The FY2007 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues

CRS Report for Congress
The FY2007 National Defense Authorization Act:
Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
Updated October 18, 2006
Charles A. Henning, Coordinator
Analyst in National Defense
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Richard A. Best, Jr., David F. Burrelli, and Lawrence Kapp
Specialists in National Defense
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

The FY2007 National Defense Authorization Act:
Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
Summary
Military personnel issues typically generate significant interest from many
Members of Congress and their staffs. Ongoing military operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan in support of the Global War on Terror, along with the emerging
operational role of the Reserve Components, further heightened interest and support
for a wide range of military personnel policies and issues.
CRS selected a number of issues considered by Congress as it acted on the
FY2007 National Defense Authorization Act. In each case, a brief synopsis is
provided that includes background information, a comparison of the House and
Senate provisions, if any, and a brief discussion of the issue. Where appropriate,
other CRS products are identified to provide more detailed background information
and analysis of the issue. For each issue, a CRS analyst is identified and contact
information is provided.
This report focuses exclusively on the annual authorization process. It does not
include appropriations, veterans’ affairs, tax implications of policy choices or any
discussion of separately introduced legislation. The Conference Report on H.R. 5122
(H.Rept. 109-702) was adopted by the House on September 29, 2006, and by the
Senate on September 30, 2006. The legislation was signed by the President on
October 17, 2006, becoming P.L. 109-364.
It is not anticipated that this report will be updated.

Contents
Time-in-Grade for Promotion to 0-3...................................2
Sexual Harassment and Violence at Service Academies....................3
Sexual Assault Information included in Department of Defense
Annual Report................................................4
Purple Heart Medal for Prisoners of War...............................5
Military Chaplains.................................................6
Targeted Shaping of the Manpower Distribution of the Armed Forces.........7
Transportation of Remains of Casualties Dying in a Theater of Combat
Operations ...................................................8
Military Pay Raise.................................................9
Servicemembers Group Life Insurance (SGLI) Full Coverage for OIF
and OEF....................................................10
Repeal of the Requirement of Reduction of Survivor Benefit Plan Annuities
(SBP) by Dependency and Indemnity Compensation.................11
Effective Date of “Paid-Up” Coverage under the Military Survivor
Benefit Plan (SBP)............................................12
Eligibility of Certain Additional Dependent Children for Survivor Benefit
Plan (SBP) Annuities..........................................13
Expansion of Conditions for Direct Payment of Divisible Retired Pay under
the Uniformed Services’ Former Spouse Protection Act (USFSPA).....14
Authority for Cost of Living Adjustments of Retired Pay Treated as
Divisible Property............................................15
Notice and Copy to Members of Court Orders on Payment of Retired Pay....16
Concurrent Receipt for Military Retirees with Service-Connected Disabilities
Rated as Total by Virtue of Unemployability.......................17
Tricare Coverage for Forensic Examination Following Sexual Assault or
Domestic Violence............................................18
Prohibition of Increases in Enrollment Fees for Tricare Prime..............19
Limitation on Increased Tricare Premiums for Reservists..................20

DOD Task Force on the Future of Military Health Care...................21
Comptroller General Study and Report on the Defense Health Program......22
Treatment of Tricare Retail Pharmacy Network Under Federal
Procurement of Pharmaceuticals.................................23
Retiree Tricare Coverage and Employer Health Plans.....................24
Disallowing Costs of Incentive Payments to Employees for Tricare
Enrollment for Federal Contractors...............................25
National Mail-Order Pharmacy Program...............................26
Early Diagnosis/Treatment of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).......27
Extension on Limitation of Conversion of Military Medical and Dental
Positions to Civilian Positions...................................28
Roles for Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams..............29
Modification of Presidential Reserve Call Up Authority...................30
Revision in Computation of Disability Retired Pay Formula for Certain
Reserve Component Members...................................31
Tricare Benefits for Non-Activated Members of the Selected Reserve........32
Modifying Reserve Retirement Authorities.............................33
Role of National Guard Bureau and Status of National Guard Bureau Chief...34

The FY2007 National Defense Authorization
Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy
Issues
Each year, the Senate and House Armed Services Committee report their
respective versions of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). These
contain numerous provisions that affect military personnel, retirees and their family
members. Provisions in one version are often not included in another, treated
differently, or, in certain cases, they are identical. Following passage of each by the
respective legislative body, a Conference Committee is typically convened to resolve
the various differences between the House and Senate versions. If a Conference
Committee reports its final version of the Authorization Act, the bill is returned to
the House and Senate for their consideration. Upon final passage the act is sent to
the President for his approval.
In the course of a typical authorization cycle, congressional staffs receive many
constituent requests for information on provisions contained within the annual
NDAA. This report highlights those personnel-related issues that seem to generate
the most intense constituent interest and tracks their status in the FY2007 House and
Senate versions of the NDAA. The House bill was H.R. 5122 and was approved by
the House on May 11, 2006; on June 22, 2006, the Senate struck all after the enacting
clause of H.R. 5122 and substituted the language of its defense authorization bill, S.
2766. The resulting Conference Report (H.Rept. 109-702) was approved by the
House on September 29, 2006, and by the Senate on September 30, 2006; it was
signed by the President on October 17, 2006, becoming Public Law 109-364.
Each presentation in this report offers the background on a given issue, tracks
its legislative status, discusses the proposed language, identifies other relevant CRS
products, and designates a CRS issue expert.

Time-in-Grade for Promotion to 0-3
Background: 10 U.S.C. 619 currently requires a minimum of 18 months in grade as a second lieutenant or Navy ensign
before promotion to first lieutenant or Navy lieutenant junior grade and 24 months in grade as a first lieutenant or Navy
lieutenant junior grade before promotion to captain or Navy lieutenant. As an exception, officers promoted to first lieutenant
or Navy lieutenant junior grade before October 1, 2005 are only required to serve 18 months in grade. This exception was
included in the FY2002 National Defense Authorization Act to support the Global War on Terror.
House (H.R. 5122)Senate (S. 2766)Conference
The House provision wouldThe Senate supports 18 months in gradeSec. 506, the reduction of the time in
permanently reduce the time-in-grade asas a temporary measure and extends thegrade (18 months) is extended from
a first lieutenant or Navy lieutenantexception date from October 1, 2005 toOctober 1, 2005, to October 1, 2008.
junior grade to 18 months beforeOctober 1, 2008.
eligibility for promotion to captain or
Navy lieutenant.
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33571}
^g/w
^s^.or
^le^akDiscussion: Historically, time-in-grade requirements have varied from one to two years in grade for promotion to first
lieutenant or Navy lieutenant junior grade and another one to two years for promotion to captain or Navy lieutenant. Time
^://wikifrom commissioning to promotion to captain or Navy lieutenant has therefore ranged from two to four years. Generally,
^h^ttptime- in-grade requirements are reduced during periods of hostilities and increased in the absence of conflict. Because many
military positions must be filled by officers of specific ranks, time-in-grade reductions provide maximum management
flexibility for the services in filling their operational requirements.
Reference(s): None.
CRS Point of Contact (POC): Charles Henning at 7-8866.

Sexual Harassment and Violence at Service Academies
Background: Public Law 108-136 (sec. 527) added a section to 10 United States Code entitled “Actions to Address Sexual
Harassment and Violence at the Service Academies.” This section contained three main parts: (1) the establishment of a
policy on sexual harassment and violence, (2) an annual assessment, and (3) annual reporting requirements.
House (H.R. 5122)Senate (S. 2766)Conference
No language reported.Sec. 567 modifies this language in aSec. 532 directs, under the guidance of
number of ways. First, it redefinesthe Secretary of Defense and/or service
‘violence’ to the more narrow definitionsecretary, the academy superintendent
of ‘sexual violence.’ Second, instead ofto prescribe a policy on sexual
directing DOD to conduct theharassment and violence. Included are
assessment, the proposed languageprograms for awareness, procedures,
allows DOD to ‘provide’ andand disciplinary actions. In addition,
‘administer’ an assessment. Last, itthe Secretary of Defense is required to
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33571}removes the ‘annual’ requirement formake an annual assessment and report.
^g/wthe assessment and reporting and
^s^.orinstead requires such for 2008 and 2010.
^le^ak
^://wikiDiscussion: Such a modification directs the service academies to bolster their policies concerning sexual harassment and
^h^ttpviolence and to make an annual assessment and report.
Reference(s): None.
CRS POC: David F. Burrelli at 7-8033.

