[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.A.S.C. No. 111-11]
THE VIEWS OF MILITARY ADVOCACY AND BENEFICIARY GROUPS
__________
HEARING
BEFORE THE
MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD
FEBRUARY 25, 2009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TONGRESS.#13
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
50-055 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE
SUSAN A. DAVIS, California, Chairwoman
VIC SNYDER, Arkansas JOE WILSON, South Carolina
LORETTA SANCHEZ, California WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina
MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam JOHN KLINE, Minnesota
PATRICK J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida
HANK JOHNSON, Georgia MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire JOHN C. FLEMING, Louisiana
DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts
Debra Wada, Professional Staff Member
John Chapla, Professional Staff Member
Rosellen Kim, Staff Assistant
C O N T E N T S
----------
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS
2009
Page
Hearing:
Wednesday, February 25, 2009, The Views of Military Advocacy and
Beneficiary Groups............................................. 1
Appendix:
Wednesday, February 25, 2009..................................... 31
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2009
THE VIEWS OF MILITARY ADVOCACY AND BENEFICIARY GROUPS
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Davis, Hon. Susan A., a Representative from California,
Chairwoman, Military Personnel Subcommittee.................... 1
Wilson, Hon. Joe, a Representative from South Carolina, Ranking
Member, Military Personnel Subcommittee........................ 2
WITNESSES
Becker, F. Jed, Chairman, Armed Forces Marketing Council......... 11
Brackett, Perri, Chairwoman, American Logistics Association...... 13
Cline, Master Sgt. Michael P., USA (Ret.), Executive Director,
Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States 5
Duffy, Col. Peter J., USA (Ret.), Deputy Director, Legislation,
National Guard Association of the United States................ 4
McCloud, Margaret, Member, Gold Star Wives of America............ 9
Moakler, Kathleen B., Director, Government Relations, National
Military Family Association.................................... 7
Strobridge, Col. Steven P., USAF (Ret.), Director, Government
Relations, Military Officers Association of America............ 8
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Becker, F. Jed............................................... 140
Brackett, Perri.............................................. 160
Cline, Master Sgt. Michael P., joint with Col. Steven P.
Strobridge and Kathleen B. Moakler......................... 55
Davis, Hon. Susan A.......................................... 35
Duffy, Col. Peter J.......................................... 39
Moakler, Kathleen B.......................................... 108
Ortiz, Hon. Solomon P., a Representative from Texas,
Chairman, Readiness Subcommittee........................... 38
Wilson, Hon. Joe............................................. 37
Documents Submitted for the Record:
Statement of the Fleet Reserve Association on Military
Personnel Policy, Benefits, and Compensation, February 25,
2009....................................................... 187
Statement of Gold Star Wives of America, Inc., February 25,
2009....................................................... 238
Statement of Michael H. Wysong, Director, National Security
and Foreign Affairs, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United
States, February 25, 2009.................................. 207
Statement of the Reserve Officers Association of the United
States, February 26, 2009.................................. 197
Testimony of Todd Bowers, Director of Government Affairs,
Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, February 25, 2009 217
Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:
[There were no Questions submitted during the hearing.]
Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:
[There were no Questions submitted post hearing.]
THE VIEWS OF MILITARY ADVOCACY AND BENEFICIARY GROUPS
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Military Personnel Subcommittee,
Washington, DC, Wednesday, February 25, 2009.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 3:04 p.m., in
room 2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Susan A. Davis
(chairwoman of the subcommittee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SUSAN A. DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
CALIFORNIA, CHAIRWOMAN, MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE
Mrs. Davis. Good afternoon everybody.
The hearing will come to order. I want to thank our
witnesses today for coming. We will be focusing on the views of
military advocacy and beneficiary groups.
For the past several years, as many of you know, the
subcommittee has found it beneficial to hear from a handful of
beneficiary and advocacy organizations at the start of the
legislative season on a wide range of policies that impact
service members, their families, and retirees.
And this approach has allowed the subcommittee to have a
better understanding of the priorities of these organizations
and where they stand so the members of the subcommittee gain a
better appreciation of the many competing requirements that
come before us.
During the last Congress, the subcommittee was able to
visit several of our members' districts, and I look forward to
continuing this new tradition and getting out to other
districts in the coming year.
These trips have also afforded us a firsthand view of the
issues that affect our men and women in uniform. The current
economic climate is a challenge. It is a challenge to all
Americans. And our service members and their families are not
immune to its effects. As such, we expect that the coming
Department of Defense (DOD) budget will be streamlined, and
finding additional funds to address the multitude of important
personnel programs, particularly the increases in health care
costs, will be even more challenging this year.
More so than ever, we know that we are going to be forced
to make difficult decisions, and it is important for the
subcommittee to understand the priorities for service members,
retirees, and their families when we make these decisions.
I want to welcome our witnesses today: Peter J. Duffy,
Colonel, United States Army, retired, deputy legislative
director for the National Guard Association of the United
States.
Nice to have you with us, all of you.
Michael P. Cline, Master Sergeant, United States Army,
retired, executive director, Enlisted Association of the
National Guard of the United States; Ms. Kathleen B. Moakler,
director, governmental relations for the National Military
Family Association; Steve Strobridge, Colonel, United States
Air Force, retired, director of government relations, Military
Officers Association of America; Mr. F. Jed Becker, chairman of
the Armed Forces Marketing Council; Ms. Perri Brackett,
chairwoman, American Logistics Association; and Margaret
McCloud, member, Gold Star Wives, also here testifying today,
and we are delighted to have all of you.
Let me also mention, Master Sergeant Cline, Ms. Moakler,
and Colonel Strobridge represent their individual association,
but they are also representing the position of the Military
Coalition (TMC) here today. The coalition is comprised of over
30 uniformed services and veterans service organization (VSO).
We could not have all interested individual organizations
present their oral testimony, so we have asked these
individuals to represent the coalition members here today. And
we appreciate the fact that many of you have put your
statements into the record, and we will certainly include
those.
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome. I would ask that you testify
in the order that I stated.
And Mr. Wilson, I wonder if you have any comments that you
would like to add as well.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Davis can be found in the
Appendix on page 35.]
STATEMENT OF HON. JOE WILSON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM SOUTH
CAROLINA, RANKING MEMBER, MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman Davis, for holding
this hearing today.
And thank you each, as a member of today's panel, for being
here today. I truly appreciate your willingness to share your
views on important issues spanning the full breadth of the
subcommittee's jurisdiction. This testimony will surely help to
shape our legislative and funding priorities as we strive to
improve the military personnel, health care, and morale,
welfare and recreation (MWR) systems of the Department of
Defense.
I am especially grateful that we will hear today from Ms.
Margaret McCloud, a Gold Star Wife whose husband, Lieutenant
Colonel Trane McCloud, was killed in action in Iraq. Trane was
an active duty Marine and served in our office as the Defense
Legislative Fellow in 2003. Trane has been such a patriot. He
was devoted to his country. He loved his wife and three
children. I am so grateful to have Maggie here today.
And thank you so much and God bless you.
Also I would like to thank Chairman Davis for agreeing to
my request that the panel include witnesses to address National
Guard and Reserve issues.
Madam Chair, based on my review of the testimony submitted
to us, the recommendations made by the various groups fall into
two broad categories: one, those that are strictly policy
issues that require little or no additional funding; and two,
those legislative changes that would require additional
discretionary or mandatory spending.
While fiscally more difficult, many of the proposals that
will make an immediate and positive impact on our service
members and their families fall into the latter category. Some
examples include an annual pay increase of one-half of one
percent above the employment cost index, ECI; improving Reserve
component compensation; eliminating the concurrent receipt and
the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) and Dependent Indemnity
Compensation (DIC) offsets; and prohibiting substantial
increases in health care cost sharing.
It has been said that a time was coming when we might not
be able to come up with the offsets for these proposals.
However, in today's environment, when Congress and the
President have committed to spending trillions of dollars, that
is thousands of billions, to rescue the economy, it is my view
that Congress can find the additional funding required to
protect the men, the women, and their families who make
incredible daily sacrifices in service to our Nation.
I would urge that the subcommittee provide recommendations
for additional mandatory spending authority to Chairman Skelton
and Ranking Member McHugh for inclusion in the House Armed
Services Committee (HASC) views and estimates letter.
Madam Chair, I would welcome the opportunity to work with
you in that effort. Again, I thank you for holding this
hearing, and I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson can be found in the
Appendix on page 37.]
Mrs. Davis. Thank you very much, Mr. Wilson.
And I know that this is a difficult thing to do, but you
have been asked to try and limit your comments to three
minutes. That will give us more time to be sure that we have a
chance to engage in a real discussion here, and we would like
very much to do that.
So if you could summarize your remarks and provide us with
your top three priorities, that is helpful, too. If you don't
have it together in that way we will come back and ask you
anyway. So however you choose to use those three minutes, we
hope that we will have a chance to understand those very
clearly before we leave here today.
After reviewing all the written testimony, the totality of
the program enhancements, the expansions and improvements that
are being sought, the total as you can well imagine is in the
billions of dollars both in mandatory and discretionary
funding, and the reality, as you well know, is that we can't do
everything that we are seeking to achieve, certainly not in
years past and not here. And we have tried to do that but we
know that that is very difficult. So we will continue to make
the kinds of improvements that you are here to talk about in
incremental steps. To the extent we understand those better is
really what we are here to do today.
