U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

i 

57–836 2010

[H.A.S.C. No. 111–143] 

MILITARY ASSOCIATIONS’ LEGISLATIVE 

PRIORITIES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

HEARING HELD 

MARCH 23, 2010 
(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California, Chairwoman 

VIC SNYDER, Arkansas 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam 

PATRICK J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota 

THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

JOHN C. FLEMING, Louisiana 

JOE HICKEN, Professional Staff Member 

JOHN CHAPLA, Professional Staff Member 

JAMES WEISS, Staff Assistant 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS 

2010 

Page 

HEARING: 

Tuesday, March 23, 2010, Military Associations’ Legislative Priorities ............. 1 

APPENDIX: 

Tuesday, March 23, 2010 ........................................................................................ 25 

TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 2010 

MILITARY ASSOCIATIONS’ LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Davis, Hon. Susan A., a Representative from California, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Military Personnel ........................................................................ 1 

Wilson, Hon. Joe, a Representative from South Carolina, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Military Personnel ................................................................. 2 

WITNESSES 

Barnes, Master Chief Joseph L., USN (Ret.), National Executive Director, 

The Fleet Reserve Association, and Cochairman, The Military Coalition ...... 3 

Cline, Master Sgt. Michael P., USA (Ret.), Executive Director, Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States, and President, The 

Military Coalition ................................................................................................. 4 

Holleman, Deirdre Parke, Esq., Executive Director, The Retired Enlisted Association, and Cochair, TMC Survivor Committee ............................................ 5 

Jennings, Sarah, Chief, Defense, International Affairs, and Veterans’ Affairs 

Cost Estimates Unit, Congressional Budget Office ........................................... 7 

McCloud, Margaret, Member, Gold Star Wives .................................................... 20 

Stack, Suzanne, Member, Government Relations Committee, Gold Star Wives 19 

Strobridge, Col. Steven P., USAF (Ret.), Director, Government Relations, 

Military Officers Association of America (MOAA), and Cochairman, The 

Military Coalition ................................................................................................. 6 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Davis, Hon. Susan A. ....................................................................................... 29 

Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States, presented by Master Sgt. Michael P. Cline ...................................................... 86 

Gold Star Wives of America, Inc., presented by Suzanne Stack .................. 102 

Jennings, Sarah ................................................................................................ 95 

The Fleet Reserve Association, presented by Master Chief Joseph L. 

Barnes ............................................................................................................ 76 

The Military Coalition, presented by Master Chief Joseph L. Barnes, 

Master Sgt. Michael P. Cline, Deirdre Parke Holleman, Esq., and Col. 

Steven P. Strobridge ..................................................................................... 33 

Wilson, Hon. Joe ............................................................................................... 31 
Page

IV 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Reserve Officers Association and Reserve Enlisted Association, Statement 

for the Record ................................................................................................ 113 

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.] 
(1) 

MILITARY ASSOCIATIONS’ LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL, Washington, DC, Tuesday, March 23, 2010. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:30 a.m., in room 

HVC–210, Capitol Visitor Center, Hon. Susan A. Davis (chairwoman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SUSAN A. DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA, CHAIRWOMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL 

Mrs. DAVIS. Good morning. The subcommittee will come to order. 

We want to welcome our panels here today and thank you very 

much for being with us. 

The subcommittee today will be focusing on the legislative priorities of military associations and the implications of direct spending 

on the ability of the Congress to meet these priorities. 

It has been a tradition of the subcommittee to hear from the beneficiary and the advocacy organizations at the start of the legislative season so that the subcommittee has a better understanding 

of the many issues of interest to service members and their families. Much of the testimony we will hear today will address the 

challenges—and we know there are many, many challenges—the 

challenges facing our military families, and that is an area of great 

interest to me because the evidence that has been presented to the 

subcommittee has confirmed that our military families are under 

great stress. 

As we observed last year, the current economic climate remains 

a challenge to all Americans, and our service members and their 

families are certainly not immune to its effects. It is also fair to say 

that we in the Congress are also feeling the pinch of tightening 

budgets. As such, the ability of the subcommittee to enhance and 

to reform the many important personnel programs that we review 

each year will continue to be very difficult during fiscal year 2011. 

That reality will be particularly true for health care programs and 

those initiatives that involve mandatory accounts. 

Identifying the legislative priorities of these organizations provides the members of the subcommittee a better appreciation of the 

many competing requirements and where the attention of the Congress should be targeted. Their input on a wide range of personnel 

programs and policies that impact service members, their families 

and retirees will help form this year’s National Defense Authorization Act. 
2 

I want to welcome our first panel: Master Chief Petty Officer Joseph Barnes, retired, from the U.S. Navy. He is the national Executive Director of the Fleet Reserve Association; Master Sergeant Michael Cline, U.S. Army, retired, Executive Director of the Enlisted 

Association of the National Guard of the United States; Mrs. 

Deirdre Parke Holleman, Executive Director of the Retired Enlisted 

Association; Colonel Steve Strobridge, the U.S. Air Force, retired, 

Director, Government Relations, Military Officers Association of 

America; and Ms. Sarah Jennings, the Unit Chief of Budget Analysis Division of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). 

We will also have a second panel. We want to welcome them as 

well, and they are Ms. Suzanne Stack of the Gold Star Wives and 

Ms. Margaret McCloud, also of the Gold Star Wives. We look forward to their testimony after the first panel. 

Ms. Jennings is here testifying on behalf of the Congressional 

Budget Office, which provides information and estimates required 

for the congressional budget process. 

I greatly appreciate your joining this discussion. We need you. So 

thank you so much for being here. I know you have particular insight into mandatory, entitlement and direct spending issues that 

limit Congress’ ability to provide solutions for some of the highestpriority programs we will hear about today. 

So, too, to all of you, welcome. I would ask that you testify in the 

order that I stated. And without objection, all written statements 

will be included in the record, and, Mr. Wilson, I certainly welcome 

any comments that you have. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Davis can be found in the Appendix on page 29.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOE WILSON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM 

SOUTH CAROLINA, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

MILITARY PERSONNEL 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Chairwoman Davis, for holding this 

hearing. It is important for us to hear the views of our witnesses 

on their priorities for legislative action. And I particularly appreciate that you are here. I am part of a military family. I am very 

grateful my dad served with the Flying Tigers in World War II, my 

late father-in-law received the Navy Cross for service on Okinawa 

as a Marine, and then I am very grateful my wife helped train our 

four sons and give them the opportunities and challenge of military 

service. We have got four sons in the military, three in the Army 

National Guard, one in the Navy, and two have served in Iraq. Another served in Egypt with the National Guard, and the fourth guy 

is Army Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) and simultaneous 

National Guard engineer. Additionally, I am very grateful I have 

a nephew who just is concluding his service in the Air Force this 

week serving in Iraq. And so I take very personally what you do 

and how much you mean to our country, and so I am honored to 

be here with Chairwoman Davis. 

I am especially grateful to you for honoring my request that we 

have testimony from the Gold Star Wives on the imperative that 

Congress repeal the widow’s tax, the mandated reduction of service 

survivor benefit annuities when receiving dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC). Both witnesses on the second panel have 
3 

suffered the loss of a spouse on active duty and can talk directly 

about the need for repeal. 

As many of you know, the husband of one of those witnesses, 

Maggie McCloud, was Lieutenant Colonel Trane McCloud, who was 

killed in action in Iraq. Trane was an active duty Marine and 

served as a defense legislative fellow in 2003 in the Office of the 

Second District of South Carolina. I learned firsthand of what a 

dedicated Marine Trane was and as a devoted husband and father. 

