April 13, 2006



This is the time of the year when AUSA turns its focus on the Annual Meeting and, in particular, the Resolutions process that drives our legislative agenda for the upcoming year. The 2007 Resolutions Committee has been named. Made up of representatives from the Reserve Component and the Active force and with all AUSA regions represented, it is a mature group keenly aware of our Army’s pressing needs.

The Resolutions focus on three areas: People, Readiness and Future Force. Last year’s National Defense Authorization Act saw many of our 2006 Resolutions realized. The pay gap was narrowed; the death gratuity, Servicemen’s Group Life Insurance and hardship duty pay were all increased and modest gains were made on the concurrent receipt front to name a few successes.

There was also much to cheer about in the Army’s 2007 budget request. Its share of the overall defense budget is $111.8 billion, $12.7 billion more than fiscal 2006. Within the Army’s request is $263 million toward targeted pay increases for selected warrant officers and mid-grade and senior enlisted; $1.5 billion for retention bonuses; a 5.9 percent increase in the Basic Allowance for Housing; $1.5 billion to build 48 new barracks and $39 billion for the military health system.

Research and development spending remains about the same as last year’s $10.9 billion. The Future Combat System would receive $3.7 billion while $3.2 billion would be spent on vehicles. The Army also plans to spend $2.8 billion on aviation.

Many of these issues, critical to the Army’s ongoing transformation to a new modular force, are addressed in our Resolutions.

The fiscal 2006 emergency supplemental spending bill, currently winding its way through Congress, is also a good news story for the military. The House bill provides $91.9 billion while the Senate’s version is a whopping $106.5 billion. The majority of the money will go to the military for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

However, there are still many challenges to confront. As we were reminded during our successful Installation Symposium and Exposition held recently in Kansas City, it is time “to re-look seriously at all installation programs.”

Keith Eastin, the Army’s Assistant Secretary for Installation and Environment, cautioned that the Army’s installation commanders “have to be very realistic about what funding will be” and that there has been “a lot of reliance on supplementals” to cover expenses other than supporting installations.

Eastin’s message: At some point, funding through supplemental spending bills will end and there will be tremendous pressure on installation funds to cover operating expenses.

Eastin said there is the realization that the Army will be unlikely to meet its goal of funding 90 percent of base operations and support costs. “There is not enough money to go around” and the funding problems “run through the whole program of the Army” not just installations.

Another concern is paying for base realignment and closure. Although fiscal years 2006 and 2007 are funded, and $6.7 billion has been set aside for the Army to handle BRAC through 2011, BRAC costs could run as high as $8 billion. “We need to be very realistic about what we put in” installation BRAC plans, Eastin said.

With all the talk about the funding crunch, I’m still concerned about the proposal that would increase TRICARE fees for under-65 retirees by as much as 115 percent over two years. In a recent hearing on Capitol Hill, the Army’s Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Richard Cody voiced the Army’s support of the plan. He said that failure to shore up funding for the health care system now could become a retention issue.

“We share the concern that the explosive growth in our health care costs jeopardizes our resources, our readiness – not only to the military health care system, but to the operational areas, as well,” Cody testified.

With all due respect, as I’ve said in letters to defense leadership as well as Congress, the American soldier is expected to devote a lifetime of service to the nation—to go in harm’s way and, if necessary, give his or her very life in defense of the American people. The nation, in turn, has made a commitment to provide the soldier with a lifetime of health care. One of the constants of Army life, this simple covenant—a lifetime of service for a lifetime of health care—has transcended both time and political change.”

What will hurt retention is a broken promise.

I am encouraged by comments made by key Congressional leadership that no increases will be implemented until a full review of additional cost control options is completed.

This emotional issue will be with us for some time, not just during this session of the 109th Congress. Your Association will be here fighting any increases every step of the way.