We certainly can't accommodate all the organizations who
would like to speak and to present all of their oral testimony,
but without objection, I would like to include in the record
and ask unanimous consent that the testimony from the Fleet
Reserve Association; the Reserve Officers Association; the
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States; and the Iraq and
Afghanistan Veterans of America as well as the statement from
Mr. Solomon Ortiz, the Chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee,
be included for the record.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 38, and beginning on page 187.]
Mrs. Davis. And with that, Colonel Duffy, could you please
begin.
STATEMENT OF COL. PETER J. DUFFY, USA (RET.), DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
LEGISLATION, NATIONAL GUARD ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES
Colonel Duffy. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you for this opportunity to present testimony. I will
summarize.
My three points will be related to medical readiness: one,
in the context of premobilization medical readiness; the
second, post-deployment medical readiness; and the third,
mental health care as a readiness item both pre- and post-
deployment.
A few very brief words about the National Guard, with which
I know you all are familiar. We are a unique component among
the military. We are citizen soldiers. Once released from
active duty, if we remain as members of the Selected Reserve,
we go under Title 32 status under the command and control of
the Governor where members of the National Guard will fight
fires in California, ice storms in Arkansas, hurricanes in
South Carolina and North Carolina, often with very little break
time before returning to active duty. The National Guard is a
community-based organization. I cannot amplify that or
underscore that enough.
Medical readiness needs: Currently, when the alert order
comes out to activate a unit, our members are usually screened
with the screening taking place ideally within about one year
from the time of deployment. If there are medical and dental
deficiencies found in that screening, there is no mandatory
program to fix those. We want to mandate the Department of
Defense not just to screen our members for medical and dental
readiness but to fix any medical or dental deficiencies. And
this should be done on an ongoing basis.
Let me explain the concept of cross-leveling, which may
sound a little bit unusual. If a unit of 70 persons is
activated, alerted, and let's say they are alerted 1 year prior
to deployment, as they approach deployment, if 5 or 10 members
are not fit for deployment, be it medical or legal reasons,
other members in the state not part of that unit will be cross-
leveled to be deployed with them. Sometimes the notice for
cross-leveling can be as short as two or three weeks. Certainly
those members do not have any adequate notice of the
possibility of deployment to have attended to medical and
dental needs.
If we have full-time medical readiness, this would not be
an issue. All members in the state National Guard would be
medically and dentally ready if we had annual screenings and
their deficiencies were repaired. Full-time readiness: If the
Department of Defense is going to use the National Guard as an
operational force, it should take care of them medically as an
operational force, not in the staccato method that has been
followed since this war began.
Right now our members receive active duty equivalent
medical care 90 days prior to being activated. We want this
extended to the full alert period.
Post deployment: The post-deployment health assessment
(PDHA), as you may know, is administrated at the demobilization
site. It is a self-assessment completed by the soldier or by
the airman. The demobilization site is often far removed from
the home station. For example, the Maryland National Guard had
a unit that was demobilized in the State of Washington before
returning to Maryland. When the member fills out the post-
deployment health assessment it's done subject to the
instruction that if a major medical issue is cited, that member
could be retained on active duty at the demobilization site.
For a member who wants to go home, that member will tend to
game the system and under-report or not report injuries. What
this delays, of course, is diagnosis and treatment and also
prejudices that member if he later files a service claim for a
service-connected injury that was not reported.
It is essential that the post-deployment health assessment
be completed in a more soldier-friendly environment in the home
station under the auspices of a treating health care
professional. A treating health care professional can spot
things that a self-assessing member cannot. And if geographical
barriers are the inhibitor to full reporting on the PDHA, those
would be removed if the member would be allowed to complete
this at a home service station.
It is not going to pick up everything. Some service-
connected injuries will not be presented until months, maybe
years, after the member returns, but it will produce a better
yield.
[The prepared statement of Colonel Duffy can be found in
the Appendix on page 39.]
Mrs. Davis. I know that your time is up. If we go and have
an opportunity to hear from everybody, we will certainly come
back on some other issue as well.
Colonel Duffy. Thank you.
Mrs. Davis. Master Sergeant Cline.
STATEMENT OF MASTER SGT. MICHAEL P. CLINE, USA (RET.),
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ENLISTED ASSOCIATION OF THE NATIONAL GUARD
OF THE UNITED STATES
Sergeant Cline. Madam Chair, Representative Wilson and
members of the subcommittee, my testimony will focus on early
retirement, TRICARE, Montgomery GI (MGIB) education benefits
for Guard and Reserve.
TMC named its top goal for the Guard and Reserve in 2009 as
retroactivity of the early retirement eligibility. We suggest
that the 90-day rule be altered to reflect retirement year and
not fiscal year accounting.
The number of multiple Guard and Reserve tours since 9/11
has jumped to 194,466. The total number of Guard and Reserve
members that have been mobilized since 9/11 has now risen to
691,086. Most of these tours will not count toward a reduced
retirement age for Guard and Reserve members. The TMC believes,
as the Nation is committed to increased utilization of Reserve
components and to maintain and retain a viable operational
Reserve force, we must move forward to provide a reduced
retirement age entitlement for all Reserve component members.
That is an age-service formula or outright retirement age at
age 55 to include provision for gray area retirees to include
TRICARE access.
Select Montgomery GI benefits: As you know the Webb GI bill
did not include benefits for the Selected Reserve members who
were joining. We ask that you restore basic Reserve MGIB
benefits for initially joining the Selected Reserve to the
historic benchmark of 47 to 50 percent of the active duty rate.
We ask that you ensure all Reserve members utilized in post-9/
11 in support of contingency operations or downsizing or force
structure reductions in response to Base Realignment and
Closure (BRAC) are afforded the opportunity to participate in
the GI bill improvements.
Integrate Reserve and active duty MGIB laws into Title 38.
Enact academic protections for mobilized Guard and Reserve
students.
The TMC is pleased with recent improvements in health care
access for Guard and Reserve families, including implementation
of TRICARE Reserve Select (TRS). These improvements point to
congressional recognition that Guard and Reserve health care
access must be commensurate with their increased
responsibilities. We seek permanent legislation to allow gray
area Reservists to purchase TRS health care coverage.
Establish a moratorium on TRS premium increases and direct
DOD to make a determined effort for the most efficient uses of
resources allocated. Make DOD fiscally responsible for medical
and dental care for Reservists, beginning with the issuance of
an alert order and 180 days post-mobilization.
Ensure Guard and Reserve members have adequate access and
treatment in the DOD and Veterans Affairs (VA) health care
systems for post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain
injury following separation from active duty service and
theater of operation.
Allow the option of an equivalent offset to civilian plan
premiums during activation similar to provisions of up to 24
months of Federal Employee Health Benefits (FEHB) premium
coverage for mobilized Federal workers.
Allow eligibility and continued health care benefits for
Select Reservists who are voluntarily separating and subject to
disenrollment in TRS.
Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to present the
views of the TMC Guard and Reserve committee.
[The joint prepared statement of Sergeant Cline, Colonel
Strobridge, and Ms. Moakler can be found in the Appendix on
page 55.]
Mrs. Davis. Thank you very much.
And we have had a call for a vote. We will try to hear
maybe one or two more witnesses, and then we will come back. It
is just one vote, so hopefully it won't be too long.
Ms. Moakler.
STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN B. MOAKLER, DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT
RELATIONS, NATIONAL MILITARY FAMILY ASSOCIATION
Ms. Moakler. Madam Chairperson, Representative Wilson, and
other members of the subcommittee, I will address issues
affecting our service members, their families, and their
survivors.
Providing major increases in military end-strength for the
Army and Marine Corps must continue as a top priority in order
to have any significant prospect of easing rotation burdens.
The coalition is disturbed by calls to reduce planned force
growth as a means of funding weapons requirements. We also
resist budget-driven rather than requirements-driven manpower
reductions for the Air Force and Navy.
We thank the committee for its sustained commitment to
restoring full military pay comparability. We ask that you
sustain military raises of at least .5 percent above the ECI
until the current 2.9 percent shortfall is eliminated.
The coalition supports revised housing standards that are
more realistic and appropriate for each pay grade. We urge the
subcommittee to continue its efforts to extend the single-
family detached house standard to those in grade E-8 and then
to grade E-7 and below over several years as resources allow.
Recently, Admiral Mike Mullen said, ``The way the families
are handling this thing is, they are just toughing it out until
they get the relief. There is a concern about how long they can
tough it out. We are going to have to continue to focus on
that.''
The TMC agrees. Focus should be on policies and programs
that provide a firm foundation for families buffeted by the
uncertainties of deployment and transformation. We understand
that these are leaner times. But our families rely on these
programs. We want sustained funding for those programs that
work for families that are both high-tech and high-touch,
reaching families of all services and components where they
live and when they need it most.
Families need access to behavioral health care. Counseling
programs have proven beneficial. But when family members find
they need more in-depth care, the wait for an appointment, or
distance to a mental health provider can be a huge barrier when
they need help the most. Improving access to mental health care
for our military families needs to be a priority.