I am also glad we will be hearing from an expert from the Congressional Budget Office regarding mandatory spending and the 

pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) rules that affect how offsets to mandatory 

spending can be achieved. We need to understand those rules and 

why it is nearly impossible for Chairman Skelton and others to 

pass legislation with mandatory spending costs. 

What our CBO witness is probably not going to be able to address or explain, however, is what many of our witnesses today and 

most Americans see, and that is when House leadership deems it 

a priority, the rules can, and are set aside. Thus, for example, Congress and the President have committed to spending trillions of dollars to spend on the economy without any seeming concern for 

mandatory spending offsets. Cash for Clunkers was funded, $1 billion, in a matter of hours, with additional funding provided immediately when it ran out of money. It is my view, as I know it is 

yours, that we and our constituents must make it clear to House 

leadership that addressing the numerous concurrent receipt and 

mandatory spending issues are a priority and worthy of their support. 

Again, thank you for holding this hearing, and I look forward to 

the testimony of our witnesses. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson can be found in the Appendix on page 31.] 

Mrs. DAVIS. And please begin, Mr. Barnes. 

STATEMENT OF MASTER CHIEF JOSEPH L. BARNES, USN 

(RET.), NATIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE FLEET RESERVE ASSOCIATION, AND COCHAIRMAN, THE MILITARY COALITION 

Master Chief BARNES. Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member 

Wilson and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. The Military Coalition statement 

reflects the consensus of 34 coalition organizations on a broad 

range of important personnel issues. Four of us will address key 

issues important to the active, Guard and Reserve, retiree and survivor communities, and we will conclude with health care concerns 

which impact everyone within these groups. 

First, I thank you and the entire subcommittee and your outstanding staff for effective leadership and strong support of essential pay and benefit program enhancements. Adequate service end 

strengths are essential to success in Iraq and Afghanistan and to 

sustaining other operations. And the coalition strongly supports 

proposed Army and Navy end strengths in 2011. 

The strain of repeated deployments continues, and we are tracking disturbing indicators of the effects, which include increased use 
4 

of alcohol and drugs, more mental health care appointments, 

alarming suicide rates, plus more military divorces. Continuing 

stress can lead to serious morale, readiness, and retention challenges. 

Pay comparability remains a top priority, and the coalition 

strongly supports authorization of a 1.9 percent 2011 active duty 

pay hike. We appreciate your past support for higher-than-employment-cost-index (ECI) pay increases, which has collectively reduced 

the pay gap to 2.4 percent. Adequate funding for military recruiting 

efforts is important, and sufficient resources are essential to ensure 

continuing recruiting success despite the small percentage of recruiting-age people who qualify for military service. 

The coalition strongly supports the authorization to ship two personal vehicles in conjunction with Permanent Change of Station 

(PCS) moves, along with long overdue increases in PCS mileage 

rates. Adequate programs, facilities and support services for personnel impacted by Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) actions, 

rebasing and global repositioning is very important. And the coalition notes with concern the 19-plus percent reductions in military 

construction and family housing accounts in the 2011 budget request. 

Finally, the coalition remains committed to adequate funding to 

ensure access to the commissary benefits for all beneficiaries. This 

is an essential benefit, and the Defense Commissary Agency is to 

be commended for highly cost-effective management of 255 stores 

stores in 13 countries. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to present our recommendations. 

STATEMENT OF MASTER SGT. MICHAEL P. CLINE, USA (RET.), 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ENLISTED ASSOCIATION OF THE NATIONAL GUARD OF THE UNITED STATES, AND PRESIDENT, 

THE MILITARY COALITION 

Master Sergeant CLINE. Madam Chairwoman, distinguished 

members of the subcommittee, we thank you for allowing us to 

present the views of our National Guard and Reserve members. 

I would like to take the opportunity to thank some of your professional staff members, especially Mike Higgins and John Chapla. 

They have always been open to sit down with us and talk to us 

about our concerns. 

Currently over 142,000 Guard and Reserve members are serving 

on active duty. Since 9/11, more than 752,000 Guard and Reserve 

members have been mobilized, including well over 200,000 who 

have served multiple tours. 

Congress took the first steps in modernizing the Reserve Component Compensation System with enactment of the early retirement 

eligibility for certain reservists activated for at least 90 continuous 

days served since January 28, 2008. This change validates the 

principle that compensation should keep pace with service expectations and work as an inducement to retention and sustainment of 

the operational reserve force. 

For the near term, we have placed particular priority on authorizing early retirement credit for all qualifying post-9/11 active duty 

service performed by Guard and Reserve service members, and 
5 

eliminating the fiscal-year-specific accumulator that bars equal 

credit for members deploying equal periods during different months 

of the year. 

Congress must move forward in providing a reduced-age entitlement for retired pay and health coverage for all Reserve Component members. This is an age/service formula for outright eligibility 

if otherwise qualified at age 55. 

Further we urge repeal of the annual cap of 130 days of inactive 

duty training points that may be credited towards a Reserve retirement. We understand the financial burden, but you must also realize the burden on Operational Reserve members and their families. 

Yellow Ribbon readjustment—We urge the subcommittee to hold 

oversight hearings and to direct additional improvement in coordination, collaboration and consistency of Yellow Ribbon services. 

The Department of Defense (DOD) must ensure that state-level 

best practices such as those in Maryland, Minnesota and New 

Hampshire are applied for all Operational Reserve Force members 

and their families. 

The Guard and Reserve GI bill—We urge the subcommittee to 

work with the Veterans Affairs Committee to include title 32 Active Guard and Reserves (AGRs) in a post-9/11 statute. 

Based on the DOD and services’ 10-year record of indifference to 

the basic Selected Reserve GI bill under chapter 1606, 10 United 

States Code (USC), we recommend either restoring Reserve benefits to the 47 or 50 percent of active duty benefits or transferring 

the chapter 1606 statute from title 10 to title 38 so that it can be 

coordinated with other educational benefit programs in a 21st century GI bill architecture. 

We also support assured academic reinstatement, including guaranteed reenrollment for returning operational reservists. 

That concludes my statement. I will be happy to answer any 

questions you may have. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF DEIRDRE PARKE HOLLEMAN, ESQ., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE RETIRED ENLISTED ASSOCIATION, 

AND COCHAIR, TMC SURVIVOR COMMITTEE 

Ms. HOLLEMAN. Chairwoman Davis, Ranking Member Wilson, it 

is an honor to speak to you on our legislative goals concerning military retirees and military survivors. 

We urge you, once again, to end the unfair offset of military retired pay by Veterans Affairs (VA) disability pay. We are grateful 

for the great strides that have been made in ending this terribly 

unfair practice. There are two groups of valiant retirees who are 

not getting the relief that you ordered for the others. One group is 

those longevity retirees with VA disability of 10 to 40 percent. The 

second are those service members who were forced to medically retire with less than 20 years due to an injury or medical condition 

that is not deemed combat-related under the Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC) program. 

Both policies should be immediately ended. But the President for 

the second year has proposed in his budget to end the offset for 

medical retirees. To have the Administration propose a change that 

in the past was a goal of only you and Congress is an historic op-
6 

portunity. We strongly urge you to join the President in this laudable goal and end the offset for the medical retirees now. 

You will hear more, but it is also clearly time to finally end the 

unfair and unwise dollar-for-dollar Survivor Benefits Plan-Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (SBP–DIC) offset. SBP, as, of 

course, you all know, is an employment benefit, while DIC is an indemnity program for survivors of those who died because of their 

service in the military. Legislation to end this offset is pending in 

both Houses of Congress. Now that Senator Bill Nelson’s S. 535 has 

55 cosponsors and Representative Ortiz’s H.R. 775 has 325 cosponsors, it is clear that a majority of the Members of Congress agree 

that this offset should now end. 