Sexual Assault Information included in Department of Defense Annual
Report
Background: Public Law 108-375, sec. 577, “Department of Defense Policy and Procedures on Prevention and Response
to Sexual Assaults Involving Members of the Armed Forces,” directed the Secretary of Defense to create and implement
a ‘comprehensive policy on the prevention and response to sexual assault.’ It also directed the Secretaries of each of the
military departments to submit to the Secretary of Defense a report regarding sexual assaults involving members under the
jurisdiction of each respective Secretary. Among the information to be reported is a “synopsis of, and the disciplinary
action taken in, each substantiated case.”
House (H.R. 5122)Senate (S. 2766)Conference
Sec. 595 would modify the reportingNo reported language.Sec. 583 amends P.L. 108-375 to
requirement concerning disciplinaryinclude a “synopsis of each such
action by requiring “the results of thesubstantiated case and, for each such
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33571}disciplinary action” be reported as well.case, the disciplinary action taken in the
^g/wcase, including the type of disciplinary
^s^.oror administrative sanction imposed, if
^le^ak any.”
^://wikiDiscussion: Crime rates committed by members of the armed forces are generally lower than those in the general public.
^h^ttpNevertheless, a number of high profile assaults have resulted in increased congressional oversight, scrutiny and legislative
interest in the policies concerning the prevention, reporting and handling of these cases.
Reference(s): None.
CRS POC: David F. Burrelli at 7-8033.

Purple Heart Medal for Prisoners of War
Background: The Purple Heart medal is awarded to any member of the armed forces for wounds or death as a result of
an act of an opposing armed force, international terrorist attack, or as the result of military operations while serving as part
of a peacekeeping force. In 1962, Executive Order 11016 expanded authority for the awarding of the medal to wounds and
death resulting from conflicts other than war. Later that same year, Army policy was modified to allow prisoners of war
(POW) to receive the medal if wounded or injured by their captors. The policy change was not retroactive. In 1996, Public
Law 104-106, expanded eligibility for the Purple Heart to those prisoners of war who were wounded before April 25, 1962,
while held as a prisoner of war or while being taken captive, in the same manner as a prisoner of war on or after that date.
House (H.R. 5122)Senate (S. 2766)Conference
Sec. 553 expands eligibility for theSec. 589 states “Not later than March 1, 2007,Sec. 556 repeats the Senate
Purple Heart to the death of a memberthe President shall provide the Committees onlanguage calling for a report
of the armed forces who dies inArmed Services of the Senate and House ofwith additional requirements
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33571}captivity and is eligible for the Prisonerof War Medal, or who dies followingRepresentatives a report on the advisability ofmodifying the criteria for the award of theincluding the circumstances ofthe POW, the views of veterans’
^g/wcaptivity as a POW due to disease orPurple Heart to authorize the award of theservice organizations, and the
^s^.ordisability incurred as a POW and whoPurple Heart to military members who die inviews of the Secretary of
^le^akwas issued a POW medal.captivity under unknown circumstances or as aDefense and the Chairman of
^://wikiresult of conditions and treatment whichthe Joint Chiefs of Staff.
^h^ttpcurrently do not qualify the decedent for award
of the Purple Heart; and for military members
who survive captivity as prisoners of war, but
die thereafter as a result of disease or disability
incurred during captivity.”
Discussion: House language would have expanded the eligibility to receive the Purple Heart to POWs who die while in
captivity or die after release of injuries or illnesses incurred while a POW. The former group would receive the Purple
Heart not necessarily as a result of wounds or injuries suffered but because they died as prisoners. The second group
includes those who suffer a disease or disability (not necessarily related to their treatment by their captors) as a POW.
Senate and conference language seeks a presidential report on the issue.
Reference(s): None.
CRS POC: David F. Burrelli at 7-8033.

Military Chaplains
Background: In recent years, military chaplains have come under scrutiny for the alleged “sectarian nature” of some of
their public pronouncements. Complaints have been made that chaplains are not being ‘inclusive’ in their statements and
have offended individuals of other religions. Within the past year, both the Navy and Air Force have issued rules allowing
chaplains to pray as they wish during voluntary worship services but to be nonsectarian, or utilize a ‘moment of silence,’
during public meetings or ceremonies. Religious groups, particularly evangelical Christians, have complained that such
rules are a violation of freedom of religion, represent a “gag order” on leaders of faith, and appear to be motivated by
“political correctness.” Any administrative or legislative activity in this area could raise constitutional questions,
particularly with regard to the First Amendment.
House (H.R. 5122)Senate (S. 2766)Conference
Sec. 590 would add language to each ofNo language was reported.No language was reported; however, the
the service sections (including theConference Committee directed the
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33571}Academies) stating that chaplains “shallhave the prerogative to pray accordingSecretaries of the Navy and the AirForce to rescind recent directives and
^g/wto the dictates of the Chaplain’sinstructions, thereby undoing recent
^s^.orconscience, except as must be limitedservice changes.
^le^akby military necessity, with any such
^://wikilimitation being imposed in the least
^h^ttprestrictive manner feasible.”
Discussion: If enacted, this language would have allowed chaplains to invoke sectarian comments (e.g., to mention Jesus
Christ, Allah, or Buddha) during public meetings or ceremonies. In other words, military necessity considered, sectarian
comments would not be limited to private, voluntary meetings or services.
Reference(s): None.
CRS POC: David F. Burrelli at 7-8033.

Targeted Shaping of the Manpower Distribution of the Armed Forces
Background: The Air Force and Navy have both announced plans to reduce their manpower levels between now and 2012,
the Air Force by approximately 40,000 and the Navy by 60,000. The Army is simultaneously increasing its strength by
30,000, from 482,400 to 512,400. To facilitate this reshaping of the Armed Forces, Congress has provided a variety of tools
for the services with emphasis on voluntary separations and transfers between the services. Specifically, the Voluntary
Separation Incentive (VSI) offers a financial incentive for separation while the “Blue to Green” program encourages
transfers from the Air Force and Navy to the Army.
House (H.R. 5122)Senate (S. 2766)Conference
In Section 619, the House increases theSection 618 doubles the currentThe House receded with an amendment
incentive bonus for transfer between themaximum amount of VSI (from two tothat deletes language relating to the
services from $2,500 to $10,000 butfour times the full amount of separationexpanded use of selective early
does not address the Voluntarypay for a member who is involuntarilyretirement boards.
Separation Incentive (VSI).separated) and extends this shaping
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33571}program from Dec. 31, 2008 to Dec. 31,
^g/w 2012.
^s^.or
^le^akThis section also increases the incentive
^://wikibonus for transfer between the servicesfrom $2,500 to $10,000.
^h^ttp
Discussion: Experience from the Armed Forces drawdowns of the early and mid-1990s has demonstrated that voluntary
separation programs are preferable to involuntary programs. VSI allows the services to target overstrength ranks, years of
service, skill, rating, military specialty or competitive category to best shape the force for the future. Using the Senate
provision as an example, an Air Force captain with 10 years of service would be eligible for a maximum VSI payment of
approximately $235,000. According to Army officials, the incentive bonus to transfer to another service (Blue to Green)
has prompted 213 officer and 488 enlisted transfers since 2004, including 95 and 259, respectively, so far in FY2006.
References(s): None.
CRS POC: Charles Henning at 7-8866.

Transportation of Remains of Casualties Dying in a Theater of Combat
Operations
Background: Among the services/expenses covered “incident to death” in 10 United States Code is section 1482(a)(8):
“the Secretary concerned may pay the necessary expenses of ... [t]ransportation of the remains, and round trip transportation
and prescribed allowances for an escort of one person, to the place selected by the person designated to direct disposition
of remains or, if such a selection is not made, to a national or other cemetery which is selected by the Secretary and in which
burial of the decedent is authorized.”
House (H.R. 5122)Senate (S. 2766)Conference
Sec. 563 modifies the above language inNo reported language.Sec. 562 includes the House language
a number of ways. First, it requires aand establishes January 1, 2007, as the
uniformed escort at all times. Second, iteffective date. The Senate added
requires that the transportation oflanguage that requires the Secretary of
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33571}remains from Dover Air Force Base,Defense to prescribe regulations,
^g/wDE, to a military airfield shall be bydesignating that, when remains are
^s^.ormilitary or contracted aircraft whosetransported by aircraft, the primary
^le^akexclusive mission is the transportationmission of the military or military-
of remains. Last, in addition to thecontracted aircraft is the transportation
^://wikiabove escort, there shall be a militaryof such remains, as well as clarify the
^h^ttpescort either from Dover AFB, or at thecomposition and role of color guards.
receiving airfield. This escort, or
‘honor guard’ shall be of sufficient
number to transfer the casket to a hearse
for local transportation. This escort
shall attend the remains until delivery to
the next-of-kin. This escort shall
consist of active duty or Ready Reserve
members of the armed forces.
Discussion: This language expands the role the military performs with regard to the delivery of remains.
Reference(s): CRS Report RL32769, Military Death Benefits: Status and Proposals, by David F. Burrelli and Jennifer
R. Corwell, and CRS Report RS21545, Military Funeral Honors and Military Cemeteries, by Mari-Jana “M-J” Oboroceanu.
CRS POC: David F. Burrelli at 7-8033.