Innovative strategies are required to address the non-
availability of after-hours child care and respite care. The
partnership between the services and National Association of
Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies (NACCRRA) that
provides subsidized child care to families who cannot access
installation-based Child Development Centers (CDCs), including
National Guard and Reserve families, needs to be expanded.
These programs need to be sustained as part of the regular
budget process and not just as part of supplemental funding.
The elimination of the DIC offset to SBP remains a high
priority for the TMC. We also support payment of SBP annuities
for disabled survivors into a special needs trust so that they
can continue to receive essential support services. We ask that
you allow children of members who die on active duty to retain
coverage under the active duty dependent dental plan until they
age out.
TMC urges the subcommittee to authorize survivors of
retired members to retain the final month's retired pay for the
month in which the retiree dies. This brings it in line with
the VA disability payment and relieves economic complications
in their time of grief.
Thank you and I await your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Moakler can be found in the
Appendix on page 108.]
Mrs. Davis. Thank you very much.
Colonel Strobridge, I think we have time. And then we will
go vote and come right back.
STATEMENT OF COL. STEVEN P. STROBRIDGE, USAF (RET.), DIRECTOR,
GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, MILITARY OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA
Colonel Strobridge. Madam Chair, Representative Wilson, and
members of the subcommittee, my testimony will focus on wounded
warriors' health care and retirement issues.
On wounded warriors, we need permanent authority for the
Senior Oversight Committee (SOC) that will expire at the end of
this year. We are also concerned that the transition from
active duty to retiree TRICARE or to the VA coverage catches
many wounded warriors and their families unaware. They need the
same protections that we provide when someone dies on active
duty: three years of continued active duty level coverage to
assure a smooth transition.
We urge a consistent package of training and compensation
for wounded warriors' full time caregivers. The services have
separate programs in that area, and the VA offers very little,
and the caregivers lose all support when the member is
disability retired. We owe them a fairer deal.
Regarding psychological health and Traumatic Brain Injury
(TBI), DOD and VA are moving out on those issues, but most of
those efforts are going to take time. As Kathy said, we have
overwhelming numbers who need help now, but many have to wait
months for appointments, and that is, frankly, not good enough.
We need to do a better job there.
On TRICARE fees, we hope the new Administration won't
continue the past budget efforts to raise fees and drive
retirees away from using their earned coverage. TRICARE costs
are inflated by unique military requirements and
inefficiencies, and DOD has lots of options to cut costs
without passing beneficiaries the bill.
We ask you to put language in this year's Defense
Authorization Act expressing the sense of Congress that
military people pay huge upfront premiums through decades of
service and sacrifice over and above of their cash fees. We
don't think that gets enough acknowledgement. DOD surveys show
that military beneficiaries are less satisfied with their care
than most civilians are. We think the Pentagon needs to focus
more on fixing TRICARE and less on trying to charge more for
it.
On concurrent receipt, we believe, as you know, that
military retired pay is earned by service and shouldn't be
reduced for a service-caused disability. We hope that you will
be able to fix a glitch in the combat-related special
compensation law that causes some to lose the pay that Congress
meant for them.
We are also very concerned about the REDUX retirement
system and the so-called $30,000 career status bonus that
entices thousands of unwary members to forfeit the hundreds of
thousands of dollars in future retired pay. In fact, the bonus
is a lifetime loan against future retired pay with a usurious
24 percent Annual Percentage Rate (APR) for the typical
enlisted member and a 35 percent APR for the typical officer.
We would be pleased to explore options with the subcommittee
staff to better protect members against mortgaging their
financial futures.
Finally, we hope the subcommittee will not support the 10th
Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation's military
retirement proposal which would defer receipt of full military
retired pay until age 58 or 60 and authorize vesting at 10
years. We believe that a civilian-style plan is inappropriate
for military service conditions. It would take money from
career people to pay those who leave early. We think it would
undermine long-term retention and readiness and prove
disastrous in a wartime environment like today's.
Madam Chair, that concludes my remarks.
[The joint prepared statement of Colonel Strobridge,
Sergeant Cline, and Ms. Moakler can be found in the Appendix on
page 55.]
Mrs. Davis. I understand that we only have one vote so we
should be able to come back--three votes. But it is the last
votes for the day. So that is a good thing. We will be back.
Thank you.
Actually, it is three votes. It could be, if you need to go
get something to eat, at least a half-hour, 45 minutes. I hate
for you all to have to wait through that, but there is no other
way. Thank you very much for your patience.
[Recess.]
Mrs. Davis. Thank you for your patience, everybody. We are
now going to resume.
Ms. McCloud, we look forward to your testimony. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF MARGARET MCCLOUD, MEMBER, GOLD STAR WIVES OF
AMERICA
Ms. McCloud. My name is Maggie McCloud. The last time I was
in this room was last year when the Marines posthumously
presented me with my husband's Bronze Star Award. I am the
proud widow of Marine Lieutenant Colonel Joseph Trane McCloud.
Trane died on December 4, 2006, when his helicopter crashed at
Haditha Dam in the al-Anbar province of Iraq. When he died, our
three children were two, five and seven.
Thank you so much for the opportunity to be here today.
Thank you, Congressman Wilson, for the friendship and
support you have shown my family since Trane's death. I will
always be grateful.
Chairwoman Davis, I have met with you before, and I
appreciate all that you have done and continue to do for our
military families and survivors.
I have also met with Congressman Jones, and he has been a
loyal friend.
The reason I am here today is to talk about the Military
Surviving Spouses Equity Act, H.R. 775, recently introduced by
Congressmen Solomon Ortiz and Henry Brown, which eliminates the
unjust offset of the Survivor Benefit Plan by Dependent
Indemnity Compensation. This legislation currently has 136
cosponsors. Eleven of the sixteen members of this subcommittee
have cosponsored. Thank you.
By law, SBP is offset dollar for dollar by DIC. DIC is an
indemnity payment paid by the Department of Veterans Affairs to
the surviving spouse for a service-related death. SBP is an
annuity purchased by the retired military service member and
provided to the spouse of active-duty deaths.
Approximately seven percent of the 54,000 SBP/DIC surviving
spouses became eligible through active-duty death. The
remaining 93 percent are survivors of disabled retirees who
paid premiums to ensure that their families receive a continued
portion of the earned lifetime retired pay upon their death.
The retiree paid for it, and now their spouse is being denied
it.
DIC is a reparation; SBP is a retirement. They are distinct
and separate things. There is no reason that receiving one
should offset the other. But that is exactly what happens.
Shortly after Trane died, I sat the kids down and I made
them a promise. I told them that our lives without daddy would
certainly be different. How could it not be? He was the most
amazing husband, the most amazing father, and he is now gone
from our lives. But I promised them that although our lives
would be different, they would still be good--different, but
good.
Trane did his job willingly. He served his Nation, he did
it well, and he gave his life doing it. He did his job, and I
will do mine: live a good life and raise our children well.
Shortly after burying my husband at Arlington, I was faced
with a decision, the same decision that all surviving spouses
with young children have to make: whether to accept the child
option and receive the full SBP payment without offset of DIC
only until the youngest child reaches the age of majority, or
receive a decreased SBP payment to me for life.
Military widows of nonservice-related deaths are not forced
to make this same choice. They receive the full SBP and any
other survivor benefits their husband may have earned post-
military retirement.
My children have already suffered an unimaginable loss, and
I did not want to compound that loss further by greater
financial hardship during their youth. So I, like most other
widows with young children, took the child option. When I made
that decision, I didn't fully understand the short- and long-
term consequences. I will never regret trying to secure my
children's financial future, but, in doing so, I sacrificed
mine, and that is an injustice.
No amount of money will make up for the loss of Trane or
any of our service men or women. All of us would give anything
for them to come home from that last deployment. But these men
and women went willingly to serve their country. They knew the
risk, and they took it. They took it because they know the job
at hand is of paramount importance to our country and to
generations of future Americans to keep us safe and secure.
They took it for us, and they asked very little of us.
I, like all of you, am grateful that there continue to be
young men and women who rise to the call of duty to preserve
our call of freedom. We, as a country, need to honor our
obligations to them and their surviving spouses. That means
paying the retirement benefit that is rightfully theirs, either
because they paid premiums for it after retiring from service
or they paid for it with their lives.
The dead and the disabled are a consequence of this war.
Providing for the well-being of the surviving families of these
American heroes is a cost of war. If we can find the money to
fund this war, if we can find the money to continue funding
supplementals for this war, we must find the money to fulfill
our obligations to our military families whose service member
paid the ultimate price for this country.
Respectfully, and in conclusion, this issue has been before
Congress for years. Congress has eliminated other offsets to
retired pay and survivor benefits. Why does this offset remain?
If our voice isn't loud, it is only because we have been
silenced by our grief. So let me say in the memory of those
that have fallen and in the name of the families left behind,
please right this wrong. Find the funding to eliminate this
egregious offset and restore the rightful benefit of retired
pay to the surviving spouses of the men and women who have died
in service to our country.
They gave their last full measure. The least Congress can
do is give them what they have earned. Give them the peace of
knowing that their loved ones are cared for. Please pass H.R.
775.
Thank you so much for the opportunity to be here today.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you for your testimony. And I know I
speak for all of my colleagues when we express our condolences
to you, your family, and to everybody who is here today as
well. I know we have a lot of Gold Star Wives in attendance,
and we appreciate the fact that you have taken your grief and
advocated for other military families.