There are other critical issues pending. We urge that you support 

Representative Walter Jones’ H.R. 613. It would authorize the retention of the full month’s retired pay of the last month of a retiree’s life. Presently Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) 

removes the month’s retired pay from the retiree account and returns the prorated share to the survivor. This method can cause 

confusion and even bounced checks during a tremendously tense 

and sorrowful time. This bill would stop this and treat military retirees and survivors the same way as disabled veteran survivors 

are treated concerning their disability payments. 

The Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act desperately needs improvement. While some organizations want dramatic fundamental changes, and other groups adamantly do not, it 

truly is time that we had a hearing on this emotional issue. There 

are several improvements that DOD has supported for years that 

could be passed this year. A full list of our suggestions can be 

found in our written testimony. 

Finally, we urge that DFAS be allowed to make SBP payments 

into a special needs trust. Presently they may only pay SBP to a 

person. This means that a permanently disabled survivor cannot 

make use of this state-created legal device that allows a disabled 

person to protect their eligibility for Supplemental Security Income 

(SSI), Medicaid, and state means-tested programs. 

Thank you very much for your time, and I am happy to answer 

any questions. 

Mr. Strobridge. 

STATEMENT OF COL. STEVEN P. STROBRIDGE, USAF (RET.), DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, MILITARY OFFICERS 

ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA (MOAA), AND COCHAIRMAN, THE 

MILITARY COALITION 

Colonel STROBRIDGE. Madam Chair, Congressman Wilson, distinguished members of the subcommittee, my portion of the testimony 

will focus on health care and wounded warrior issues. 

The primary issue for all beneficiaries is access, and the primary 

threat to access continues to be the perpetual threat of major cuts 

in Medicare and TRICARE payments to doctors. On national 

health reform, the principal issues are ensuring protection in military-unique health benefits and protection from taxation on the 

value of those benefits. And we are very grateful for the subcommittee’s and the full committee’s support on both of those 

needs. 
7 

On TRICARE fees, we are grateful that the Administration proposed no fee increases this year, but without congressional action, 

the TRICARE standard outpatient deductible will be increased administratively by more than $110 per day as of October 1. Last October, the subcommittee acted to stop that change in conference. 

We urge you to put a provision in law capping the outpatient deductible at the current $535 a day, which the coalition believes is 

plenty high enough. 

We also ask you to put a sense of Congress provision in the Defense Authorization Act highlighting the importance of military 

health benefits, and offsetting the adverse conditions of service, 

and recognizing that military people pay large upfront premiums 

through decades of service and sacrifice over and above their cash 

fees. 

On wounded warriors we are concerned that the change of Administration has left many senior positions vacant for more than 

a year, and that close joint oversight previously provided by top 

leaders of both departments has been delegated and diffused back 

along agency-centric lines. We urge revitalization of the Senior 

Oversight Committee or a similar joint agency staffed with senior 

officials with full-time oversight responsibilities for seamless transition. 

We appreciate the subcommittee’s effort last year to provide caregiver benefits on a par with what is provided by the VA. The Veterans Affairs Committees are now finalizing significant upgrades 

for caregivers, and we hope you will reestablish comparability of 

DOD programs once that happens. 

Regarding psychological health, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder 

(PTSD) and Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), we know there are 

many initiatives to enhance access to care and counseling and to 

remove the stigma from seeking care, but many who suffer the 

after-effects of combat continue being barred from reenlisting or 

separated for other reasons because service, disciplinary and administrative systems are less flexible and resilient than we are 

asking our troops to be. We hope the subcommittee will continue 

its efforts to protect returnees from these secondary effects of war. 

Madam Chair, that concludes my remarks. 

[The prepared statement of The Military Coalition can be found 

in the Appendix on page 33.] 

[The prepared statement of The Fleet Reserve Association can be 

found in the Appendix on page 76.] 

[The prepared statement of the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States can be found in the Appendix on 

page 86.] 

STATEMENT OF SARAH JENNINGS, CHIEF, DEFENSE, INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, AND VETERANS’ AFFAIRS COST ESTIMATES UNIT, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE 

Ms. JENNINGS. Chairwoman Davis, Congressman Wilson and 

members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the invitation to appear 

before you today to discuss the budgetary treatment of direct 

spending programs. 
8 

My statement is based on CBO’s understanding of the laws and 

rules used to enforce the budget and the agency’s experience with 

cost estimates that involve direct spending. 

Direct spending is the budget authority provided by laws other 

than appropriation acts and the outlays that result from that budget authority. Annual appropriations acts generally set specific 

amounts that can be obligated for each program in a particular 

year. The laws governing direct spending, however, usually specify 

benefit formulas and eligibility criteria that determine spending 

over time and require no further action by the Congress in future 

years. Direct spending, which is also known as mandatory spending, includes programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Military Retirement is also a mandatory program; therefore, 

any change in spending for that program caused by an authorization bill would affect direct spending. 

Proposed changes to direct spending programs receive special 

scrutiny under various budget enforcement rules. The House has a 

pay-as-you-go rule specifying that any legislation that would increase spending or decrease revenues over certain time periods is 

subject to a point of order unless such costs are offset within the 

bill. 

In addition, the Congress recently enacted the Statutory Pay-AsYou-Go Act, which automatically will reduce mandatory spending 

when legislation, on a cumulative basis over the year, would increase direct spending or reduce revenues. 

Most spending related to national defense, which totals $700 billion in fiscal year 2010, is discretionary and therefore is allocated 

annually to the Appropriations Committees. Spending for mandatory programs related to defense is mostly under the jurisdiction of 

the House and Senate Armed Service Committees. The two largest 

mandatory programs under the House Committee on Armed Services (HASC) jurisdiction are Military Retirement and Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Fund, which includes the TRICARE for Life 

program. Together those two programs pay about $60 billion in 

benefits each year. 

When a bill or amendment would increase direct spending, the 

authorizing committee has several options to offset the costs; however, each of those options has its own set of obstacles. 

First, the authorizing committee can find an offset within the direct spending programs under its jurisdiction. 

Besides Military Retirement and Retiree Health, the HASC also 

has about $3 billion in other programs under its jurisdiction, although this includes additional benefit-type programs such as benefits for disabled atomic energy workers. 

A second option would be to increase federal revenues through 

changes in tax policy. Unfortunately, the HASC does not have jurisdiction over changes to the Tax Code. Those changes are under 

the purview of the House Committee on Ways and Means and the 

Senate Committee on Finance. 

A third possibility would be to increase federal receipts through 

the sale of federal assets. Identifying such assets can be difficult, 

however, and may not produce receipts that are large enough to 

cover the benefits desired. 
9 

During the committee’s consideration of the defense authorization proposals, there are often proposals that seek to offset increases in direct spending with reductions in discretionary authorizations found elsewhere in the bill. However, such authorizations 

provide guidelines for future appropriation action, but do not result 

in spending until appropriations are provided in the annual Defense Appropriations Act, which is a separate piece of legislation. 

Consequently, reductions to amounts authorized in the authorization bill for discretionary appropriations cannot be used to offset increases in direct spending proposed in other parts of the bill for 

purposes of enforcing the congressional budget resolution or pay-asyou-go procedures. 

The House Committee on the Budget is the official scorekeeper 

for the House of Representatives and is responsible for enforcement 

of the congressional budget resolution within the House. Questions 

about spending jurisdiction, budget enforcement procedures, or options for dealing with legislation that would increase direct spending should be addressed to that committee. 

This concludes my opening statement. We have submitted a copy 

of our official statement to the committee for inclusion in the 

record. I thank you for the invitation to appear before the committee, and I will try to answer any questions you may have. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jennings can be found in the Appendix on page 95.] 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you to all of you for your presentations. 