Military Pay Raise
Background: Ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, combined with recruiting challenges, continue to
highlight military pay issues. 37 U.S.C. 1009 provides a permanent formula for annual military pay raises that indexes the
raise to annual increases in the Economic Cost Index (ECI). However, for Fiscal Years 2004, 2005, and 2006, Congress
approved the raise as the ECI increase plus 0.5%. The FY2007 President’s Budget requested a 2.2% military pay raise
which is consistent with the permanent formula.
House (H.R. 5122)Senate (S. 2766)Conference
In Section 601, the House supports aIn Section 601, the Senate supports a 2.2%Section 601 increases basic pay by

2.7% across-the-board pay raise thatacross-the-board pay raise (the amount2.2 percent and, effective April 1,

would become effective on January 1,requested in the President’s Budget)2007, reforms basic pay rates for

2007. Section 602 supports aneffective January 1, 2007. Senate alsoselected grades and years of service.

additional targeted pay raise on April 1,supports a targeted April 1, 2007Section 602 increases the maximum
2007 for mid-grade and senioradditional pay raise but limited torate of basic pay for general and flag
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33571}noncommissioned officers and warrantE5/E6/E7 (junior and mid-gradeofficers to conform to the increase in
^g/wofficers. noncommissioned officers). The Senatepay cap for SES personnel.
^s^.oralso extends the military pay table to 40
^le^akyears to provide continuing longevity
^://wikiraises for the most senior officer, warrantofficer and enlisted grades.
^h^ttp
Discussion: The across-the-board raise is 2.2% with selected pay table adjustments.
Reference(s): CRS Report RL33446, Military Pay and Benefits: Key Questions and Answers, by Charles A. Henning.
CRS POC: Charles Henning at 7-8866.

Servicemembers Group Life Insurance (SGLI) Full Coverage for OIF and
OEF
Background: All servicemembers are automatically insured under SGLI for a maximum of $400,000 in coverage unless
they elect lesser coverage in $50,000 increments or cancel the coverage entirely, but doing so requires that they request this
in writing. The cost (currently $26.00 per month for full coverage) is paid by the servicemembers through payroll deduction.
The FY2006 National Defense Authorization Act required the services to reimburse the cost of the first $150,000 in
coverage elected by the member for all servicemembers serving in Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom (OIF
and OEF). In contrast to most civilian life insurance providers, SGLI pays benefits in the event of combat-related deaths.
House (H.R. 5122)Senate (S. 2766)Conference
Sec. 607 expands on the FY2006 SGLINo provision.The Senate receded with a technical
provision by requiring the services toamendment.
reimburse servicemembers serving in
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33571}OIF and OEF for all levels of coverage
^g/wunder SGLI (up to the $400,000
^s^.orma x i mu m) .
^le^ak
^://wikiDiscussion: Under H.R. 5122, while deployed to OIF or OEF, servicemembers would receive life insurance coverage upto $400,000 at no cost. The cost to the Department of Defense is estimated at $31M and would be paid from Defense
^h^ttpSupplementals.
Reference(s): CRS Report RL31334, Operations Noble Eagle, Enduring Freedom, and Iraqi Freedom: Questions and
Answers About U.S. Military Personnel, Compensation and Force Structure, by Lawrence Kapp and Charles A. Henning,
and CRS Report RL32769, Military Death Benefits: Status and Proposals, by David F. Burrelli and Jennifer R. Corwell.
CRS POC: Charles Henning at 7-8866.

Repeal of the Requirement of Reduction of Survivor Benefit Plan Annuities
(SBP) by Dependency and Indemnity Compensation
Background: The military Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) provides annuities to the survivors of military personnel and
retirees. If the military retiree was eligible to receive disability payments from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA),
that retiree’s surviving spouse would be eligible to receive VA Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC). Under
law there is a dollar-for-dollar offset to SBP for any DIC payments. Language in the Senate version of the FY2006 National
Defense Authorization Act would have eliminated this offset, but it was removed by the Conference Committee. Instead,
Congress ordered the Comptroller General to report on the actuarial soundness of the SBP (P.L. 109-163, January 6, 2006,
sec. 666.).
House (H.R. 5122)Senate (S. 2766)Conference
No reported language.Sec. 642 repeals this offset effective theNo language was reported.
first day of the first month following
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33571}enactment. This language would also
^g/wrequire a surviving spouse to repay any
^s^.orrefunded SBP premiums paid as a result
^le^akof the offset unless the Secretary of
Defense waives such repayment.
^://wiki
^h^ttpDiscussion: Congress recently repealed the disability payment offset to the military retirement pay of certain retirees. By
extension, surviving spouses have argued that it is only appropriate that they too should be allowed to receive VA DIC
benefits and military SBP payments concurrently. Critics contend that this is a form of dual compensation based on the
same period of military service.
Reference(s): CRS Report RL31664, The Military Survivor Benefit Plan: A Description of Its Provisions, by David F.
Burrelli.
CRS POC: David F. Burrelli at 7-8033.

Effective Date of “Paid-Up” Coverage under the Military Survivor Benefit
Plan (SBP)
Background: The military Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) provides annuities to the survivors of military personnel and
retirees. The SBP is funded, in part, via deductions in the retired pay of participants. In 1999, Congress reduced the cost
of SBP to certain retirees by enacting the so-called “paid-up” provision. Under this language, reductions in retired pay
made to cover the retiree’s share cease when two conditions are met: (1) the retiree reaches age 70; and (2) the retiree has
participated in the SBP for 360 months. As enacted, these provisions become effective October 1, 2008 (P.L. 105-261, 112
Stat. 2045 October 17, 1998). Language was included in the Senate version of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2006 to move the effective date of this provision to October 1, 2005. This language was dropped by the
Conference Committee (U.S. Congress, Conference Committee, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006^th^st
H.Rept. 109-360, 109 Cong., 1 Sess., H.R. 1815, December 18, 2005: 738).
House (H.R. 5122)Senate (S. 2766)Conference
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33571}No reported language.Sec. 643 would move the effective dateNo language was reported.
^g/wof the “paid-up” provision from October
^s^.or1, 2008 to October 1, 2006.
^le^ak
^://wikiDiscussion: The SBP was created on September 21, 1972. It is possible for military retirees who entered the service prior
^h^ttpto 1978 to both reach the age of 70 and participate in the SBP for 360 months but be prevented from benefitting under the
“paid-up” provision because of the October 1, 2008 effective date. As noted earlier, in the FY2006 National Defense
Authorization Act, Congress ordered the Comptroller General to report on the actuarial soundness of the SBP (P.L. 109-

163, January 6, 2006, sec. 666).

Reference(s): CRS Report RL31664, The Military Survivor Benefit Plan: A Description of Its Provisions, by David F.
Burrelli.
CRS POC: David F. Burrelli at 7-8033.

Eligibility of Certain Additional Dependent Children for Survivor Benefit
Plan (SBP) Annuities
Background: As originally created, the military Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) provided coverage for the survivors of
military retirees and those active duty personnel who were eligible to retire. Recent legislation (P.L. 107-107, 115 Stat. 1151
et seq.; December 28, 2001) has expanded the coverage to the survivors of individuals who die while on active duty and who
are not retirement-eligible, effective September 10, 2001.Under these provisions, the surviving spouses of active duty
personnel who die are provided an annuity. In 2003, Congress allowed for these benefits to be paid to the surviving children,
if any, of an active member who dies (P.L. 108-136, November 24, 2003). This provision was effective after November
23, 2003. With the children as the SBP beneficiaries, the surviving spouse avoids any offsets from the receipt of
Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) (See the sec. entitled “Survivor Benefit Plan and Veterans’ Affairs
Dependency and Indemnity Compensation”).
House (H.R. 5122)Senate (S. 2766)Conference
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33571}Sec. 645 expresses the sense of the CongressSec. 652 replaces the November 23,Sec. 644 adopts the Senate language.
^g/wthat eligibility for the surviving child in lieu2003 date with October 7, 2001. Any
^s^.orof the surviving spouse of an active memberbenefits as a result of this change are
^le^akdying while on active duty should bepayable for months after enactment of
extended to cover children of membersthis language
^://wikidying after October 7, 2001.
^h^ttp
Discussion: Survivors of those who died while serving on active duty were potentially able to increase the benefits they
received by designating their child or children, if any, as the SBP beneficiary(ies), while allowing the surviving spouse to
receive VA Dependency and Indemnity Compensation. As the result of designating the beneficiaries in this manner, it is
possible to avoid any offset of SBP as a result of receiving DIC. Survivors of those who died before November 24, 2003,
were not able to select children as an SBP beneficiary and were therefore subject to the offset. The Senate and Conference
language allow this designation back to October 7, 2001.
Reference(s): CRS Report RL31664, The Military Survivor Benefit Plan: A Description of Its Provisions, by David F.
Burrelli.
CRS POC: David F. Burrelli at 7-8033.