Ms. McCloud. Thank you.
Mrs. Davis. Mr. Becker.
STATEMENT OF F. JED BECKER, CHAIRMAN, ARMED FORCES MARKETING
COUNCIL
Mr. Becker. Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chairwoman and
distinguished members of the Subcommittee on Military
Personnel. My name is Jed Becker, and I am chairman of the
Armed Forces Marketing Council. Thank you for inviting me here
today to offer comments regarding the military resale services
and the vital role they serve in supporting the quality of life
of our service members and their families.
Madam Chairwoman, the Council strives to do its part to
assure the continuation of the military resale system and the
value it provides to our service members and their families. We
hope the information and perspectives presented here will be
useful in your review of military resale activities.
Given the current economic environment and the challenges
it presents, we believe it more important than ever that your
oversight fully recognizes the exceptional value of the resale
benefit for our military families.
American taxpayers and their elected representatives can
share pride in the fact that dollars appropriated to support
this benefit produce a savings and a value that far outweigh
the cost. In 2008, the Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA)
produced savings for military families of $2.5 billion; this at
a cost of $1.3 billion. Stated another way, every dollar
appropriated for the commissary provides nearly $2 in benefits
for military families. That is an extraordinary return on
investment that cannot readily be found in the Federal
Government.
The high-value proposition of the benefit is true for the
exchange systems as well, which provide an average savings of
20 to 25 percent.
In the interest of time, I would like to make note of a
couple of items that are a bit out of the mainstream but
threatening to resale benefit as we look forward. We seek your
support of H.R. 257, calling for the repeal of a three percent
withholding on payments made to vendors by government entities.
In 2005, Congress passed and President Bush signed into law
H.R. 4297, the Tax Reconciliation Act of 2005. This legislation
included a provision, section 511, which mandates that federal,
state, and local governments withhold three percent from their
payments to their goods and service suppliers. It is our desire
that section 511 be repealed, which is the intent of H.R. 275,
a bill sponsored by Representative Kendrick Meeks.
Although this legislation does not fall under the
jurisdiction of this subcommittee, the implementation of this
section 511 would have a significant destructive effect on the
military benefit.
Another item that I would like to make note of is the price
parity on tobacco products sold in commissaries and exchanges.
It has come to the Council's attention that there is a move to
further raise the price of tobacco products sold in the
military resale system by five percent, to match the prices on
those items in the civilian marketplace, a policy being termed
``price parity.''
While we are sensitive toward the intentions behind this
initiative, we are very concerned about establishing
noncompetitive pricing structures for selected products sold in
the resale system. It is our belief that the pricing structure
should remain consistent for all products sold in the resale
system to maintain the integrity of the benefit. The imposition
of noncommercial pricing programs is nothing less than a tax on
these products, which will diminish the value of the resale
benefit.
In conclusion, I would like to thank you again, Madam
Chairwoman and the members of the Subcommittee on Military
Personnel, for the opportunity to appear before you here today
and your attention and consideration of the Armed Forces
Marketing Council's opinions. We appreciate your interest in
assuring the best for our troops. I stand ready to receive your
questions.
And can't help but to make note that there are others at
the table who are facing challenges that deserve a great deal
of your time. In the case of the areas that we are focused on,
you have achieved a great deal. Our pursuit is having you
maintain those great successes.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Becker can be found in the
Appendix on page 140.]
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
Ms. Brackett.
STATEMENT OF PERRI BRACKETT, CHAIRWOMAN, AMERICAN LOGISTICS
ASSOCIATION
Ms. Brackett. Madam Chair and distinguished members of the
subcommittee, it is an honor to be here today as chair of the
American Logistics Association (ALA). These are extraordinary
times for our Nation's economy, military, and our veterans. The
challenges are unprecedented, and it is important that our
military remain strong and viable.
ALA member organizations are a strong force in our national
economy supporting the military. Collectively, our member
companies contribute nearly $1.2 trillion to the economy and
generate millions of jobs for Americans. The contribution is
large overseas, where $4 billion in U.S. products are sold to
our patrons, funds that would otherwise flow to foreign
economies.
The MWR and resale system generates over $18 billion in
sales and $500 million in earnings that directly contribute to
the quality-of-life program. MWR provides 120,000 jobs. A large
percentage of these jobs are held by military family members.
Goods and services purchased by the resale system generate
thousands of jobs in communities adjacent to military bases,
with a large percentage of these businesses being smaller and
independently owned.
It is a formula that works, and the House Armed Services
Committee's strong perennial support has laid the groundwork
for the system to prosper and rise to meet the challenges in
these tough times. Your investment is paying off each and every
day in savings and jobs.
We urge you to continue your support for funding of
commissaries, shipment of American products to overseas bases,
and full support for all authorized categories of morale,
welfare, and recreation programs.
Continue your support and authorization for construction
funding of bases that are expanding as a result of global
restationing and BRAC.
Ensure that industry representatives and authorized patrons
have unimpeded and secure access to military installations.
Extend commissary and exchange benefits to 30 percent
disabled veterans. Extend commissary and exchange benefits to
all military, particularly those who are involved in the global
war on terror, for three years following their service to allow
them to succeed in tough times.
Correct a longstanding injustice by relieving non-
appropriated funds of the burden to pay for cost-of-living
allowances for U.S. citizens choosing to live abroad. Congress
needs to allow the services to use prior-year funds to pay this
cost.
Repeal the provisions of the Tax Increase and Prevention
Reconciliation Act of 2005, requiring Federal Government
entities to withhold three percent of payments due to vendors
providing goods and services to the Federal Government.
In closing, we are proud to be an important part of the
quality of life equation. You can be proud of the system that
you nurture and protect. The system could not prosper,
contribute to the economy, take care of our military, and
employ so many people without your support. We are grateful for
your leadership.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Brackett can be found in the
Appendix on page 160.]
Mrs. Davis. Thank you very much.
We really appreciate you all being here. And we are going
to take some time now to have perhaps a little bit more of a
conversation.
One of the things we asked you--and I recognize that you
all, in one way or another, really expressed your highest
priorities. But for the sake of trying to prioritize within
that, I wonder if you will let us know--and we will go down--if
you could give us your top three priorities, recognizing that,
you know, we all have a list and they are all issues and
benefits that we believe are important. But it is not likely
that we are able to address all of them. And then perhaps from
that group we can make certain that we absolutely do everything
within our power to make certain that we are addressing each
one of those in some way.
So, Colonel Duffy, again, I know that you expressed this,
but can you tell us top three.
Colonel Duffy. Sure. Yeah, I will do this in more bulleted
form, too, and skip my prose.
Mrs. Davis. Okay, that is great. I know you are all
familiar with that game sometimes people play, where they put
all the lists on the wall and then people go back with their
dots and they put their dots up there. So, you know, where
would you put your dot? That is what we are trying to get at.
Colonel Duffy. All right.
Number one, provide all members of the National Guard and
Reserves with annual medical and dental readiness screenings at
no cost, with the Department of Defense mandated to provide any
treatment necessary to correct those deficiencies discovered in
the screenings. That is a readiness item.
Number two, mandate medical and behavioral screening of all
National Guard members returning from deployment by health care
professionals at the home station before releasing the members
from active duty.
The reasons for these bullets are in my writing. I am not
going to repeat those at this time, following your instruction.
Three, authorize and appropriate programs that will require
the Department of Defense to coordinate with the National Guard
Director of Psychological Health to provide treatment for
National Guard members and their families post-deployment with
qualified, community-based health care providers.
Those are my three. Thank you.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you very much.
And one of the things that I observe is that you are really
focusing largely not just on mental health care but physical
care, preparation and exit and transition, because that is what
is critical in that kind of support service.
And so I think, as we go through, perhaps the rest of you,
as well, might want to say whether those are things that your
organizations also would be very interested in as well, or if
they are totally different. And, in some cases, I understand,
just by the nature of the organization, that they would be
somewhat different.
But we hear that a lot. We think that there have been some
improvements in those areas, and yet it is clear that we are
not where we need to be yet.
Colonel Duffy. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Davis. Master Sergeant Cline.
Sergeant Cline. Retroactivity to restore early retirement
to Guard and Reserve people back to 9/11.
Restore Chapter 1606 Montgomery GI Bill benefits to its
historic rate of 47 to 50 percent of the active-duty rate.
And provide gray-area retirees the opportunity to buy into
TRICARE Reserve Select at the full-cost premium.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
Ms. Moakler.
Ms. Moakler. We do support the issues that our colleagues
have brought up here.
We look for sustained support for family readiness programs
for the long term. And that covers the waterfront in so many
areas.
We also look for better access to behavioral health care
and counseling for families of all components; and responsive
child care programs to support geographically dispersed,
deployed families; and respite care for the families of the
wounded and survivors.
Some of these issues are beginning to be addressed, and we
applaud that. But we want to make sure that these respite
services will be available for the families of the wounded,
families who have a deployed service member, and also surviving
families as well.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
Colonel Strobridge.
Colonel Strobridge. Thank you.