I think that, Ms. Jennings, I appreciate your trying to lay out 

why this is such a difficult task and why the Congress has struggled with this over a number of years, despite the fact that I think 

people really would like to be able to move forward, and we have 

certainly in the number of areas, incrementally, for certain, but 

nevertheless trying to address these issues. 

Perhaps I might just start with asking you from—and I know 

that this—none of this is new to any of you; you understand the 

difficulties involved. But what would you suggest? Where do you 

think we ought to be doing as we address these very difficult 

issues? Any thoughts about how? It is not so much in the 

prioritization, I think, as much as almost the mechanics, since 

while we are authorizing, we don’t have the ability to take out a 

plane or an aircraft carrier to make this happen. And so, Colonel. 

Colonel STROBRIDGE. I think, Madam Chair, we are very—we 

empathize with the subcommittee on this. We realize the challenges that you face in trying to identify mandatory spending offsets. I think we are fortunate that at times in the past there have 

been things that have popped up unexpectedly that created opportunities. We are very appreciative about the effort last year to 

make some progress on the SBP offset as a result of some funds 

that came available from the tobacco bill. 

One of the things that the coalition prides itself on is working 

with the subcommittee and the staff, recognizing that, limited 

though it may be, any amount of mandatory spending opportunity 

that you have, we are always more than willing to try to work with 

you to identify what could be done within that amount. Obviously, 

we would love to see—as Congressman Wilson acknowledged, there 
10 

have been occasions when the rules get waived, and the rules have 

been waived, frankly, in candor, on a lot of military things, including TRICARE for Life and GI bill. So we have benefited from that 

in the past. 

I think it is disappointing that when we have things that don’t 

cost that much relatively compared to some of the other things, 

such as the Chapter 61 concurrent receipt and SBP–DIC offset, 

that we can’t find a way to address those relatively modest issues. 

And maybe it is because they affect a relatively small number that 

they don’t get the publicity for some of the bigger things, but to us 

we feel an obligation to continue making that case: The person who 

is disadvantaged significantly is no less disadvantaged because 

there is a small number of them. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Master Chief BARNES. Madam Chair, thanks for the question 

here, and, again, to reiterate, we appreciate Chairman Skelton’s 

and your leadership and the full subcommittee’s great work on pay 

and benefits. The past 10 years have been really significant in this 

arena, and it is very much appreciated. 

Just an observation about the percentage of funds that are allocated to the defense budget. During time of war, historically it has 

been much lower than at different periods in the past. The coalition 

is supporting a higher benchmark, perhaps at five percent of Gross 

Domestic Product (GDP), which relates to that. 

And regarding the challenge of prioritizing these issues, as you 

have heard the four of us summarize here, and also we appreciate 

the hearing last week on family readiness issues and speaking specifically to those challenges, but I think balancing across, we try to 

look for balance here and equity. And there are some issues that 

we are speaking to that have been inequities for significantly 

longer periods than some others. 

I would echo Steve’s comments with regard to the challenges 

with the funding and a pledge to try to work with you and help 

identify. I am not sure that I have helped much there. But I just 

wanted to clarify the fact that we are very mindful and appreciative of the pay benefit and enhancements, but also to reiterate 

the fact that the percentage of funding for DOD during a wartime 

is significantly lower than it has been in past periods of wartime. 

Master Sergeant CLINE. Madam Chairwoman, the Guard and Reserve are unique. A lot of the benefit programs that are in place 

for them, even though they have improved over the last 10 years, 

are still relics of the Cold War. And as we rely more and more on 

the Guard and Reserve to be an operational force, we have already 

been told from fairly high-ranking officers that the Guard’s mission 

in Iraq is going to continue well into the future. We will become 

the peacekeepers in Iraq. Not only that, but we have the Sinai mission, Africa, Bosnia, you name it, we are there, along with the Afghan mission. And 90 percent of the air sovereignty of the United 

States is flown by Air National Guard pilots. And if we don’t do 

something to retain these people, and as the economy gets better, 

we are going to start losing real good people. And then what is 

going to happen is recruiting and retention budgets are going to go 

up, and then we are going to have to spend $100,000 per soldier 

or airman to get them retrained. 
11 

So we have to find a balance. We have to bring the Operational 

Reserve Force into the 21st century with pay and benefits. And 

when we—when Congress gave the Reserve retirement program, 

they started it on January 28 of 2008. You said to those people that 

served from 9/11 to that time, your service doesn’t count, and yet 

you still want them to go. We have units right now in Minnesota 

that are on their fourth rotation to either Iraq, Afghanistan, or 

Bosnia, and these people are being taken away from their civilian 

jobs. They are losing their 401(k)s, putting stress on the families. 

Bankruptcy is becoming an important thing in the Guard and Reserve community. 

So things have to change. We realize it is stretching the budget, 

but it is not uncommon to see the rules waived to provide things. 

We have seen it with the GI bill. We have seen it with TRICARE 

for Life. 

Thank you. 

Ms. HOLLEMAN. To reinforce what particularly Steve has said, 

when I first had the honor to come here and start working on these 

issues, it was 1997, and I started SBP–DIC. It is good I am cheerful by nature because it just keeps coming. And people who train 

me have been working on this a great deal longer. 

We do understand the byzantine difficulties of getting through 

mandatory funding on this issue, but as Steve said, part of the 

problem is that it is a smaller group than some of the others, 

TRICARE for Life and the GI bill. But they have been massively 

disadvantaged. And as difficult as it is, and how appreciative of the 

trouble we are asking you to go through, it is only fair. It is only 

right. And these ladies have given a huge amount. 

In the great scheme of things, as Steve said, when you consider 

the hugeness of our budget, it is not the type of money that indeed 

gets almost the focus that is part of the problem. When you are 

having mandatory funding for programs that are small amounts— 

I am working on one that looks like it is $5 million in it—and before someone else—and it is completely stymying us in a different 

committee because of this. But these ladies who you will hear more 

from should be the focus, and should be the focus before the end 

of the year, before the end of the war if this is at all possible. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. I appreciate that. This is difficult, as we 

know, and I don’t hear any of you saying, well, then take it out of 

this other program; we don’t think you should have moved ahead 

with the GI bill, or we don’t think you should have done TRICARE 

for Life. So we know that those are tough issues. We will come 

back and we will talk about a few others. 

Mr. Wilson. 

Mr. WILSON. Again, thank you, Chairwoman Davis, for having 

the hearing, and I want to thank all of you. You really are making 

a difference by raising these issues. The question of the pay increase, the retirement points, the issue of the SBP–DIC offset, the 

situation with access to TRICARE. What you are doing is you are 

raising consciousness with Members of Congress, but also the public. And so I just want to thank you for what you are doing. 

And also, on retirement, Sergeant Cline, I am so grateful for the 

National Guard and its service overseas. As a former guardsman 

myself, I have never been prouder of the Guard. And when I visit— 
12 

I have been 11 times to Iraq and 9 times to Afghanistan—when I 

go, it is just startling to me to run into people and not know if they 

are active, Reserve, or Guard. And actually when I leave, sometimes somebody will point and say, he is a Guard guy or a Guard 

lady. 

And so it is just wonderful. It is so seamless except on what you 

pointed out, retirement. We note that the active duty has the 20- 

year retirement. Obviously that would be terrific if we could get 

that. But we have proposed a 25-year retirement. Then I have proposed a 25-year retirement based on 1 year for every 2 years after 

20. We did make and you all made a difference on this; that there 

is credit now for overseas deployment of 90 days, every 90-day increment after January 28, 2008. And so with that little wedge that 

has occurred, we now have a bill relative to—retroactive to 9/11. 

What is your view about retirement in general, but what we 

could do to promote recognition of the seamless nature of our 

Guard, Reserve, and active duty with retroactive to September 11, 

2001? 