Expansion of Conditions for Direct Payment of Divisible Retired Pay under
the Uniformed Services’ Former Spouse Protection Act (USFSPA)
Background: Under the USFSPA, courts were given the authority to divide military retired pay as part of a divorce
proceeding. If the marriage lasted 10 years during which member served 10 years of creditable service, the Defense Finance
and Accounting Service (DFAS) had the authority to mail the court-ordered division directly to the former spouse.
House (H.R. 5122)Senate (S. 2766)Conference
No language was reported.Sec. 644 expands the authority of theNo language was reported.
Defense Finance and Accounting
Service to send court-ordered property
divisions directly to the former spouse
by removing the “10 year rule.”
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33571}Discussion: This language would eliminate the “10 year rule” and allow DFAS to make direct payments for any property
^g/wdivision that is otherwise in compliance. Retroactive payments are not allowed.
^s^.or
^le^akReference(s): CRS Report RL31663, Military Benefits for Former Spouses: Legislation and Policy Issues, by David F.
^://wikiBu rrelli.
^h^ttp
CRS POC: David F. Burrelli at 7-8033.

Authority for Cost of Living Adjustments of Retired Pay Treated as Divisible
Property
Background: Under the Uniformed Services’ Former Spouse Protection Act (USFSPA), courts are authorized to divided
military retired pay as part of a divorce proceeding. Such a division is usually stated as a percentage of disposable retired
pay or as a dollar amount. If stated as a dollar amount, the former spouse’s portion would not increase as a result of cost
of living adjustments to retired pay.
House (H.R. 5122)Senate (S. 2766)Conference
No language was reported.Sec. 645 provides that if the amount ofNo language was reported.
divisible property is expressed in
dollars, such amount may be adjusted at
the same time and in the same manner
as military retired pay subject to cost of
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33571}living adjustments.
^g/w
^s^.orDiscussion: Such a change allows courts to state the division of retired pay in dollars and to express that such amounts
^le^akbe subject to cost of living adjustments. This language does not make cost of living adjustments automatic. Changes made
^://wikiby this language apply would only to court orders that become effective after a 90-day period following the enactment ofthis language.
^h^ttp
Reference(s): CRS Report RL31663, Military Benefits for Former Spouses: Legislation and Policy Issues, by David F.
Burrelli.
CRS POC: David F. Burrelli at 7-8033.

Notice and Copy to Members of Court Orders on Payment of Retired Pay
Background: Under law, the military is required to report to the service member when the Secretary concerned receives
effective service of a court order concerning military retired pay.
House (H.R. 5122)Senate (S. 2766)Conference
No language was reported.Sec. 646 allows the service member toNo language was reported.
waive notification.
Discussion: This language would allow the member to waive notification. If enacted, members may request a copy of the
court order. This language would become effective with regard to court orders received 90 or more days after enactment.
Reference(s): CRS Report RL31663, Military Benefits for Former Spouses: Legislation and Policy Issues, by David F.
Burrelli.
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33571}
^g/wCRS POC: David F. Burrelli at 7-8033.

^s^.or
^le^ak
^://wiki
^h^ttp

Concurrent Receipt for Military Retirees with Service-Connected Disabilities
Rated as Total by Virtue of Unemployability
Background: Prior to 1999, military retirees who were eligible to receive disability payments from the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) had their retired pay reduced on a dollar-for-dollar basis by the VA disability benefits. Since that
time, language has been introduced, and in some cases enacted, that would afford these retirees additional compensation
by allowing them to receive both the VA and DoD benefits (also known as Concurrent Receipt). The FY2005 NDAA
language on concurrent receipt did not address what the Department of Veterans Affairs defines as “Individual
Unemployability,” also known as “100% Unemployables.” Instead, the law focused on military retirees with service-
connected or combat-related VA disability ratings. The FY2006 NDAA contained a partial step toward inclusion of 100%
unemployables. It authorized full concurrent receipt for 100% unemployables beginning October 1, 2009, over four years
earlier than the January 1, 2014 date in prior law (the date of full concurrent receipt for all retirees, regardless of disability
rating).
House (H.R. 5122)Senate (S. 2766)Conference
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33571}
^g/wNo reported language. Sec. 649 authorizes full concurrentNo language was reported.
^s^.orreceipt for military retirees rated as
^le^ak100% unemployable by the Department
^://wikiof Veterans Affairs effective December31, 2004.
^h^ttp
Discussion: The Senate provision (which was not accepted by the Conference Committee) would have retroactively
authorized, to December 31, 2004, concurrent receipt for those with a VA Individual Unemployability rating of 100%
regardless of the disability rating.
Reference(s): CRS Report RL33449, Military Retirement: Major Legislative Issues, by Charles A. Henning.
CRS POC: Charles Henning at 7-8866.

Tricare Coverage for Forensic Examination Following Sexual Assault or
Domestic Violence
Background: Congressional concerns regarding sexual assault and domestic violence have resulted in various legislative
proposals to address these issues.
House (H.R. 5122)Senate (S. 2766)Conference
Sec. 701 would add to the list of servicesSec. 704 contains identicalSec. 701 modifies Title 10 USC by
covered under allowable contracts for medicallanguage.adding “Forensic examinations
care for spouses and children, the following:following sexual assault or domestic
“Forensic examination following a sexualmay be provided.”
assault or domestic violence may be provided.”
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33571}Discussion: This language allows Tricare to contract with health care providers for forensic examinations for eligible
^g/wspouses and children of military personnel. What, if any, reporting requirements (e.g., police reports) would be needed to
^s^.orfacilitate payment for such contracts is not clear.
^le^ak
^://wikiReference(s): None.
^h^ttpCRS POC: David F. Burrelli at 7-8033.

Prohibition of Increases in Enrollment Fees for Tricare Prime
Background: In early 2006, DOD proposed increases in Tricare enrollment fees for retired personnel under age 65.
Legislation currently under consideration would prohibit increases in Tricare Prime enrollment fees (Tricare Prime functions
as an HMO for eligible beneficiaries). There are currently no enrollment fees for Tricare Standard (the fee-for-service
option) or Tricare Extra (the preferred provider option).
House (H.R. 5122)Senate (S. 2766)Conference
Section 704 would prohibit increases inSection 705 forbids increases in TricareSec. 704 adopts the House
premiums, deductibles, copayments andPrime enrollment fees in FY2007. The billprovision and prohibits increases
other charges during the period April 1,omits any authorization for imposingin premiums, deductibles,
2006 through December 31, 2007. enrollment fees for Tricare Standard orcopayments, and other charges
Tricare Extra. between April 1, 2006 and
September 30, 2007.
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33571}
^g/wDiscussion: DOD had requested authority to raise Tricare enrollment fees (including, for the first time, the establishment
^s^.orof fees for Tricare Standard and Tricare Extra) and copayments for retired beneficiaries not eligible for Medicare as part
^le^akof its FY2007 budget submission. The goal is to limit growth in health care spending, which is growing both in real terms
and as a percentage of the defense budget. The initiative was met with widespread opposition, in part, because of the
^://wikisubstantial fee increases involved.
^h^ttp
References: CRS Report RL33537, Military Medical Care: Questions and Answers, and CRS Report RS22402, Increases
in Tricare Costs: Background and Options for Congress, both by Richard A. Best, Jr.
CRS POC: Richard Best at 7-7607.

Limitation on Increased Tricare Premiums for Reservists
Background: The FY2005 Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 108-375) established Tricare Reserve Select (TRS), a
voluntary program for reservists returning from active duty who agree to remain in the Reserves for at least a year. TRS
currently requires monthly premiums of $81 for an individual; $253 for family coverage.
House (H.R. 5122)Senate (S. 2766)Conference
Section 709 would repeal TRS andSection 706 prohibits increases beyondSec. 706 adopts the House position,
make Tricare Standard available to all2.2% of current TRS premiums duringexpanding eligibility for Tricare
non-active duty reservists.FY2007.coverage to all Reservists and their
dependents while in a non-active duty
status based on payment of an amount
equal to 28% of monthly costs as
established by the Secretary of Defense.
Eligibility will take effect no later than
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33571}October 1, 2007.
^g/w
^s^.orDiscussion: The Senate bill would preclude any increases in TRS premiums while the House version abolishes TRS in
^le^ak
favor of opening Tricare Standard (the fee-for-service option) to all non-active duty drilling reservists. Reservists enrolling
^://wikiin Tricare Standard would pay a premium that would be 28 percent of the total amount determined to be reasonable for the
^h^ttpTricare coverage. The House position was adopted.
References: CRS Report RL33537, Military Medical Care: Questions and Answers, by Richard A. Best, Jr., and CRS
Report RL30802, Reserve Component Personnel Issues: Questions and Answers, by Lawrence Kapp.
CRS POC: Richard Best at 7-7607.