I am feeling a little bit of pressure here, because, as we
go down the list, we have heard from the Guard and Reserve
associations, the family associations, and logically they have
a responsibility to talk about the priorities in their area. I
am very sensitive that I am here as the co-chair of the
Military Coalition, and we make a conscious effort to avoid
trying to say we support this at the expense of that for our
top one, two, or three issues.
We do try to prioritize, in general, our top seven or eight
kinds of things, and some of those have already been covered.
Those would include end-strength increases; wounded warrior
improvements, which encompass some of the things that you have
heard. Avoiding the unfair TRICARE fee and hikes, obviously,
has been a big issue for the last several years. Pay
comparability is one. They talked about the Guard and Reserve
issues; concurrent receipt, SBP/DIC offsets.
That is the constellation of eight, I think, that we have
unanimity among all the coalition associations as being the top
priorities. As you said, we fully recognize you can't do
everything on those, but we have had times when the
subcommittee has been able to work five or six of those things,
maybe not to do all of them, but to make some progress. We
appreciate that. I think we have got a track record of trying
to work with the subcommittee, recognizing when the time comes
when decisions have to be made, we try to work with you to make
sure that we hit the things that are most important.
Mrs. Davis. Great.
And, Ms. McCloud, I think you were clear on what your high
priority would be. Would you like to expand?
Ms. McCloud. Just once again, as you can see, there is a
lot of yellow behind me today. And we are just so grateful to
be at this table. It is huge. And on behalf of the many, many
woman who couldn't be here today, thank you.
It is simple: SBP/DIC offset, it needs to be eliminated.
They are two different programs from two different agencies for
two different reasons, and one should not have to give up one
for the other.
In the case of the active-duty deaths, I could tell you sob
stories, both from my own family and hundreds of others, and I
am not going to do that today. That is not what this is about.
But suffice it to say that it is not right to add unjust
financial burdens to families that are dealing with
unimaginable grief and raising our children on our own every
single day.
Trane did his job; I will do mine. You ask any of the
people that have served in the military, they didn't always
like the orders they got, but they did them. And they carried
them out, and they did them well. I certainly don't like the
order my family got, but we will do it. But I shouldn't have to
make financial sacrifices for a benefit that he earned.
In the case of the retirees, one could even say it is more
egregious. These people paid premiums. I read that, in
instances when service members were retiring from the military,
in instances they did not even know about the offset. So here
they are, year after year after year, paying for premiums,
going without, so that their spouse will be provided for, only
to find out, ``No, sorry.''
If I could paraphrase Senator Bill Nelson from Florida, who
is the author of the companion legislation in the Senate, he
was a former insurance commissioner for the State of Florida.
And he stated that he knew of no other purchase annuity program
that can then turn around and refuse to pay you the benefits
that you purchased on the grounds that you are getting the
benefits from somewhere else. If you can't do it in the private
sector, the Federal Government certainly shouldn't be able to
do it.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
My five minutes is up. I think we are going to go to the
other members, and we will come back and we will talk about the
issues that you are here with, as well. Thank you.
Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
And, Colonel Duffy, thank you for your presentation. As a
National Guard veteran, the father of three persons serving in
the National Guard, I appreciate you bringing up the issue of
the home of record and the difficulties that can be in
providing services. I look forward to working with you on that.
Colonel Duffy. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wilson. Additionally, I am very grateful for the
presentation and representation this afternoon by Maggie
McCloud of the Gold Star Wives. She certainly has come across
with some very positive information. And I am grateful to be
working with the Gold Star Wives in support of enactment of
H.R. 775, which would eliminate the SBP/DIC offset.
I have two brief questions, Maggie, that I would like for
you to review. One is, under the offset requirement, on average
how much is the SBP payment? How much does the survivor lose?
Ms. McCloud. As you know, SBP is based upon rank and time
of service, so it is different for the individual survivors.
But, on average, these people are losing about $1,000 per
month, less taxes.
Mr. Wilson. And that is amazing. And people need to know
that.
Ms. McCloud. And I would say that $1,000 a month might not
sound like a lot of money here in Washington, D.C., but we have
elderly widows on food stamps. I have participated in message
boards where we have tried to assist members finding out about
food pantries and things like that. A thousand dollars a month
is going to go a long way to putting food on the table and
keeping a roof over these people's heads.
Mr. Wilson. That is so important for a family. So I
appreciate you bringing and explaining that.
Additionally, given the 10-year cost of repealing the
offset, why, in your view, should Congress authorize the full
repeal of the offset instead of continuing the current survivor
indemnity allowance?
Ms. McCloud. Regarding the Special Survivor Indemnity
Allowance, it is hardly an answer to this problem. As you know,
Congress passed the special allowance, and it amounts to 50
taxable dollars per month, increasing over the next several
years until it is $100 a month, and then it disappears.
I don't think there is any recipient of the special
allowance that thinks getting $50 a month, which in today's
dollars won't even fill your tank with gas, is an adequate
answer to removing the offset that is costing these people
$1,000 a month for a benefit that their husbands either earned
through premiums or paid for with their life.
It is most definitely about fairness and honoring
commitments to our service members and their families.
Mr. Wilson. Well, thank you again for bringing that to our
attention.
For the Military Coalition, thank you for being here today.
A question that I have is in regard to raising the TRICARE
fees. Each of your written statements addresses the possibility
of raising TRICARE fees for non-Medicare-eligible retirees,
which I personally oppose. Given the difficult economic times
the country is facing, would you rather that we not allow the
Department of Defense to raise TRICARE fees in 2010?
Colonel Strobridge. I think we can say with unanimity that
that would be our preference.
Mr. Wilson. And that is the coalition view.
Colonel Strobridge. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wilson. Additionally, a second question in regard to
health care initiatives. I was pleased of your support for
providing health care for the gray-areas identified retirees of
H.R. 270, a bill by Mr. Latta of Ohio.
I also want to bring to your attention, Congressman John
Kline and myself have introduced H.R. 972. This would let a
Reserve retiree, just as any other retiree who is under age 60
and receiving retirement pay, participate in the full range of
TRICARE programs, including TRICARE Prime.
What are your thoughts as to this benefit?
Ms. Moakler. Excuse me, sir. Would those be under-65
Reserve retirees?
Mr. Wilson. It is early retirees.
Sergeant Cline. We will take it, Congressman. Where do we
sign up?
Mr. Wilson. I urge you to look up the bill, for all of you.
Something that I know that Congresswoman Davis and I have
discussed is to have your members contact Members of Congress
and this subcommittee. And individual information, as was
presented by Ms. McCloud, is so helpful for us to know the
real-world impact of the legislation that we pass, the
regulations that are out there.
The home of record problem, Colonel, that you pointed out,
please bring that to our attention so we can act on it.
Thank you very much.
Mrs. Davis. Dr. Snyder.
Dr. Snyder. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Joe, are we all on the same number here? The 10-year cost
for--I have two women named Maggie that work for me, so I like
to use the word ``Maggie''--but that the 10-year score is $6.9
billion? Is that the number that we are all working from?
Colonel Strobridge. The number we saw, I think, sir, was
$7.1 billion. That is the mandatory spending side.
Dr. Snyder. Okay.
On other topic, a couple of days ago Secretary Garrett was
talking about the interstate compact on military children
education. Ms. Moakler, you talked about it in your statement.
I am from the State of Arkansas, and the bill in Arkansas is
being considered. I think it passed the House and has gone to
Senate committee today. But they decided to do it without
actually joining the compact. I think they are doing about
everything that is in the language of the bill but chose not to
actually join the compact. And I haven't talked to them about
why they are deciding to go that way. They withdrew one bill
that did the compact and passed this other one.
Do you have any sense--I would think that, substantively,
that wouldn't make much difference to the kids if they are
passing all the provisions of the bill. Do you have a sense
for--I suppose it is more of a legal argument than anything.
Ms. Moakler. I think that the advantage of joining the
compact is then being part of the commission that helps evolve
how these changes are going to be implemented. And just as no
man is an island, no state is an island in this compatibility
between the states, because you want a state to be a good
sending state and a good receiving state. And so, joining the
compact and working with the commission allows everyone to
share best practices on how they are enabling their students as
they go on to other schools and how they are welcoming students
that come either from another state or from the Department of
Defense system.
Dr. Snyder. I am just going to have to learn more about why
they chose that route. My guess is it is going to work out
fine. They have good intent about it, but I wasn't sure.
In August of last year, at the Little Rock Air Force Base,
the base arranged for me, and a staff member, to meet with the
parents of autistic children. And I think it was a very
worthwhile discussion for a lot of reasons, but the one thing
that struck me the most was it was the first time they had met
each other. I mean, this is not like Fort Hood or something.
This is a fairly small base.
And it brought home to me, it seems like there ought to be
something we can do systemwide to help the parents of special-
needs kid to have, not a forum necessarily, but an opportunity
to formally get together because of the coming and going. You
know, you make friends, you figure out how the systems works in
a town, and then you are transferred to someplace else. What
the base commander did on the base, I think, is he, at some
point, had kind of a town meeting for parents with special-
needs kids, and I am told that it went well.
Are you aware of anything formal that is being done
systemwide?
Ms. Moakler. I don't know of anything formal being done
systemwide, because it varies from service to service.
Dr. Snyder. And base to base.