Master Sergeant CLINE. I think it would go a long way in solving 

any future retention problems that we have. Every time we have 

a deployment, we have soldiers that come home, airmen that come 

home, sailors and marines that come home, and their families said, 

I have had enough, I am tired of you being gone. The employers 

are starting to get riled up. These service members are looking at 

their civilian careers, and they are saying, every time I am deployed, I am losing money out of my 401(k). I am losing part of my 

future retirement. The start in January 28, 2008, for retroactivity, 

that was a great start. Your idea of for every two years of service, 

you get a year early retirement—— 

Mr. WILSON. Over 20. 

Master Sergeant CLINE. I have been doing this for 21 years, and 

for 21 years we have been trying to get the age 55 retirement. 

Every place you go—in fact, I talked to a group of chief master sergeants yesterday, and that is the first thing out of their mouth is, 

the retroactivity or the early retirement, when are we going to see 

this? 

And unfortunately, the public doesn’t understand mandatory 

spending and discretionary spending. When they see $750 billion 

given to banks and automakers or $3 billion in three weeks to clear 

car lots, $1 trillion for health care, they don’t understand that it 

is a different pot of money. We do because we work it every day. 

We try to explain it to our members. But they are the taxpayer. 

They are the voter. They are sitting there saying, hey, I have gone, 

I have done my service, but you are not recognizing me. I have rotated twice before January 28, 2008, and you are not recognizing 

my service? It is like you are sticking them in the side with an ice 

pick. 

Mr. WILSON. You say you have been working on this 21 years. 

Your enthusiasm is infectious, and so you are not wearing out. This 

is good. And the same for Ms. Holleman. 

And I can’t imagine you have been working on these issues for 

so long, but we need to keep pressing, because last week Dr. Stanley testified that the Department of Defense continues to oppose 

the repeal of the widow’s tax, that is, the required offset between 
13 

the annuities received from the Survivor Benefit Plan and the Veterans Administration payment for the dependency and indemnity 

compensation, because repeal would, quote, ‘‘create inequity.’’ The 

inequity would be that a select group of survivors would receive 

two annuities, while survivors of most military retirements would 

receive only one. 

What do you think about this rationale? And again, I appreciate 

your active involvement. 

Ms. HOLLEMAN. Well, I don’t agree with that rationale. I was 

there when it was said, so I am not wildly surprised this moment 

about it. 

When I first started, it took me a long time to really believe that 

I understood the SBP–DIC offset. Now, perhaps this was just because I had a different non-Federal Government background. But 

the idea of offsets, these seemed to a lawyer completely different 

programs; not just different departments, but completely different 

purposes. One obviously was economic, an employee benefit, one 

that was paid for in large part, and one that we wanted to reinforce. We want people to do this. We want them to plan ahead. So 

much of the public focus now is asking people to plan ahead, trying 

to make it possible for them to take advantage of all the changes, 

or to do that, to have the retiree make those plans for protection 

of their loved ones. 

The DIC is an indemnity. That is what it says. It is not an employee benefit, it is a benefit—if you call it a benefit, it is to indemnify people for a loss. It is a totally different purpose. And I hardly 

think—I think failing to do that is what is unfair, not the other 

way around. 

May I also say just to add, so many of the improvements—and 

I will say and want to reinforce how many improvements have happened to the greater military families in the last several years, and 

we are very grateful for them. But they do go back to September 

11. Almost all of them have gone back to September 11. So may 

I reinforce Sergeant Cline’s emphasis that really the 90-day active 

duty program should at least go back to September 11? Then they 

would feel that they are being treated the same as beneficiaries in 

many other military programs. 

Colonel STROBRIDGE. Congressman Wilson, if I could just add to 

your comment about the DOD opposition. Back in 1985, the Department of Defense opposed giving dental benefits to active duty 

family members. In 2001, the Department of Defense opposed 

TRICARE for Life. Until last year the Department of Defense opposed anything on concurrent receipt. In that vein, the Department 

of Defense has been the wallet, this subcommittee has been the 

conscience. And the conscience has won over time, and I am very 

sure that at some point, just as has happened in the past—the Department of Defense now thinks family dental benefits are wonderful, TRICARE for Life is wonderful, concurrent receipt is the right 

thing to do—there will be a point in the future when they say providing dual SBP–DIC was the right thing to do, and we will try to 

forget that they ever opposed it. 

Mr. WILSON. And I agree with the calm rationale that you provide. 
14 

One final question for Colonel Strobridge, the question that we 

have about the TRICARE, and certainly Veterans of Foreign Wars 

(VFW) has been so concerned. The Senate health care reform bill 

does not explicitly define the TRICARE program as meeting the 

minimum essential coverage standard, nor does the Senate bill specifically leave the Secretary of Defense with sole control over the 

defense health program. My read is that the Secretary of Health 

and Human Services has as much control over defense federal 

health programs as does the Secretary of Defense. The White 

House in August 2009 asserted that the final health care bill would 

include these measures. Would you support efforts to make the 

final bill more explicit on both of these points? 

Colonel STROBRIDGE. Well, when the Senate bill first came out, 

sir, we identified that as a potential concern. We spent a lot of time 

talking with the Senate Budget Committee staff about it. The Senate Budget Committee staff believes that even with the current 

language, there is no way that TRICARE would ever be deemed as 

not qualifying. We said it would be very nice to make that explicit, 

would you do that? At that at that time when the Senate was passing, the rationale we got was this is the 11th hour; if we make this 

change, I have 500 people lined up saying, okay, you made this 

one, I want to make mine, too. And they assured us it would get 

taken care of. 

Now, over on the House side, as everyone very well knows, 

Chairman Skelton introduced a bill to make that explicit. We have 

learned from Senator Webb that Senator Webb has introduced an 

identical bill on the Senate side. It has gotten very strong bipartisan support. We have talked with the Budget Committee staff 

again, and they assured us that this is going to come up; it is going 

to get passed unanimously like it did in the House. 

Our view is we know that everybody in the Administration, everybody in the House, everybody in the Senate, people of both parties all want the same thing, and that is to make sure that 

TRICARE beneficiaries and VA programs are protected. We are 

happy to work with anybody and everybody to make sure that happens. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Mr. Kline. 

Mr. KLINE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Thanks to the witnesses for being here today. 

Master Sergeant Cline, I have got to work with you on the spelling of your name, but it is nice to have you with us here today. 

And I appreciate the shout-out for members of the Minnesota 

Guard. The Red Bulls have just been serving and serving and serving. And I visited with them in Bosnia, and I visited with them in 

Iraq, and they are being tasked very heavily. 

And we all know on this subcommittee and in the Armed Services Committee and, I think, mostly in Congress, we know that we 

have shrunk the size of the active forces too small, and we are 

leaning too heavily on the Reserve Component, and so you are getting those families having to go back and forth. And they are not 

on active duty except when they are mobilized, so they do have 

that challenge of moving back and forth between civilian employment and mobilization. 
15 

And I think this subcommittee and the Congress has been working pretty hard to try to make some of those adjustments—because, 

as you point out, if we are going to treat them like they are active 

duty, if we are going to treat them and use them like they are part 

of the operational force and not a strategic reserve, then we have 

to start compensating them for that. But as the discussion has 

been, we are working in a box here. 

And so, Ms. Jennings, I want to go back to you and make sure 

we are all clear about that this. Once the President’s budget has 

been submitted, and the Congress has acted and passed or deemed 

or put a budget into place, we then are—we are forced to live inside that box, because, as you say, you can’t rely on changes to discretionary spending. You can’t cancel—I am not suggesting we do 

this, by the way—we can’t cancel an aircraft carrier and suddenly 

have more personnel money. So the battle for a lot of the issues 

that you are here talking to us about needs to occur right from the 

beginning when the President submits his budget as the starting 

point. If you are going to shift that money, you have got to do it 

at that that point, and then Congress has got to make those adjustments and shift the money from education or from Health and 

Human Services or from an aircraft carrier before they get put into 

these boxes. Is that correct? 