DOD Task Force on the Future of Military Health Care
Background: DOD officials, including Secretary Rumsfeld, have testified about growing costs of defense health care and
the increasing percentages of the defense budget that it is absorbing. DOD proposals in early 2006 to raise copayments and
premiums, however, generated significant opposition from the retiree community.
House (H.R. 5122)Senate (S. 2766)Conference
Section 711 would establish a DODNo comparable provision.Sec. 711 adopts the House provision
Task Force to examine and report onwith several changes to the composition
efforts needed to improve and sustainof the task force and requires an interim
Defense health care over the long term. report by May 31, 2007.
The Task Force is to consist of military
and civilian officials with experience in
health care budgetary and management
issues. DOD would be charged with
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33571}forwarding recommendations for
^g/wsustaining the military health care
^s^.orbenefit to congressional oversight
^le^akcommittees.
^://wiki
^h^ttpDiscussion: This provision reflects congressional recognition of the budgetary implications of rising costs of defense health
care, the need to provide medical care for a larger percentage of the population, and the unpopularity of increased fees that
are charged to beneficiaries. The Task Force would be free to develop recommendations that would address relevant issues
that could be forwarded to congressional committees.
References: CRS Report RL33537, Military Medical Care: Questions and Answers; and CRS Report RS22402, Increases
in Tricare Costs: Background and Options for Congress, both by Richard A. Best, Jr.
CRS POC: Richard Best at 7-7607.

Comptroller General Study and Report on the Defense Health Program
Background: DOD officials, including Secretary Rumsfeld, have testified about increasing costs of defense health care
and the increasing percentages of the defense budget that it is absorbing; the significance of cost growth is widely
understood. DOD proposals in early 2006 to raise copayments and premiums, however, generated significant opposition
from the retiree community and the larger public.
House (H.R. 5122)Senate (S. 2766)Conference
Section 713 requires that theSec. 744 requires that GAO conduct anSec. 713 requires GAO, in cooperation
Government Accountability Officeaudit of the health care costs and cost-with CBO, to prepare an audit of the
(GAO), in cooperation with thesaving measures of DOD including acosts of health care benefits to both
Congressional Budget Office (CBO),comparison of costs, to DOD and toDOD and to beneficiaries between 1995
analyze DOD’s health care costingbeneficiaries, between 1995 and 2005. and 2005. Also required is an audit of
methodologies, including an assessmentAlso required is an audit of the TricareTricare Reserve Select. A report, with
of the rates of inflation used by theReserve Select program.recommendations, is to be submitted to
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33571}Department in calculating futureCongress by June 1, 2007.
^g/wmedical costs. The resulting report is to
^s^.orbe forwarded to Congress by June 1,
^le^ak2007.
^://wiki
^h^ttpDiscussion: This study is to assess both the rationale for cost shares imposed on beneficiaries since 1995 and the future
increases that DOD has proposed. The study could provide the analytical basis for actions that Congress might consider
when addressing future defense budgets.
References: CRS Report RL33537, Military Medical Care: Questions and Answers; CRS Report RS22402, Increases in
Tricare Costs: Background and Options for Congress, both by Richard A. Best, Jr.
CRS POC: Richard Best at 7-7607.

Treatment of Tricare Retail Pharmacy Network Under Federal Procurement
of Pharmaceuticals
Background: Pharmaceuticals obtained by DOD are procured under federal pricing rules; there has been a dispute
regarding pharmaceuticals dispensed by the Tricare retail network. DOD has maintained that federal pricing rules apply;
the pharmaceutical industry disagrees. There is a pending court case.
House (H.R. 5122)Senate (S. 2766)Conference
No comparable provision. Section 721 states that the Tricare RetailNo provision was included; conferees
Pharmacy Network “shall be treated asconcluded that “prescriptions dispensed
an element of the Department ofby the Department of Defense Retail
Defense for purposes of thePharmacy Program qualify for
procurement of drugs by Federaldiscounted drug prices under [38 USC]
agencies.”section 8126.”
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33571}
^g/wDiscussion: It was argued that this provision could save an estimated $251 million in 2007. Others argue, however, that
^s^.orthe retail pharmacies are not part of the Defense Department and that treating them as government agencies is an unfair
^le^akrestriction on private enterprise. Some may have questioned the propriety of Congress legislating while there is a legal case
^://wikipending.
^h^ttpOn September 7, 2006 the House voted to instruct conferees on H.R. 5122 to agree to the provisions in section 721
of the Senate version. No provision was included by the conference committee, which maintained that prescriptions
provided by Tricare retail pharmacies already qualify for discounted drug prices under 38 USC 8126.
Reference(s): None.
CRS POC: Richard Best at 7-7607.

Retiree Tricare Coverage and Employer Health Plans
Background: Military personnel retire from active duty at a relatively young age. Many enter second careers. In 2005,
it was reported that certain states and companies were offering military retiree employees supplemental health care coverage
or other incentives if they use Tricare as their primary health care coverage. Doing so enables these second employers to
shift a portion of the cost of their employee health care to the federal government to enhance the personal benefits of
employed military retirees. This increased utilization of Tricare threatens to substantially raise military health care
spending. Traditionally, federal health care plans (including military, Veterans Affairs, Medicare and Medicaid) have been
the second payer.
House (H.R. 5122)Senate (S. 2766)Conference
Sec. 710 prohibits offeringSec. 722 provides that an employer shallSec. 707 prohibits employers from offering
financial or other incentives toprovide a military retiree employee benefitsincentives not to enroll or to terminate
make Tricare the primaryand services under the group health planenrollment under a health plan in the same
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33571}health care provider formilitary retirees, effective Jan.offered by the employer in the samemanner and to the same extent as othermanner as prohibited under section1862(b)(3)(c) of Title XVIII of the Social
^g/w1, 2008. This languagesimilarly situated employees. It prohibitsSecurity Act. It allows the Secretary of
^s^.orrequires employers to treatthe establishment of any condition (i.e.,Defense to adopt exceptions and provides the
^le^akmilitary retirees in the samebenefits or agreement) applicable toDOD Inspector General with oversight and
^://wikimanner as other similarlyparticipation in the group health plan ininvestigative authority. It provides that an
^h^ttpsituated employees. It providesterms of eligibility or benefits/services. Itemployer shall provide a military retiree
for a $5,000 penalty for eachprohibits offering incentives to not enroll inemployee benefits and services under the
violation. This restrictionor to disenroll from group health plans andgroup health plan offered by the employer in
applies to employers who haveallows for a $5,000 penalty for eachthe same manner and to the same extent as
20 or more employees. violation. This language applies toother similarly situated employees. This
Military retirees remainemployers with 20 or more employees andlanguage applies to employers with 20 or
eligible for Tricare.is effective Jan. 1, 2008.more employees and is effective Jan. 1, 2008.
Discussion: The above language would make Tricare consistent with other federal laws in that it would prohibit certain
employers from shifting military retirees from their group health plans to the federal government via Tricare.
Reference(s): Burrelli, David F., Tricare and Employer-Sponsored Incentives Offered to Military Retirees, CRS
Memorandum, June 14, 2006.
CRS POC: David F. Burrelli at 7-8033.

Disallowing Costs of Incentive Payments to Employees for Tricare
Enrollment for Federal Contractors
Background: Private employers are usually permitted to charge employee health care to the federal government as a cost
of administering contracts. Heretofore, incentives offered to military retiree employees have been included in these charges.
Secretary Rumsfeld and other DOD officials have expressed concern about civilian firms providing incentives for their
employees who are military retirees to use Tricare rather than their company’s health care plan. These incentives ultimately
result in more civilian beneficiaries using Tricare and thus drive up the overall costs of defense health care. Special
attention has focused on employers who are themselves federal contractors.
House (H.R. 5122)Senate (S. 2766)Conference
Section 721 makes unallowable asAlthough not solely pertaining toNo provision included.
federal contract costs any financial“federal contract costs,” see Sec. 722
incentives that are offered by federaldescription on page CRS-24.
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33571}contractors to their employees to enroll
^g/win Tricare instead of company-provided
^s^.orhealth care.
^le^ak
^://wikiDiscussion: DOD has viewed with concern the increasing numbers of retirees not eligible for Medicare but employed incivilian capacities who use Tricare because of financial incentives offered by their employers. This provision would address
^h^ttpthe issue in the case of employers who are federal contractors by making any such incentives unallowable as contract costs.
Some contractors may consider the provision to be an unfair restriction on their personnel policies. The conference report
noted that “the Federal Acquisition Regulation already specifies the circumstances under which repeated violations of law
may be a basis for suspension or disbarment of a Department contractor.”
References: CRS Report RS22402, Increases in Tricare Costs: Background and Options for Congress, by Richard A. Best,
Jr.
CRS POC: Richard Best at 7-7607.