Ms. Moakler. Of course, each service has their exceptional
family member person on the installation who coordinates
services and makes parents aware of services. I know for a
fact--I have attended meetings at Fort Belvoir, where they
regularly have briefings for the parents of autistic children.
So it could vary from service to service, installation to
installation. But it might not be a bad thing to have some kind
of consistency in the program.
I know the Marine Corps is expanding the role of their
exceptional family member program coordinator to assist in
continuity of care. It is a little bit outside the original
role of the exceptional family member person, which was to help
the families with assignments. But they realized that these
families need some kind of guide as they go from installation
to installation to help them on their way.
Also, several of the TRICARE contractors have case managers
for these exceptional family member families. But the kind of
case management they provide is not consistent across all three
of the contractors.
Dr. Snyder. My time is about up, Madam Chair.
But, Ms. McCloud, you referred to the people in yellow here
today. Would you like to introduce each one of them?
Ms. McCloud. I sure would. Thank you very much.
Dr. Snyder. Of course, they have to stand up when you call
their name.
Ms. McCloud. If I could do the ladies that traveled from
Kentucky first, because they traveled the furthest.
We have two active-duty deaths--ladies, if you could stand
up--their husbands were active-duty deaths. They traveled all
the way from Kentucky to be here today on their own dime.
And I couldn't be more happy. If we had more time, I
guarantee you, sir, I could have had the hall filled outside
with women wanting to be here today.
Ms. Stanley. My name is Christy Stanley. And my husband was
Chief Warrant Officer 3rd Class (CW3) David Stanley, and he
died September 11, 2007.
Ms. Dostie. I am Stephanie Dostie. My husband was Sergeant
First Class John Dostie. He died December 30, 2005.
Ms. McCloud. Kristen and Kimberly, are other active-duty
deaths I know that are here.
Ms. Hazelgrove. I am Kimberly Hazelgrove. My husband was
Chief Warrant Officer 2nd Class (CW2) Brian Hazelgrove, killed
in Iraq in January of 2004. We had four children. They are
currently 5, 8, 15, and 16.
Ms. Fenty. My name is Kristen Fenty. I was married to
Lieutenant Colonel Joseph Fenty, who was killed May 5, 2006. We
had been married 19 years without a single pregnancy, and by
some miracle, I was pregnant when he was deployed, and I have
the gift of a beautiful baby girl. He never got to meet her. He
served 21 days short of 20 years. He was looking forward to
retirement to share with his daughter. I know that he would be
happy to know that his daughter will be well cared for.
Ms. McCloud. Sandy, Martha, and Rose are also active-duty
deaths, although not of the current conflict.
Ladies, if you could stand up.
And Pat, as well.
Ms. Sharp. I am Patricia Sharp. My husband was Brigadier
General Richard A. Sharp. He died on active duty at Hunter Army
Air Field in Savannah, Georgia, in 1983.
Ms. Douthit. My name is Martha Douthit. My husband,
Lieutenant Colonel David A. Douthit, was killed in the Persian
Gulf War, May 3, 1991.
Ms. Drew. I am Sandra Drew. My husband was Colonel Nelson
Drew. He was killed in Bosnia, August 19, 1995, negotiating the
ceasefire.
Ms. McCloud. Rose, our president emeritus.
Ms. Lee. My name is Rose Lee. My husband was named Chew-Mon
Lee, a colonel in the United States Army. He died on active
duty in 1972. That was after the beginning of SBP, before the
law passed. By the way, he also received the Distinguished
Service Cross for service in Korea.
Ms. McCloud. And Edie Smith.
Ms. Smith. Edie Smith. My husband was a Marine Lieutenant
Colonel who died in 1988 after 12 years of a very disabling
illness. And this committee worked really well with me. I would
like to thank John Chapla and Mike Higgins, who were here from
the beginning to improve our medical care for the disabled. So
we appreciate all your work.
Ms. McCloud. Did I get everybody? Two more. I am sorry,
ladies.
Ms. Harvey. I am Carolyn Harvey. My husband is Bernard
Harvey, Colonel, U.S. Air Force. He died in January 2004.
Ms. Rember. I am Sara Rember. My husband, Colonel Bruce
Rember, died of a service-connected disease.
Ms. McCloud. If I could just say one more comment, Dr.
Snyder, in my family we count the blessings and not the losses.
And we are very blessed.
I would give anything not to be here today. I would give
anything never to have heard of this matter and to be still
working on key volunteer issues and family readiness issues on
K-Bay (Kaneohe Bay) in Hawaii where I was supposed to be. But I
am here, and I am here because Trane died serving his country.
He did his job. I had the opportunity to come here today, and I
took it. And I am so grateful for the attention you have given
us.
I am here speaking for 54,000 widows who are affected by
this problem. Trane took care of his Marines. My husband made
sure that his men always had what they needed to get the job
done. I am trying to follow his lead, and I am trying to make a
difference, as are these ladies.
This issue affects a relatively small number of people, but
they have already suffered an unimaginable loss. I beseech you,
we need to pass this legislation. It means so very much.
Thank you.
Dr. Snyder. Thank you.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
And thank you to all of you for traveling here, for being
here, for your sacrifices. We appreciate it very much. You put
a very personal face on all of this for us, and it means a
great deal. Thank you.
Ms. Tsongas.
Ms. Tsongas. Yes, thank you very much. It reminds us again
that service in war is a life-changing event for your husbands
and your loved ones who you so tragically lost, but so bravely,
but also for you and your families.
My question really is: What kind of services do you have
immediately in the aftermath of learning that you have lost a
loved one? I am curious just what the various services provide,
both in the near term, medium term, and long term, quite beyond
the issues we are talking about of compensation or support as
you get further away, but all the other kinds of services,
including mental health services or emotional support, if
needed.
Ms. McCloud. Thank you again for your concern.
I might defer to some of my colleagues, if that is
permissible. I don't know.
Honestly, in the immediate aftermath, your head is
swimming. I mean, it has been--in my case, my husband was
killed a little over two years ago. Some days it feels like it
was just yesterday, and some days it feels like it was an
eternity.
I work. You know, I am both mother and father to my
children. I hold down a job. I am the disciplinarian. I am the
tutor. I do all the things that two loving parents are supposed
to be doing. But you go forward.
As far as services that are available, I am probably not
the best person to speak to that, and I apologize. All I can
say is the Marines did an incredible job taking care of my
family. I have heard of people that haven't had the best of
situations afterwards. I am grateful, in my case, the Marines
did a phenomenal job.
Major Eric Kelly was my Casualty Assistance Control Officer
(CACO). I would love his name on the record. He deserves an
award for everything he did for my family and holding my hand
through some terrible, terrible times.
I do know there are services that are available, but
another issue, too, is you move away. You move away from your
base. My husband and I were stationed in Hawaii. We were
stationed in Kaneohe Bay, a great place to visit, not a great
place to be if you lose your husband and you don't have a
family member, except for a really, really, really long plane
ride away. And that is the case with a lot of these families.
Where you are when it happens is not where you stay. I had a
home and a job to come back to in the D.C. area. I am grateful.
But as far as support of my husband's command, that was a
different story, because I chose to leave Hawaii.
Ms. Tsongas. Are there things you wished you had? Even the
assistance in moving or returning back.
If others would like to comment?
Ms. McCloud. Edie is saying that TRICARE does not provide
grief counseling for our children. I know I have private
insurance. I am grateful to have it. And I do take my children,
specifically one of my children, to see a counselor every week.
He needs it, and I am grateful that I am doing it. But I am not
doing it through that; I am doing it through my private
insurance.
Ms. Fenty. Could I address that question?
Unfortunately, there is inconsistency in the services, not
just by the service that the soldier or military member serves
in, but also place to place.
The Army recently established the Survivor Outreach
Services program to provide for high-quality benefits
administration and to cater to the needs of Army families. I
don't believe there is anything like that across the services.
There is also long-term family case management for Army
families, and I think there is something similar in the
Marines.
So, the lesson to learn here, if it is not uniform, it is
not consistent, then it needs to be, where there are best
practices that needs to be shared.
As for quick benefits administration, I heard this woman
say today that when her husband passed away from a disability,
a service-related disability, it took five years for her to
receive it. So there is work to be done in expediting that.
As far as mental health services, it is not happening.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you. We appreciate that. And we are
certainly focusing on mental health care, as well.
Ms. Moakler, I didn't know whether you wanted to respond
quickly.
Ms. Moakler. I was just going to give an overview.
The families of the survivors of active-duty deaths are
allowed to remain in housing or receive a housing allowance for
one year after the death of the service member. The children
receive an active-duty health care benefit until they reach age
21, or 23 when they graduate from college.
Ms. McCloud. That doesn't include dental. And we would love
for it to be able to have the dental program expanded so that
they can get the same dental care through 21 or 23, as they do
for the health care, which we are most grateful for.
Ms. Moakler. The surviving spouse receives an active-duty
TRICARE benefit for three years after the death of the service
member and, after that, receives the retiree TRICARE health
care benefit.
There are education benefits for the surviving spouses
through the VA, the GI home loan.
And the VA also offers bereavement counseling through the
vet centers. That can be spotty. It is not a consistent benefit
everywhere, especially if you are not located near a vet
center. And also, sometimes bringing your child into a vet
center that is used to catering to older veterans is not the
best care scenario either.