Ms. JENNINGS. Partially. You still have the concern about direct 

spending. So even if the President requests an increase in direct 

spending program in his budget, that will not get you past the 

PAYGO rules. You will still have to find an offset somewhere. 

Mr. KLINE. Who will have to find the offset? 

Ms. JENNINGS. Whoever has proposed—— 

Mr. KLINE. If the President has prepared the budget, presumably 

he has provided the offset, because he has decided to spend more 

money on direct spending for concurrent receipt than he has for 

Health and Human Services or education or labor or something. 

Hasn’t the offset already been provided when he submits that 

budget? 

Ms. JENNINGS. In this year’s budget he submitted a proposal relating to concurrent receipt, but he did not include any offsets for 

it. 

Mr. KLINE. I understand. That budget has already been presented, so too late. That one is done, and now Congress is going 

to come forward and put forth the budget. 

But my point is that when the President submits his budget annually, when the new budget comes forward, if at that point as a 

starting point those shifts have been made, then the PAYGO, that 

unfortunate terminology, is already taken care of, and then Congress can either pass the President’s budget or make its adjustments, and then there is a budget that is provided a different box 

for this subcommittee to work in. Is that correct? 

Ms. JENNINGS. If he shifts money from a mandatory program, another mandatory program, over to these when he requests his 

budget, and the Congress enacts those changes, then, yes, that 

would take care of it. 

Mr. KLINE. Thank you. I think the people, the panel here, sort 

of know, because they have been working at this, as has been 

pointed out, for a long time, that once this subcommittee gets the 
16 

box, it is very, very difficult, and the subcommittee cannot change 

the rules. Rules can be changed, as has been pointed out, but it is 

very frustrating, I think, for many of us. And I have been on the 

Personnel Subcommittee for most of the years I have been here, 

and it is always frustrating for us to try to make adjustments and 

meet some of the requests that you have brought forth over the 

years to address survivor benefits and concurrent receipt and lowering retirement age for the Guard because it puts us out of that 

box. 

I yield back. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Kline. 

And perhaps following up with my colleagues as well, one of the 

things I didn’t ask you—and I know this is a really difficult question, and I actually don’t expect an answer from you, but I wonder 

if you have some thoughts about it without it being conclusive on 

your parts. Is there a program that you are aware of within the 

budget that you actually think perhaps is not working as it should 

and that we ought to look at? 

Colonel STROBRIDGE. Madam Chair, I think probably if that is 

aimed at mandatory spending programs, which I am presuming it 

is, I think we face the same difficulty that you do. It is very difficult to say we need to cut back on TRICARE for Life, or retirees 

deserve a smaller Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA). You can’t get 

smaller than zero, I guess, but those trading—cutting one group’s 

earned benefit to fund another group’s earned benefit is not a route 

that we think is appropriate. 

Master Chief BARNES. Madam Chairman, just an observation in 

the discussion here and the challenges we are facing, there is an 

interconnectivity among all of these benefits. And I referenced balance and the challenge. Looking at active issues compared to 

Guard/Reserve issues, retiree survivor issues, veterans issue, different oversight, whatever, but there is a connectivity with all of 

this, and it is related to service to our country. And I think that 

is an important part. 

The second point to follow on the discussions about health care, 

there is tremendous anxiety in our membership and our sister organizations’ memberships about the impact of the health care reform. There is carryover from the past based on commitments that 

were made for service to our country that were not fulfilled. That 

has been echoed here in some of the discussions on some of these 

other issues, how we are taking care of our widows and so on. The 

tremendous back and forth in using the Internet and communications, we are responding to a tremendous number of messages 

about misinformation, misunderstanding, inaccurate information 

about CBO options which have not been introduced as legislation. 

We try to be reassuring and whatever, but a very, very challenging 

time. And I just want to say that because it is related to—it is very 

timely, given everything that has been going on here with regard 

to health care reform. 

But the key aspect of the TRICARE for Life, in particular, beneficiaries and TRICARE beneficiaries, are Medicare reimbursement 

rates. I don’t want to get too far into this, but we are talking about 

a full range of issues here. And many of these issues impact everyone, and many of the issues impact certain groups and whatever. 
17 

But I will just wind up by saying there is an interconnectivity 

in here, and in looking at these with the challenges we face, I think 

it is important to keep that in mind and try to identify resources, 

the challenges, understanding the challenges and how difficult that 

is. But that is a key point, and I just wanted to, for the record, 

mention the anxiety that is out there with regard to the health 

care reform, and we appreciate the chairman’s and your leadership 

on this trying to clarify. 

Mrs. DAVIS. I appreciate that. Getting good information out 

there, accurate information is difficult. We have tried. And we are 

in a new era now where it is hard to control all the information 

that is out there for everybody, and it becomes just a massive task. 

I appreciate the fact that you are getting a lot of that, that it is 

coming your way; and I would certainly hope that we could make 

sure that the information that you have is always accurate. 

I know we had a situation that occurred just the other day where 

we had some local organizations that had no idea what their national organization was saying. Nor did they necessarily think that 

it was an appropriate message. And so we have to work with that. 

One other question along these lines. With all of you here, it is 

so difficult—and you are not vying against one another. If we were 

to find an offset, if we were to find a sizable enough offset that we 

could work with, what would you suggest among the competing 

needs that you all represent? How do you go about that? Is it better to have little pieces or a big piece with the hope that the next 

big piece comes along? 

Colonel STROBRIDGE. As you can imagine here, we are here representing 34 associations—— 

Mrs. DAVIS. Of course. 

Colonel STROBRIDGE [continuing]. Many of which have competing 

priorities. But one of the good things about the coalition is that, 

over the years, we have been able to do precisely that. If we know 

what the bogey is that we have to meet, we work together to try 

to come up with a consensus on what the right thing to do is. I 

wouldn’t presume to try to speculate what that would be now, but 

I am confident that we could get a consensus within the coalition 

on priorities to address to whatever extent the subcommittee is 

able to do that. And we have done that in the past. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Yeah. I certainly appreciate that. We really look to 

you all. You are a great resource, all of you. 

Mrs. HOLLEMAN. We certainly have done it in the past. The most 

dramatic one was starting with concurrent receipt that I was involved with, and it started with little steps and kept growing and 

we hope will continue to do so. But we are able, we have been able 

as a group to do that. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Some people would question whether we don’t just need to increase the size of the pot. I think what you are saying is increase 

the size of the defense budget or share responsibility across the 

country actually when it comes to these issues. It certainly would 

behoove all of us to feel that there is a responsibility there for everybody. And that raises the question of additional revenues, which 

you know that people don’t even want to go and enter into that discussion. It is a difficult one. But we certainly appreciate that. 
18 

One just follow-up question, and then we will go onto the next 

panel, is that you have all I think identified the problem with mental health today among the men and women who are serving and 

even among providers who are serving, the members who are serving. And I am wondering if there are any particular ideas that you 

have or that haven’t been expressed that you care to articulate 

about what your organizations might do to help contribute to our 

facing this issue as a country. 

Sergeant CLINE. I think one of the problems that we face, especially in the Guard and Reserve community, is the fact that the 

majority of our veterans returning live in rural areas and that access is not there for them. You know, they don’t live around active 

duty military bases, where they can get care easily. That is a big 

problem that faces the Guard and Reserve. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Colonel STROBRIDGE. One of the things that the Military Officers 

Association does every year is we have—for the last three years we 

have had a Wounded Warrior Forum, a day-long forum where we 

have had Members of Congress come over, congressional staffers, 

people from DOD, VA, and the private sector to talk about those 

very things. 