National Mail-Order Pharmacy Program
Background: Beneficiaries with access to DOD health care may obtain maintenance-type medications (i.e., medications
taken regularly rather than only for a brief period) through the National Mail-Order Pharmacy (NMOP) at considerable
savings to DOD (and to themselves inasmuch as lower co-payments are required) since costs associated with retail
pharmacies are avoided.
House (H.R. 5122)Senate (S. 2766)Conference
Section 731 precludes co-payments forSection 702 requires that effective AprilThe conference report does not include
generic and formulary medications1, 2007 refills of maintenancethese provisions. The conferees direct
obtained through the NMOP. (Non-medications shall be available solelyDOD to use “a full menu of clinical
formulary agents would remain subjectthrough the NMOP (unless clinicalquality and management tools to lower
to co-payments.) Co-payments forrequirements dictate otherwise). DODdrug costs and improve quality.”
pharmaceuticals obtained through retailmay not impose co-pays or cost-sharesFurthermore, the “conferees expect that
pharmacies could not exceed $6 foron refills of generic medications orthe Department of Defense will
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33571}generics, $16 for formulary agents, andbrand-name medications that areproceed, under current authority, to
^g/w$22 for nonformulary agents. determined to be medically necessary.eliminate co-payments for generic drugs
^s^.or(Currently at retail network pharmaciesdispensed through the Tricare national
^le^akco-payments are $3 for generics, $9 formail-order program, as a minimum;
^://wikiformulary agents, and $22 fornonformulary agents.) and, in addition, expect [DOD] to movetoward providing a broad range of
^h^ttpincentives to increase the use of the
Tricare national mail-order program.”
Discussion: DOD seeks to encourage greater use of the NMOP as a means to control escalating pharmacy costs; provisions
in either bill would provide a major incentive for beneficiaries to acquire pharmaceuticals from the NMOP. Both House
and Senate would remove required co-payments for pharmaceuticals obtained from the NMOP; the Senate bill would go
further and mandate that beneficiaries obtain maintenance medications from the NMOP. Pharmacy industry representatives
criticized the provision requiring use of the NMOP as an unfair restriction on their businesses. Some beneficiaries argued
that they find retail pharmacies more convenient.
Reference(s): CRS Report RS22402, Increases in Tricare Costs: Background and Options for Congress and CRS Report
RL33537, Military Medical Care: Questions and Answers, both by Richard A. Best, Jr.
CRS POC: Richard Best at 7-7607.

Early Diagnosis/Treatment of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
Background: There has been widespread concern about the potential for personnel who have served in Afghanistan and
Iraq to suffer mental disorders subsequent to their transfer to other duty stations or their release from active duty.
House (H.R. 5122)Senate (S. 2766)Conference
No comparable provision.Section 741 would establish pilotSec. 741 adopts Senate provision with
projects to evaluate the efficacy ofmodifications.
different approaches to earlier diagnosis
and treatment of PTSD and other mental
health disorders. One project would be
carried out in a large military health
facility; another at a National Guard or
Reserve installation whose health care
needs are served by civilian community
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33571}health resources, and the third utilizing
^g/winternet-based tools. Reports by DOD
^s^.oron the pilot projects would be due to
^le^akCongress by the end of 2008.
^://wiki
^h^ttpDiscussion: There has been widespread concern that individuals who have the potential for suffering from PTSD are not
being identified and provided early treatment. This provision would evaluate different approaches to addressing this
concern.
References: CRS Report RL32961, Veterans’ Health Care Issues in the 109^th Congress, by Sidath Viranga Panangala.
CRS POC: Richard Best at 7-7607.

Extension on Limitation of Conversion of Military Medical and Dental
Positions to Civilian Positions
Background: Congress has long been skeptical of efforts by DOD to replace military medical personnel with civilian care
providers; current legislation requires a certificate by the Secretary of the relevant military department that quality or access
to care would not be decreased by any planned military-to-civilian conversion.
House (H.R. 5122)Senate (S. 2766)Conference
No comparable provision.Section 761 extends an existingSec 742 adopts the Senate position but
requirement that any proposal toexpands reporting requirements.
civilianize a military medical position
must be accompanied by a certificate
that the quality or access to care will not
decrease as a result.
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33571}
^g/wDiscussion: Current law affects only FY2006; the Senate language would establish an ongoing requirement for annual
^s^.orcertifications. The certification requirement might, however, be viewed as unnecessarily and inappropriately complicating
^le^akthe professional judgment of senior defense officials.
^://wikiReferences: None.
^h^ttp
CRS POC: Richard Best at 7-7607.

Roles for Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams
Background: Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams (WMD-CST) are units of full-time National Guard
personnel established under 10 U.S.C. 12310(c). Currently, these teams “perform duties in support of emergency
preparedness programs to prepare for or to respond to any emergency involving — (A) the use of weapons of mass
destruction...or (B) a terrorist attack or threatened terrorist attack in the United States that results, or could result, in
catastrophic loss of life or property.” In the event of an incident that fits this description, a WMD-CST is supposed to
rapidly deploy, assist civil authorities with assessing the situation, provide advice on response options, and facilitate the
flow of additional response equipment and forces.
House (H.R. 5122)Senate (S. 2766)Conference
Section 545 authorizes the use of WMD-Section 532 expands existing authority of WMD-The Senate receded; sec.
CSTs to prepare for or respond to twoCSTs to prepare for, or respond to, emergencies527 reflects the House
new categories of events — (a) theinvolving weapons of mass destruction and terroristposition.
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33571}release of nuclear, biological,radiological, or toxic or poisonousattacks to include those occurring in Canada andMexico. Authorizes the use of WMD-CSTs to
^g/wchemical materials and (b) natural orprepare for, or respond to, two new categories of
^s^.ormanmade disasters — that occur in theevents — (a) the release of nuclear, biological,
^le^akUnited States and that result in, or couldradiological, or toxic or poisonous chemical
^://wikiresult in, in catastrophic loss of life ormaterials and (b) natural or manmade disasters —
^h^ttpproperty.that occur in the United States, Canada, or Mexico
and that result in, or could result in, in catastrophic
loss of life or property.
Discussion: Some have argued that WMD-CSTs, with their sophisticated equipment, should be available to respond to
other types of emergencies as well. However, expanded authority may generate higher workloads for the limited number
of teams that exist and may necessitate a modified training regimen. The House and Senate bills are in agreement on
expanding the authority of WMD-CSTs to respond to two new types of events — manmade and natural disasters, and the
release of certain hazardous materials, which result in or could result in catastrophic loss of life or property. However, the
Senate provision enabling the teams to respond to events in Mexico and Canada has no House equivalent.
Reference(s): None.
CRS POC: Lawrence Kapp at 7-7609 or Steve Bowman at 7-7613.