Ms. Tsongas. So if there was anything you could ask for?
Ms. Moakler. I certainly would like to see a change in a
TRICARE co-designation to include grief counseling for
survivors as a TRICARE benefit.
Ms. Tsongas. Thank you all.
Colonel Strobridge. I do want to give the subcommittee
credit, because the issue of inconsistency of support between
the services has been an issue that I know we have talked with
the staff and I know the subcommittee has tried to address in
the past. As always, things are never perfect, but I know the
subcommittee has tried to do that and tried to make some
progress, and we do appreciate that.
Ms. McCloud. If I could add one other comment, because the
subject of TRICARE fees came up. In the case of the widows that
I am talking about today, we have 33,000 widows who receive no
SBP whatsoever. Their SBP is offset entirely by the DIC. So
they do not even have that payment to pay for the TRICARE fees
that are involved.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Tsongas.
I want to return to one of the issues that we always talk
about and, yet, I think that it wasn't mentioned specifically.
And I am making an assumption that it is important--I think in
your testimony earlier it was, but although not necessarily
your three highest priorities. And that is the one of pay raise
and trying to make certain that the gap between the military
and the private-sector pay does not go beyond the 2.9 percent.
We know that we may be facing some budget challenges, and I
would like you just to weigh in, if you will, on whether
continued pay raises above the ECI is a must-have among the
military personnel programs. Are you making an assumption that
that is going to be there, that that is critically important?
Or, when it comes to some of the other benefits that we talked
about, it may not be as critical as other benefits?
Colonel Strobridge. If I might be able to address that,
Madam Chair.
One of the things that we have tried to sustain over 30
years, perhaps maybe the single most consistent issue, has been
that pay comparability is a fundamental underpinning of the
All-Volunteer Force. The problem that we get into is, in more
years than not, even though the subcommittee in the last decade
has made a consistent effort to restore pay comparability, we
got into real problems every time we said, ``Gee, we can't
afford to sustain that.''
And right now we have a track record where the subcommittee
has worked hard not to close it--this has been one of those
issues where we, you know, try to eat away every year--but we
are still short of the comparability standard. And I think we
are very reluctant to say comparability doesn't matter.
One of the things that is always talked about is, ``Gee, in
the interest of shared financial sacrifice.'' I think that
sometimes we say it a lot, but we forget that military people
have been asked to bear 100 percent of the national wartime
sacrifice for almost the last decade. And we are a little bit
reluctant to give up on the fundamental principle, as was
referred to before, when we have just spent trillions of
dollars. It seems like kind of quibbling sometimes over the
last half a percent of one pay raise.
Mrs. Davis. All right. Thank you.
Colonel Strobridge. I realize it is not that easy for the
subcommittee to deal with. But when you ask the question, we
have to give the answer.
Mrs. Davis. Yeah, no, I appreciate that.
Anybody else wanted to weigh in on that particular issue?
Colonel Duffy. Just second his remarks.
Mrs. Davis. We will make an assumption that that is
critically important.
The other one that we are very aware of is end strength and
the extent to which end strength contributes to--the
operational requirements and that contribute to the welfare of
service members and families. Obviously, that means lower
deployments and more dwell time.
Where, then, in this calculation as well, does the issue of
end strength lie? Are we placing it in a high priority compared
to other personnel initiatives? And where does it lie vis-a-vis
increases in health care fees, for example?
Colonel Strobridge. I think that is where we get into a
little bit of a problem trying to say, look, we want this one
at the expense of that other one.
I think we would all agree that end strength is a huge
priority. I think we are all very, very concerned, and we have
talked with the subcommittee staff. You know, the rubber band
is stretched so far. We all thought it was going to snap years
ago. We are amazed that it hasn't snapped yet. Those of us who
have been saying it is going to snap--you know, we have been
down this road before. You just can't keep doing this to folks.
And as Kathy, I think, said in her verbal, we get very
concerned when we start talking about backtracking on planned
increases, because that is the only, frankly, the only way of
providing any kind of short-term relief. And even the planned
end-strength increases we know are not going to solve the
problem.
So, to us, we have to send any message we can to the folks
who are currently paying such a penalty that we are doing our
best to provide that relief.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you. And what we are all aware of is the
discussions that the supplemental is not necessarily going to
be there to adjust for end-strength increases. And so that is
an issue that we are all going to be facing, in terms of making
certain that the budget is more obvious, and in terms of what
we are doing and how we feel that we are stating our
priorities, quite clearly.
Colonel Strobridge. Madam Chair, we realize that nobody is
more sensitive to this issue than the people on this
subcommittee. We do get concerned that some others in
government, not out of any intent but just because people have
been responding for so long, and we all have our jaws agape
that we already haven't had some massive retention problem--we
try to put ourselves in their shoes, I know I do, and I can
tell you I would have been gone a long time ago.
And I don't feel it is unpatriotic to say that. I think
there is a limit to what you can expect of people. And I think
sometimes that, not for any intent, we come to take their
sacrifice for granted. And I think we do that at our peril.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you. I appreciate those comments. I know
everybody in the room does, as well.
We will certainly turn to the resale issues. I am going to
go to my colleagues, and if they don't ask the questions, then
we will come back and we will discuss a few of the issues that
we have before us.
Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Wilson. Again, a statement I want to make. I want to
thank all of you for being here. I want to thank you for your
presentations.
You also represent organizations that are very important to
those of us who serve in Congress. I want to urge you to write
letters--they can be handwritten letters, they can be e-mails--
of how particular legislation, either that is pending or needs
to be adjusted or regulations that need to be improved. I think
it would really be helpful if we had individual responses to
the members of this subcommittee, to the members of the full
committee, to your resident Members and U.S. Senators from your
home states.
And that would be a comment that I would make based on what
I have heard today. And it is just so helpful, not to invade
anybody's privacy, but it just would be so helpful to know
specifically what we are dealing with, how it affects families
and individual soldiers. And that would be my urge at this
time.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
We are alone. So let me turn to the increase in tobacco
products, briefly. We know that there has been some discussion
at the suggestion of the DOD medical authorities that we
terminate the five percent discounted price in favor of price
parity with local civilian retailers.
A DOD study concluded that, notwithstanding a reduction in
sales, the price increase would result in an increase of $3.3
million in gross profits within the military resale community,
an increase of $1 million in the exchange dividend payment to
MWR programs.
So, from your perspective then, what would the vendors and
brokers who work in military resale, how would they respond to
an increase in tobacco prices? And what do you think would be
their perspective regarding the potential impact on sales and
revenues?
Then I will turn to the military community, as well, in
terms of, how do you think people are going to respond to that?
Mr. Becker. Madam Chairwoman, you mentioned some math that
I wasn't familiar with, in terms of the increased sales and the
associated contribution. I would question the sensitivity, the
price sensitivity of the demand for the product, given that
scenario. I assume that math was done with the assumption that
consumption would be maintained at an existing level. My
experience questions that assumption.
I think the benefit of the efforts that have been extended
by Health Affairs and by the exchanges working together to
properly merchandise the product, to separate the product from
the consumer flow in the store and all, are admirable efforts.
I am dubious as to the course that the exchanges would be
forced to be placed on if they were to introduce that type of
force to pricing in any product category. Because, much as I
would have noted had I gotten to my three top priorities, your
oversight has done an extraordinary job in leveraging the value
of the infrastructure that has been built in the resale system
itself. And compromising the tenets on which it rests I think
are very risky and amount to more than the simple math.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
Did you want to comment as well?
Ms. Brackett. Just briefly. Echoing Mr. Becker's comments,
what I would just really like to underscore, the exchanges are
to be complemented for their aggressive education program. And
we feel that that is an important area to continue to focus on,
versus the pricing parity.
Mrs. Davis. And to the advocacy groups, do you believe or
have you heard any reaction from military patrons that would
suggest that they see this really as a loss of benefits if the
price were increased to parity with the civilian sector?
Ms. Moakler. I have to agree with the argument that Mr.
Becker raised about having noncompetitive pricing on specific
items. I think you are opening the door if we are going to have
that with--and I may be making it too simplistic. We are doing
it with cigarettes today. Are we doing it with gallons of milk
tomorrow?
I think that the proper emphasis on tobacco products--
having been a lifelong commissary patron, I have seen the shelf
space decrease from an entire aisle to a very closed area with
limited access for folks who want to buy their tobacco
products. So I think that they are placing the right emphasis
on health, but I don't believe we can open that door to allow
noncompetitive pricing on selective items.
Sergeant Cline. On the Guard and Reserve side of the house
where commissaries are not readily available to our members,
those who do use the commissary and the exchange system, it is
a very valuable tool for them, especially when families are
deployed and they make that monthly trip to save a few dollars
because their monies have been decreased because of their
husband's or their spouse's deployment.
So it is very valuable. And, therefore, I would say the
commissaries need to keep the prices down. We need to stay
below Wal-Mart.
Colonel Duffy. We have heard mention of H.R. 270,
Representative Latta's bill to make TRICARE available to our
gray-area retirees by purchasing at government cost. Well, one
benefit our gray-area retirees do have is the commissary
benefit. And that is greatly, greatly appreciated. And it
really draws a lot of our retired members back to the military
installations, which is a fine thing.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
Another issue that we were hearing a little bit is opening
up the commissaries and exchanges to disabled veterans. And we
know that there have been a number of bills introduced. I think
that there is sometimes a misunderstanding. There are a number
of veterans who do access the commissaries, but this would be
to open it up to a greater extent.
