiscal Year 2008 increase for uniformed service members' basic pay would be 3.5 percent.

Under current law, military pay rates must be "reasonably comparable" to those in the private sector with similar skills, education, and experience. Unfortunately, due to budgetary constraints, the military's pay increase has not always met this criteria and a "pay gap" was created. H.R. 2027 seeks to further narrow the gap between the military and private sector pay scales.

"Our nation's brave men and women in uniform have fought gallantly to ensure the continued safety, security, and prosperity of this great nation," said Rep. Bilirakis. "I believe it is unacceptable that we task these men and women with extraordinary responsibilities, especially during wartime, and cannot compensate them accordingly. The debt we owe them for their sacrifices can never be repaid. However, my bill takes a small step in the right direction to show our appreciation for their valor."

AUSA’s 2007 Resolution 07-03, Point 1 urges the Administration and Congress to eliminate the pay gap and make pay commensurate with level of responsibility and maintain comparability in the out years.

Also, Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., introduced H. R. 2026, the Disabled Veterans Insurance Improvement Act of 2007, a bill that would increase the amount of supplemental life insurance available for totally disabled veterans. H. R. 2026 would increase the coverage available by $20,000, making a total of $50,000 of life insurance available to totally disabled veterans. Sen. Daniel Akaka, D- Hawaii, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, has also introduced companion legislation in the Senate.

"All of our men and women in uniform, and especially the brave veterans who have been wounded in combat, deserve our nation's support," Rep. Jones said. "They are there fighting for us on the battlefields when our nation is at war, and we must be there for them when they find themselves in difficult times as a result of their bravery."

"The $30,000 maximum life insurance coverage currently available for totally disabled veterans falls well short of the death benefits available to service members and veterans enrolled in the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance and Veterans' Group Life Insurance programs," Rep. Jones said. "Because many totally disabled veterans have difficulty getting life insurance on the commercial market, this legislation would help these heroes by providing them, and their families, with a sense of security for the future."

Service-Disabled Veterans' Insurance (S-DVI) was established during the Korean War to provide life insurance to veterans with service-connected disabilities through a $10,000 benefit (totally disabled veterans are eligible for waiver of premiums on this benefit). This amount has never been increased. In 1992, supplemental coverage worth $20,000 was offered to the veterans who qualify for S-DVI (premiums must be paid for this coverage), making the maximum possible coverage for totally disabled veterans $30,000

The Disabled Veterans Insurance Improvement Act of 2007 would allow totally disabled veterans to purchase an additional $20,000 in coverage, bringing their total possible coverage to $50,000: $10,000 (original) + $20,000 (1992 supplemental) + $20,000 (2007 supplemental) = $50,000 available to totally disabled veterans.


Trivia of the Week
What was the last major battle of World War II?? (Click on link for answer)

Answer -
The Battle of Okinawa, which lasted from April 1, 1945 through June 21, 1945, was the last major battle of World War II. Fought on the island of Okinawa, it was part of an offensive leading up to the invasion of the main islands of Japan which was aborted when the Japanese surrendered in August, 1945. Counting civilians, more than 200,000 Japanese died during the Battle of Okinawa. About 15,900 U.S. soldiers were killed.

-Back to Top-