Modification of Presidential Reserve Call Up Authority
Background: One of the statutory authorities for involuntarily ordering Reserve Component personnel to active duty, codified
at 10 U.S.C. 12304, is commonly referred to as Presidential Reserve Call-up authority (PRC). Currently, PRC allows the
President to activate certain reservists for a period of up to 270 days for specified purposes. However, one paragraph of the
statute (12304(c)) specifically prohibits the President from using this authority to perform “any of the functions authorized by
Chapter 15 or section 12406 of this title” (related to suppressing insurrection) or for “providing assistance to either the Federal
Government or a State in time of a serious natural or manmade disaster, accident, or catastrophe.”
House (H.R. 5122)Senate (S. 2766)Conference
Section 511 permits the use ofSection 1042 repeals 10 U.S.C.Sec. 522 permits the President to order reservists to be activated
personnel activated under 1012304(c), thereby removing thewithout their consent for 365 days. Sec. 1076 amends the
U.S.C. 12304 to respond to “aprohibition on the use of “Insurrection Act” (Chapter 15, Title 10, USC) to authorize the
serious natural or manmadereservists activated under thisPresident, as a result of natural disaster, terrorist incident, serious
disaster, accident, orauthority to suppresshealth emergency, etc., in which domestic violence occurred to
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33571}catastrophe that occurs in theinsurrection or respond tosuch an extent that the constituted authorities of the state were
^g/wUnited States, its territories anddisasters, accidents, andunable to maintain public order and the violence obstructed the
^s^.orpossessions, or Puerto Rico.” Itcatastrophes. It also amends 10execution of Federal law or impeded the execution of the laws so as
^le^akalso changes the maximumU.S.C. 333 to provide to deprive people of Constitutional rights, to use the armed forces,
length of duty under 10 U.S.C.authorization for the President toincluding the National Guard in Federal service. The President is
^://wiki12304 from 270 to 365 daysuse the armed forces to restorerequired to notify Congress of such actions. The amendment
^h^ttpand requires that considerationpublic order and enforce the lawfurther authorizes the President to direct the Secretary of Defense to
be given to several factorsin specific circumstancesprovide supplies, services and equipment in major public
before activating individuals, infollowing a natural disaster,emergencies, under certain conditions and subject to certain
order to ensure equitableepidemic, public healthrestrictions. Finally, 10 USC 12304(c)(1) is amended to exempt
sharing of the burden ofemergency, terrorist attack, orfunctions performed under the authority of the Insurrection Act and
activation.other condition.10 USC 12406 from the prohibition contained therein.
Discussion: The conference report extends the period that reservists can be activated. It modifies the “Insurrection Act”
to authorize the President to, among other things, call the reserves, including the National Guard in Federal Service, in
certain situations in which domestic violence occurred to such a degree that the constituted state authorities were unable
to maintain public order. Subject to certain restrictions, the Secretary of Defense may be ordered to provide material
support or services in such situations.
Reference(s): CRS Report RL30802, Reserve Component Personnel Issues: Questions and Answers, by Lawrence Kapp.
CRS POCs: Charles Henning at 7-8866 or Lawrence Kapp at 7-7609.

Revision in Computation of Disability Retired Pay Formula for Certain
Reserve Component Members
Background: A servicemember’s “years of service” can be an important factor in determining the amount of disability retired
pay. Under current law, the amount of disability retired pay is based on either disability rating or years of service, whichever
produces the higher payment. Years of service is calculated in accordance with the provisions of 10 U.S.C. 1208. For regular
component personnel, who are on duty every day of the year, this provision essentially awards a year of service for each year
of duty. For reserve component personnel, who usually do not serve on duty every day of the year, years of service are calculated
by a more complex formula. To simplify somewhat, the reserve formula totals up reserve training assemblies attended and days
of active duty service performed and divides by 360, to produce the number of “years of service.” Given the less than full-time
nature of normal reserve service, this means that an individual who has been serving in the reserves for 20 years may only have
four or five “years of service” as calculated by 10 U.S.C.1208. As a result, the years of service calculation will almost always
be less beneficial to a reservist than the disability rating calculation for disability retired pay.
House (H.R. 5122)Senate (S. 2766)Conference
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33571}
^g/wSection 643 authorizes “years of service” to beNo similar provisionNo language reported.
^s^.orcalculated under 10 U.S.C. 12732 for reserveConferees believed that this
^le^akcomponent members who are granted disabilityissue should be reviewed and
^://wikiretirement, or who have been placed on the temporarydisability retired list, and whose disability resulted indirected the Secretary ofDefense to submit a report by
^h^ttpthe award of a Purple Heart.February 1, 2007.
Discussion: Title 10 U.S.C. 12732 awards a “year of service” for any year in which a reserve component member earns
50 “points.” Reservists earn 15 points per year for being a member of the Selected Reserve, one point for each unit training
assembly (UTA), and one point for each day of active duty (including annual training); points can also be earned by
completing certain correspondence courses. As participating reservists typically earn more than 50 points each year, this
provision would generally have the effect of awarding a “year of service” for retired pay calculations for each year of
reserve service, provided the qualifying disability was incurred in such a manner that it merited the award of a Purple Heart
(i.e., for injuries sustained in combat).
Reference(s): CRS General Distribution Memo, Disability Benefits Provided by the Departments of Defense and Veterans
Affairs, February 18, 2005.
CRS POCs: Charles Henning at 7-8866 or Lawrence Kapp 7-7609.

Tricare Benefits for Non-Activated Members of the Selected Reserve
Background: Until quite recently, non-activated reservists had limited access to Tricare for themselves and no access for
their families. This recently began to change. The 108th Congress passed legislation allowing reservists who had served
on active duty in support of a contingency operation since September 11, 2001, and who agreed to continue serving in the
Selected Reserve, to enroll themselves and their families in Tricare Standard. The premium for this coverage was set at
28% of the cost of the coverage. The 109th Congress established two new “tiers” of eligibility — one for those who are
unemployed, ineligible for employer provided health care coverage, or self-employed (premiums set at 50% of cost), and
one for those who did not otherwise qualify (premiums set at 85% of cost) — provided the member agreed to continue
serving in the Selected Reserves. These new tiers effectively extend access to Tricare to all members of the Selected
Reserve and their family members, though at different premium levels.
House (H.R. 5122)Senate (S. 2766)Conference
Section 709 would repeal the three-tiered costSection 708 makes an “employee of aSec. 706 extends access to
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33571}share system established in the first session of the109^th Congress and instead provide Tricarebusiness with 20 or fewer employees”eligible for Tricare coverage in the 50%Tricare to all Reservists(except those eligible for
^g/wStandard coverage to nearly all non-activatedpremium category. It also lowers thehealth benefits under chapter
^s^.or
^le^akmembers of the Selected Reserve and theirpremium for those in the highest premium89 of Title 5) with the
families, with premiums set at 28% of cost.category from 85% to 75%.requirement that they pay
^://wikiHowever, reservists who are federal employees28% of the estimated
^h^ttpentitled to coverage under the Federal Employeespremiums (see above).
Health Benefits Program would not be eligible.
Discussion: The House provision would repeal the three-tier system for non-activated reservists (with premiums set at
28%, 50%, and 85%) and replace it with a single-tier system (with premiums set at 28%) for nearly all non-activated
reservists no later than October 1, 2007. The House provision would also eliminate the requirement that reservists agree
to continue serving in the Selected Reserves for a given period of time in order to qualify for this benefit; instead, eligibility
for the benefit would simply terminate upon departure from the Selected Reserve. The Senate provision would maintain
the three-tier system but add employees of small businesses to the middle-tier (i.e., those with premiums set at 50%) and
lower the premiums paid in the highest premium tier from 85% to 75% of cost.
Reference(s): CRS Report RL33537, Military Medical Care Services: Questions and Answers, by Richard A. Best, Jr.,
and CRS Report RL30802, Reserve Component Personnel Issues: Questions and Answers, by Lawrence Kapp.
CRS POCs: Lawrence Kapp at 7-7609 or Richard Best at 7-7607.

Modifying Reserve Retirement Authorities
Background: Active duty personnel are eligible for full retirement benefits, including retired pay and access to Tricare,
after 20 years of active duty, regardless of their age. Reservists are also eligible to retire after completing 20 years of
qualifying service; however, they do not receive retired pay and access to retiree health care benefits until age 60. In recent
years, a number of legislative proposals have been introduced to either eliminate the minimum age at which retired
reservists can draw retired pay and access military retiree health care benefits, to lower it to age 55 or to lower it to some
point below 60 based on the amount of active duty performed .
House (H.R. 5122)Senate (S. 2766)Conference
No similar provisionSection 653 reduces the age for receipt of retired payNo language was reported.
by three months for each aggregate of 90 days of
specified duty performed in any fiscal year after
September 11, 2001. Specified duty includes active
duty or active service under certain provisions of
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33571}Title 10 (sections 688, 12301(a), 12301(d), 12302,
^g/w12304, and 12406), Title 15 (any section), and Title
^s^.or32 (section 502(f), if responding to a national
^le^akemergency declared by the President and supported
^://wikiwith federal funds). Eligibility age for retired paycannot be reduced below age 50. Maintains age 60
^h^ttpas the minimum age for reserve retirees to access
retiree health care benefits.
Discussion: This provision is narrower in scope than some other legislative proposals, such as those that would have
lowered the age for receipt of retired pay and retiree health care benefits to 55 for all reservists. This provision would
reduce the age for receipt of retired pay for a specified population of reservists, while maintaining it at age 60 for others.
Additionally, it maintains at 60 the age at which reserve retirees can access retiree health care benefits. The reserve
population eligible to receive retired pay at a reduced age would be those who have performed active duty or active service
under the specified activation authorities since September 11, 2001. These reservists would have the age at which they can
draw retired pay drop by three months for each aggregate of 90 days of such service performed.
Reference(s): CRS Report RL30802, Reserve Component Personnel Issues: Questions and Answers, by Lawrence Kapp.
CRS POCs: Charles Henning at 7-8866 or Lawrence Kapp at 7-7609.