And we have asked that question in the past. I don't know
if anybody wants to weigh in on that. We certainly hear
different messages coming from different advocacy groups, which
one would expect. I wonder if there is something you would like
to add to that conversation.
Colonel Strobridge. Madam Chair, the coalition has taken
the position that we don't support that. We think it is
important to maintain the distinction between DOD benefits and
VA benefits. And DOD benefits are for those who are currently
serving, those who are retired. Whereas, VA benefits, those
retired and currently serving may qualify for the VA, or at
least the retired ones, but the two populations don't overlap.
We get very concerned about--I think a lot of people, a lot
of Americans, and sometimes some people in Congress or in the
Administration don't seem to understand the difference between
the two, and they think a veteran is a veteran.
To us, we would like to be able to say that if you serve a
career, you have a package of DOD benefits that are provided by
DOD as an employer, of which the commissary and exchange are
one. If you separate from the service and then go on and work a
second career and subsequently acquire a disability, the VA
provides for that disability. To us, that doesn't reconnect you
to qualify for DOD employer-provided benefit.
And we think that is an important distinction. And we would
like to maintain that distinction because there are people who
would like to say, for example, for health care, once you
retire, let's just turn you over to the VA. We feel very
strongly DOD has an employer's responsibility to its career
people to provide the TRICARE system. And the same argument
applies to commissary and exchange and other DOD benefits, in
our view.
Mrs. Davis. Do you want to comment?
Ms. Brackett. I would, please.
As far as expanding the benefit for veterans with 30
percent disability, the arguments we hear is that it will
overcrowd the stores and increase costs. Not according to the
resale commanders, who, in an unofficial poll, stated it would
have minimum impact.
In addition, in these tough economic times, doesn't it make
sense to give a temporary lifeline to our military as they do
transition from active service to new careers? We feel it is
the right thing to do.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you. I appreciate both of those
perspectives.
And when you think about the fact that we are talking about
people who have disabilities greater than 30 percent, that
would be entitled to the commissary, it seems like a
relatively, perhaps, small fraction of a greater population.
But I think, in reality, if you go back and you look at that,
the numbers are probably fairly large. And it would depend on
the community, obviously, in which that occurs.
But I know that it is an issue out there. And I think for
some people it seems that it is an opportunity to bring further
revenue to MWR programs and to allow people to have that
opportunity. And yet we know that it is a very sacred, really,
benefit that people receive. And once they have been separated
for long periods of time, I understand that perspective.
Colonel Strobridge. Yes, ma'am. I think sometimes, again,
people, they think of this as a wounded warrior issue. And they
think of the people who are being, you know, put out with
significant disabilities. Well, in fact, if you leave the
service with a 30 percent or greater disability, you are a
retiree and you are eligible. So we are mainly talking about
people who didn't have that disability rating at the time they
left and acquired it later. And, to us, that is the
distinction.
And, as a matter of fact, we haven't had the issue
recently, but for those of us who have been working these
issues for 30 years or so, periodically we have serious attacks
on the commissary subsidy, and we start getting a little
concerned when somebody says, ``Gee, you are spending a billion
dollars on somebody who spent a whole career doing something
else and acquired a 30 percent disability at age 70, and we are
spending commissary dollars to give them access.'' We would
rather not have to worry about adding another argument to
defend the commissary subsidy.
Ms. Moakler. In addition, Madam Chairperson, those folks
would not have identification (ID) cards. And in these times of
limited access to military installations, there would have to
be some mechanism, which would cost money, either by time or
issuing some kind of ID, for those folks to access the
installation.
Mrs. Davis. Some security issues that would be at play
there.
One of the other military resale issues is around jewelry
and furniture and whether or not we basically protect the
interests of those businesses that are out in the community or
enable the military resale associations to sell more of it.
Now, I think that those issues, have they been settled to
an extent that people are comfortable with that?
Mr. Becker. I will address that quickly, if I may. And this
oversight has done a tremendous job in the recent past in
ensuring that the infrastructure that already exists on
military bases is leveraged more beneficially by expanding some
of the categories, particularly some price restrictions.
I would call your attention to the fact that originally
some of these restrictions were in place to assist small
businesses, many of whom are really nonexistent today. In fact,
a lot of them were electronics retailers and such.
The fact remains that the bases, in some instances, don't
have the physical space to sell things like furniture and are
still precluded from expanding their physical plant in order to
be able to sell furniture.
As we have seen in the contemporary environment, it is
creditors who have largely laid behind the problems for
consumers. And one of our arguments have long held that if the
exchanges were given greater scope of authority to sell
furniture, military patrons would at once enjoy not only the
privilege to buy the product but, simultaneously, access to
superior terms on those purchases.
We would continue to seek support from this committee to
relieve the restrictions on the exchanges from construction, so
to improve the facilities to be able to sell furniture, in
particular. There are a few other minor areas that we think
would offer opportunity, but that, in particular, we would
appreciate your consideration.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
In the course of discussing a number of the other issues
that you have brought, the retiree programs, concurrent receipt
continues to be a concern. Even though we have moved on that, I
think that it still continues to come up. And I am just
wondering where in the list of priorities you would place
expansion of concurrent receipt today.
Colonel Strobridge. I think that is another one, Madam
Chair, where the subcommittee has made an effort to try to make
some progress. You know, the reality is, whenever we make
progress on something and we still got a long way to go, you
always have glass-half-full people from the people who have
been taken care of and glass completely empty for the people
who haven't. And so it creates pressure on all of us.
We believe that we agree with that. We have tried to work
with the subcommittee to make incremental progress and try to
identify various steps that we can take. We have worked with
the subcommittee in the past to see, if you will let us know
how much money you have, we will tell you who is the most
important priority to try to take care of next.
I think we have a consensus that one of the things,
probably the single biggest issue, is to fix the glitch in the
law that Congress already passed on combat-related special
compensation. Through no fault of the committee's, there was a
glitch in the law that doesn't deliver that compensation. So we
have people who are 60, 70 percent combat disabled who do not
receive the combat-related compensation. We thought we were
working on getting a fix last year. Unfortunately, at the end-
of-the-year crunch we didn't get it through.
But we have talked with the staff about it. I think there
is a consensus both in the House and the Senate that this is
the right thing to do. If you can only do one thing, we would
say that is the thing to do.
Mrs. Davis. All right, thank you.
Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Wilson. As we----
Ms. McCloud. Oh----
Mr. Wilson. Oh, no, I definitely want to hear from Maggie.
Ms. McCloud. May I be so bold? If we are talking about
concurrent receipt--and I am delighted that Congress has acted
on this issue over the past several years. If we are speaking
of fairness, Congress should have addressed the issue of SBP/
DIC offset for the widows when it implemented concurrent
receipt for disabled retirees. We should have been included
then, and we weren't. If our spouses were alive today, our 100
percent disabled spouses, they would be receiving this benefit.
On a personal note, I will say that when Trane was back on
the Hill working for Congressman Wilson in 2003, he worked on
concurrent receipt for disabled veterans. And I remember him
coming home, I remember him coming home when Congress was
working on this issue, and he was so excited, he was so proud
that Congress was addressing this issue that was going to help
so many disabled retirees. One of my fellow Gold Star Wives
even remembers meeting with Trane on this issue.
How ironic is it? What would he think today, I can't help
but wonder, that the very legislation he was so excited about
and so proud about left out his own family, left out his own
wife, and left out the ladies sitting behind me? I just can't
imagine what he would think.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you. I appreciate that. I think we are
also aware that you have worked on these issues, on a host of
different issues, and that, of all the competing needs, I think
that you said quite clearly that this is the one that you would
hope would be addressed.
Mr. Wilson. And I would like to thank the chairwoman for
having this hearing this afternoon. It really has been very
helpful to me. I know it will be helpful to our colleagues here
in Congress.
It is certainly a big day to have the Gold Star Wives
recognized. And all of you who are here, I was sitting here
thinking you bring real-world experience, real-world knowledge,
but you also bring real-world credibility. I thank all of you
for being here today.
I want to thank the chairwoman for her putting this
together.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you all very much for being here. If
there is anything that you failed to say that you would like to
be sure that we are aware of, please do not hesitate to
communicate that with us.
Thank you all so much for being here.
[Whereupon, at 5:20 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
February 25, 2009
=======================================================================
=======================================================================
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
February 25, 2009
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.204
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.205
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.206
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.138
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.142
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.144
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.145
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.146
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.147
?
=======================================================================
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
February 25, 2009
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.153
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.154
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.155
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.156
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.157
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.158
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.159
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.160
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.161
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.162
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.163
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.164
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.165
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.166
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.167
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.168
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.169
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.170
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.171
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.172
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.173
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.174
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.175
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.176
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.177
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.178
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.179
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.180
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.181
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.182
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.183
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.184
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.185
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.186
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.187
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.188
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.189
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.190
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.191
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.192
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.193
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.194
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.195
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.196
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.197
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.198
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.199
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.200
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.201
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.202
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.203
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.148
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.149
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.150
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.151
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 50055.152