And I think the big challenge is, as I alluded to in my oral remarks, our systems have not caught up with the situations our 

service members and their families are facing. We have a terrible 

situation with people who are reluctant to come forward to get 

treatment because they are afraid it will affect their careers. They 

are afraid it will affect their security clearance. They are afraid it 

will affect the way their peers view them. 

We talk a lot about—the senior leaders talk a lot about 

destigmatization and how important it is, but when you get down 

to that unit and organizational level, there are a lot of impediments for that to happen. 

We are also extremely concerned that the systems aren’t talking 

to each other. After the Walter Reed problem, we get a lot of very 

senior officials involved, we had a lot of studies, and they all basically said the same thing, we need to reorient our bureaucracies. 

And this subcommittee has struggled very hard to do that. But 

even on the congressional side with the House and Senate Armed 

Services Committees, with the House and Senate Veterans Affairs 

Committees, with the Appropriations Committees, a lot of people 

have different views and a lot of people have concerns about where 

money is going to come from. And it becomes a real challenge to 

make sure not only that these programs are administered properly 

by DOD and VA, who in a lot of cases have gone back to their offices on their respective sides of the river and aren’t working together that well anymore. When you combine that with the jurisdiction issues and the funding issues, we really have a lot of people 

who are left facing a lot of well-intended programs that aren’t 

working well together. And that is a huge problem. 

To us, a big priority is to get something back like the Senior 

Oversight Committee, where you actually have some full-time people in charge of trying to make that thing work. Unfortunately, the 

Senior Oversight Committee has been marginalized at this point 
19 

and a lot of the functions have been taken back by service-specific 

people and they are not even meeting anymore. That is difficult. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. We will certainly take that under advisement. I appreciate that. 

There are a lot of programs out there, and my concern is that 

they haven’t been talking to each other as much. And it is difficult 

then to determine what is really working out there. We have to do 

a better job at that. 

Thank you all so much. We certainly appreciate your presence 

here, your candor; and we look forward to working with you on 

these really tough issues. Thank you very much. 

If the next panel could come up, I just want to ask unanimous 

consent to enter into the record the written statement of the Reserve Officers Association and the Reserve Enlisted Association, 

their statement. Thank you very much. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 113.] 

Mrs. DAVIS. Now we have Ms. Suzanne Stack, a member of the 

Gold Star Wives, and Ms. Margaret McCloud, also a member of the 

Gold Star Wives. 

I know that you have had an opportunity to participate in a 

panel by yourselves before. I guess in some ways it has been kind 

of unique. And I know that Mr. Wilson particularly requested that, 

and we look forward to your testimony. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF SUZANNE STACK, MEMBER, GOVERNMENT 

RELATIONS COMMITTEE, GOLD STAR WIVES 

Ms. STACK. Thank you so much. 

Good morning, Chairwoman Davis, Ranking Member Wilson, and 

the subcommittee members. Thank you for this very unique opportunity to come before you today. My name is Suzanne Stack, and 

I am a member of the Gold Star Wives Government Relations Committee. 

Easter Sunday, April 11th, 2004, my husband, U.S. Army Special 

Forces Sergeant Major Michael Stack, a 28-year soldier and a native South Carolinian, was involved in multiple encounters with insurgents in the Anbar Province, Iraq. The last encounter brought 

his team into direct conflict with insurgents hidden in the highway 

overpass. My husband drew fire to himself, allowing the three remaining vehicles to move to safety. An insurgent rocket-propelled 

grenade (RPG) explosion ended the fire fight, and my husband was 

dead. 

Many positive changes have occurred in military survivor benefits since I became a military widow and member of Gold Star 

Wives in 2004. But the biggest priority for the last 11 years or 

maybe longer is the elimination of the SBP/DIC offset, which affects 54,000 widows and widowers intimately. 

H.R. 775 has 325 cosponsors as of today. The offset impact often 

means these survivors can’t pay their utility bills, rent payments, 

or afford needed groceries or medication. 

An active duty Marine sergeant with 11 years in service killed 

in Iraq leaves his widow receiving an SBP annuity of $14 after the 

offset. A widow in Florida of a retired Air Force tech sergeant finds 

her SBP completely offset by the SBP/DIC offset. A Virginia widow 
20 

whose National Guard husband was killed in Afghanistan receives 

only a $4 SBP annuity due to the offset. 

A retired Air Force officer very close to me purchased SBP for 

his wife at retirement and paid into the plan for 30 years. He then 

learned that if he should die as a result of a service-connected illness, his wife would be subject to the offset. 

The offset is more often an unwelcome and unknown surprise to 

survivors receiving both SBP and DIC. 

Many solid arguments are presented in favor of the SBP/DIC offset elimination. We reference them in our written statement. However, the one most perplexing to Gold Star Wives is why 54,000 

widows and widowers remain affected by the offset when others are 

not. Children, parents, former spouses, and other designees who receive SBP do not suffer the SBP/DIC offset. Surviving federal civilian employees who receive benefits from their Federal Civil Service 

Survivor Benefit Plan and DIC do not suffer this offset. Remarried 

military widows and widowers who remarry after age 57 do not 

suffer this offset. Ms. Kozak of Jacksonville, Florida, needs to receive her SBP in full but does not want to start dating and remarry 

at age 85. 

We again bring this issue to you today and ask you to honor our 

service to this great Nation by eliminating the offset once and for 

all. Please sign the discharge petition introduced on March 15th by 

your colleague and our friend, Congressman Walter Jones of North 

Carolina. Please do not let another military widow die lacking in 

needed necessities and disappointed in our government. 

Thank you for this unique opportunity to come before you and 

share my story and others. I welcome any questions you might 

have. 

[The prepared statement of the Gold Star Wives of America can 

be found in the Appendix on page 102.] 

STATEMENT OF MARGARET MCCLOUD, MEMBER, 

GOLD STAR WIVES 

Ms. MCCLOUD. Good morning. I am Maggie McCloud, proud 

widow of Marine Lt. Col. Joseph Trane McCloud, who was killed 

in Iraq over three years ago. 

Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman, Congressman Wilson, and members of the committee for allowing us to speak to you 

today regarding our personal narrative regarding elimination of the 

offset which affects 54,000 military surviving spouses, 94 percent 

of whom are survivors of retirees who paid premiums for SBP, and 

6 percent, like me, who are survivors of active duty deaths. My 

husband paid for it with his life, the retiree paid for it with premiums, and now we are both being denied it. 

As Suzanne has said and I will echo, Congress has set precedent 

in removing offsets to military retired pay such as the penalty for 

military retirees working as federal civilians, concurrent receipt of 

disability compensation and retirement pay for severely disabled 

retirees, and the Social Security offset to SBP at age 62. 

The President’s budget restores full military retired pay to all 

other disabled retirees, and therein lies my confusion. Why can’t 

we find the money to fund this offset, one that affects 54,000 mili-
21 

tary widows, if we are able to find the money to fund these other, 

most worthy benefits? 

We are told over and over again, year after year, that the issue 

is cost, not the principle, but the reality has been that finding the 

funding has not been a priority. Elimination of this widows’ tax 

was included in the GI Bill of Rights for the 21st Century. Congress acknowledged this inequity by creating the Special Survivors 

Indemnity Allowance. Additional money was found last year with 

the tobacco legislation, small progress for which we are grateful, 

but recognition of the injustice created by the offset. 

In explaining its opposition to removal of the offset, the Office of 

the Secretary of Defense (OSD) has stated an inequity would be 

created with one select group receiving two survivor annuities. 