Role of National Guard Bureau and Status of National Guard Bureau Chief
Background: There have been long-standing tensions between the senior leadership of the military services and their
respective reserve components regarding policy and resource allocation decisions. This conflict resurfaced over the past
year with respect to several decisions that directly affected the Army and Air National Guard. In addition, the devastation
caused by Hurricane Katrina has generated great interest in revamping the way in which the federal and state governments
prepare for and respond to disasters or other catastrophic events. Modifying the role that the National Guard might play
in future events has been an area of particular area of interest, given its unique status as both a state and federal force. The
National Defense Enhancement and National Guard Empowerment Act (H.R. 5200/S. 2658), introduced in April 2006, is
one approach to these issues. It would make major changes in the role of the National Guard Bureau (NGB) and the
authority of the Chief of the National Guard Bureau (CNGB). Specifically, it would:
(1) change the NGB from a “joint bureau of the Department of the Army and the Department of the Air Force” to a “joint
activity of the Department of Defense”;
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33571}(2) modify current statutory language specifying that the NGB serve as the channel of communications between the (a) the
^g/wDepartments of the Army and Air Force and (b) the states on all matters pertaining to the National Guard, to specify that
^s^.orthe NGB will serve as the channel of communications between (a) the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and
^le^akthe commanders of the combatant commands for the United States, (b) the Departments of the Army and Air Force, and
(c) the states on all matters pertaining to the National Guard;
^://wiki
^h^ttp(3) modify current statutory language to specify that the CNGB serves as the principal advisor to the Secretary of Defense
and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on National Guard matters, in addition to the CNGB’s current duties as principal
advisor to the Secretary of the Army, Chief of Staff of the Army, Secretary of the Air Force, and Chief of Staff of the Air
Force on these matters;
(4) designate the CNGB as a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), with all the attendant duties designated in law for
members of the JCS, including the ability to attend JCS meetings and to provide advice and opinions to the President, the
Secretary of Defense, the National Security Council, and the Congress as specified by 10 U.S.C. 151;
(5) prescribe the grade of the CNGB as general (i.e., a four-star general), rather than the current grade of lieutenant general
(i.e., a 3-star general);
(6) modify the statutory authority which codifies the functions of the NGB so that the Secretary of Defense, in consultation
with the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the Air Force, is responsible for developing the NGB charter, rather
than the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the Air Force as currently specified;

(7) add a new function which the NGB charter must cover: “facilitating and coordinating with other federal agencies, and
with the several states, the use of National Guard personnel and resources for and in contingency operations, military
operations other than war, natural disasters, support of civil authorities, and other circumstances”;
(8) give the CNGB the responsibility of identifying gaps between federal and state capabilities to prepare for and respond
to emergencies, and to make recommendations to the Secretary of Defense on National Guard programs for military
assistance to civil authorities (MACA) which can address these gaps. To fulfill these duties, the legislation would require
the CNGB, in consultation with the various state Adjutants General, to assume the following responsibilities: validate
requirements of the states and territories with respect to MACA; develop training and doctrine relating to the provision of
MACA; acquire equipment and supplies for the provision of MACA; assist the Secretary of Defense in preparing budget
materials for training and equipping the National Guard for purposes of MACA and other domestic operations; administer
funds provided to the National Guard for MACA; and carry out other responsibilities related to the provision of MACA
as specified by the Secretary of Defense. In carrying out these duties, the legislation would require the Chairman of the
JCS to assist the CNGB, and require the CNGB to consult with the Secretaries of the Army and the Air Force;
(9) require that budget justification documents submitted to the Congress in support of the President’s budget specify
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33571}separate amounts for training and equipping the National Guard for MACA and other domestic operations. Require that
^g/wthe amounts specified in these documents be sufficient for the purposes of developing and implementing doctrine and
^s^.ortraining requirements, and for acquiring equipment and supplies, for such MACA and domestic operations;
^le^ak
^://wiki(10) require the Secretary of Defense, to the extent practical, to prevent any increase in National Guard personnel to address
^h^ttpadministrative or other requirements arising out of this legislation;
(11) require the CNGB to submit an annual report to Congress on (a) the requirements of the states and territories related
to MACA which the CNGB validated during the previous fiscal year, (b) those requirements for which funding will be
requested in the next budget, and (c) those requirements for which funding will not be requested in the next budget;
(12) establish within the Joint Staff an Assistant to the Chairman of the JCS for Reserve Matters, who would be an officer
of the Army Reserve, Navy Reserve, Air Force Reserve, or Marine Corps Reserve and hold the grade of major general or
rear admiral, and who would advise the Chairman on matters relating to the reserves;
(13) require the Secretary of Defense to establish guidance to ensure that, to the maximum extent practical, reserve
component officer representation on the Joint Staff is commensurate with the role of the reserve components in the total
force;

(14) state that it is the sense of Congress that whenever officers are considered for promotion to lieutenant general or vice
admiral on the active duty list, reserve component officers should are eligible for promotion to this grade should be
considered for promotion; require the Secretary of Defense to submit a proposal to Congress on how best to achieve this
objective; and require the President, when nominating any officer on the active duty list to lieutenant general or vice
admiral, to submit to Congress a certification that all reserve officers who were eligible for promotion to that grade were
considered in the nomination process; and
(15) require that the position of Deputy Commander of U.S. Northern Command be a National Guard officer eligible for
promotion to lieutenant general.
House (H.R. 5122)Senate (S. 2766)Conference
Section 594 requires the Commission onSection 932 and 933 contain some, butSec. 528 provides that the Commission
National Guard and Reserves to studynot all, of the provisions of Theon National Guard and Reserves is to
“the advisability and feasibility ofNational Defense Enhancement andsubmit its final report not later than
implementing the provisions of H.R.National Guard Empowerment Act (S.January 31, 2008. Sec. 529 includes a
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33571}5200 of the 109th Congress” and “as an2658). Section 932 has provisionsnumber of additional matters to be
^g/walternative to implementation of thevirtually identical to items 1-3, 5-7, andreviewed by the Commission, including
^s^.orprovisions of [H.R. 5200] that provide10 mentioned above. Section 932 alsoprovisions of H.R. 5200 and S. 2658,
^le^akfor the Chief of the National Guardhas a provision similar to item 8, above,the grade of the Chief of the National
Bureau to be a member of the Jointbut omits the portions related toGuard, the proposed requirement that
^://wikiChiefs of Staff and hold the grade ofacquiring equipment and supplies forthe position of Deputy Commander,
^h^ttpgeneral, the advisability and feasibilitythe provision of MACA and assistingU.S. Northern Command be filled by a
of providing for the Chief of thethe Secretary of Defense in preparingNational Guard officer, and the question
National Guard Bureau to hold thebudget materials related to MACA andof whether making the Chief of the
grade of general in the performance ofother domestic operations. Section 932National Guard Bureau the principal
the current duties of that office.”has a section similar to item 11, butadviser to the Secretary of Defense and
omits the reporting requirements relatedthe Chairman of the JCS on National
to budget content. Section 933 isGuard matters would have the effect of
virtually identical to item 15. Items 4,establishing the National Guard as a
9, and 12-14 are not included.separate service. An interim report on
these proposals is to be submitted by
March 1, 2007.
Discussion: Supporters of H.R. 5200/S.2658 — including representatives of the Adjutants General Association of the
United States and the National Guard Association of the United States — have argued that this legislation will give the
National Guard a greater and much deserved role in the national security decision-making process, thereby avoiding or

minimizing the policy and resource allocation conflicts that have occurred in the past. Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon
England recently voiced opposition to this legislation during testimony before the House Armed Services Committee (June
13, 2006, hearing on National Guard Enhancement). One of his primary objections was that the Army National Guard is
an integral part of the Army, and the Air National Guard is an integral part of the Air Force; this legislation, he argued,
could damage that relationship and lead to these organizations becoming less integrated with the Army and Air Force.
Additionally, he argued that the legislation has not been adequately studied and could have negative unforseen
consequences. The House version of the NDAA would have directed the Commission on the National Guard and Reserve
to study H.R. 5200 and an alternative proposal which would have simply elevated the CNGB to the rank of four-star
general. The Senate version of the NDAA contained a scaled-back version of S. 2658 which omitted some of the most
controversial provisions of that bill (for example, the provision making the CNGB a member of the JCS) . Nonetheless,
the Senate provisions would still have made substantial changes in the role of the NGB and the authority of the CNGB.
The Conference opted for additional study of these issues by the Commission on the National Guard and Reserve with a
final report to be submitted by early 2008.
Reference(s): None.
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33571}CRS POCs: Charles Henning at 7-8866 or Lawrence Kapp at 7-7609.

^g/w
^s^.or
^le^ak
^://wiki
^h^ttp