There are already groups receiving two benefits: widows who remarry after age 57, widows like me who forfeited their SBP annuity to their children to ensure adequate resources to raise our families now, and surviving spouses of federal civilians. 

The vast majority of military retirees did not die of their service 

but, rather, they retired and went on to have second careers. My 

husband did not enjoy the opportunity to have the second career 

and help raise his children; and the DIC should be added to, not 

subtracted from, his retirement annuity. 

As it should, the Administration has shown its strong support for 

our military members and our veterans for whom the fighting has 

ended. Well, the fighting has ended for our loved ones as well, 

whether they fought on the beaches of Normandy, the jungles of 

Vietnam, the deserts of Iraq, or the countless other places where 

brave Americans have fought and died. 

But we, their survivors, are still struggling every day. And now 

I also have to answer such questions as, mom, does it hurt to 

drown? Why couldn’t the Marines save daddy if they could save the 

others? And was I the last thing he thought of? These are the questions the families of the fallen have to face while carrying on and 

holding our families together. 

In conclusion, my family continues to support our military service members in any way we can. You need only look at my living 

room in December, when it was filled with Boy Scout popcorn to 

send to our troops, or currently the hundreds of boxes of Girl Scout 

cookies that I have yet to mail. 

It is very important to me to show our support for our military 

service members who willingly leave their families and lay their 

lives on the line every day to protect and defend our freedom. As 

a country, don’t we have the responsibility to support their survivors when they don’t come home or when they die later from that 

service? How can’t our government find the money to fix this widows’ tax? 

Thank you so very much. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you very much. 

I want to just personally, and I know on behalf of the members 

of this committee, express to you our deep, long-time condolences 

for your losses and for what that has meant to your family and 

your children. It is hard to just think about what it would have 

been for them had that not occurred, had your sacrifices not been 

felt by your family, which is the closest of all those who knew your 
22 

loved ones. And so I just want to let you know that that does make 

a great deal of difference, which is why we always appreciate the 

very articulate and passionate remarks that you bring to the committee. I want to thank you for that. 

Ms. MCCLOUD. Thank you. 

Mrs. DAVIS. I wish I could answer all those questions for you. 

They are good questions, and I think that they are ones that we 

grapple with all the time. 

I am certainly not going to ask you where you would necessarily 

cut, but we know that that is an issue. And I think there is also 

an additional issue of shared sacrifice, that I know in talking to so 

many of our families that they haven’t necessarily felt in the country. And that is an important issue that we all have to address. 

Mr. Wilson, I know you had a few specific questions. 

Mr. WILSON. I do. 

Again, thank both of you. The Gold Star Wives are such an extraordinary organization, the widows of members of our service 

who have given their lives. Every year you give us inspiration, and 

I want to join Chairwoman Davis in thanking you. 

I also have to tell you, you are making a difference getting the 

information out. The American people need to know what the widows’ tax is. Ms. Stack, you did an extraordinary job explaining the 

net. That is horrifying to think that somebody would get a $4 

check, a $14 check. 

We have a time constraint here, but I really am interested if you 

could, both of you, explain again what the Survivor Benefit Plan 

is briefly and who administers it, what its intent, and then the Dependency and Indemnity Compensation, who administers that. And 

then, without being totally specific, you take a number and then 

you subtract the number and then you come back. The American 

people need to know this. 

Ms. STACK. I will start. Thank you so much. 

It is hard to begin. The SBP is an annuity. It is something that 

is purchased at retirement when a military person does retire, and 

they make a choice to have a certain portion of their retirement income provided to their spouse if they should die. 

It also has now been opened up to active duty deaths, which is 

where both Ms. McCloud and I will fall; and we receive that same 

benefit. 

That is usually figured as a percentage. Our husbands would be 

considered 100 percent disabled at a 30-year mark. My husband 

entered the service earlier than 1980, so his retirement pay would 

be based on the last base pay that he had received. I think Ms. 

McCloud’s started after that period, so hers would be based on the 

high three. And then there is an average, and you take 75 percent 

of that and then 55 percent of that, and that is what the SBP is 

based on. 

I don’t know if that is clear. It is easier when you have a chalkboard. 

Mr. WILSON. No, no, that is good. 

And then the offset. 

Ms. STACK. Well, the SBP comes from the DOD. The DIC comes 

from the VA. 

Mr. WILSON. VA. 
23 

Ms. STACK. And for both of the two of us, we are provided the 

DIC on a flat-rate amount. Again, prior to that, it would be rankbased. And if you receive both of SBP and DIC, then you are offset 

by the—the SBP is offset by the DIC. 

For some people, as you saw in my remarks, they receive nothing. There is a great number that receive absolutely nothing, and 

that tends to be the E6 and below widows and widowers. We do 

have some widowers. And that can be very, very difficult and very 

much a hardship on their families. 

Can you think of anything I have left off? 

Ms. MCCLOUD. What I would like to add—and I appreciate your 

comment about trying to get the story out—first of all, to all the 

people from the first panel who spoke so strongly and eloquently 

on our behalf this morning, thank you so very much. 

Ms. STACK. Yes. 

Ms. MCCLOUD. The Military Coalition has been a wonderful advocate on our behalf for years now. But the fact remains as far as 

who this offset truly affects, it is 54,000 military widows, largely 

elderly women scattered across the country. And they keep telling 

me I am a young woman; I am a young widow. I have to say I feel 

like I have aged in dog years the past three years. 

So you are asking elderly ladies throughout the country who are 

in frail health themselves—they gave up so much over the years 

during their own spouses’ military careers. They followed them 

around. They gave up their opportunity frequently to work themselves and generate their own retirement income. Then their 

spouse became ill. They spent year after year after year caring for 

them at great physical cost to themselves. 

And then you have the young widow such as myself. I am not 

a whiner, but our plates are very full. We hold down jobs. We do 

the work of both parents. 

My husband was an operational officer. He was an operations officer for the Second Battalion, Third Marine Regiment, out of 

Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii. And I would like to think he would be in 

awe of the operational plan I have to have in effect every day—— 

Mr. WILSON. Yes. 

Ms. MCCLOUD [continuing]. To raise three children by myself, get 

them to school, Scouts, church, after-school requirements, band. 

For fun last week, I just had to do a wonderful father-daughter 

event with my 5-year-old daughter because I didn’t want her to be 

there alone. 

That is what we have to do. Our plates are very full. 

And then we are told Congress has agreed the benefit, in principle, this is wrong. It is simply a matter of funding, and we need 

to get the word out. Well, we are trying, but it is very discouraging 

and hard to keep coming at this year after year after year and hear 

we support you in principle, but we just can’t find the money. 

Mr. WILSON. And something—and my final point is this affects 

a family like $1,000 a month. 

Ms. MCCLOUD. Yes. 

Mr. WILSON. So raising small children or people of age, hey, that 

is a lot of money, and it can be quality of life. So thank you very 

much for being here today. 

Ms. MCCLOUD. Thank you both. 
24 

Mrs. DAVIS. I would say it is not just the dollars, as you say. It 

is also the idea that you are fighting for, and that I think that we 

certainly acknowledge and recognize. 

If you could for the record, just as I asked the other panel, if 

there are some programs, other retirement benefits, if you have 

some thoughts about where we might look and what we might do, 

we certainly welcome those. And if you would like to submit that 

for the record, we would welcome those comments as well. 

[No additional information was submitted for the record.] 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you so much. We appreciate your being here. 

We appreciate your having presented in the past. And you are 

making a difference, not just obviously for your own families, you 

are making a tremendous difference for other families. I know that 

the Gold Star Wives look to you, and they are rooting for you every 

day, and we are, too. 

Thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 10:54 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 
A P P E N D I X 

MARCH 23, 2010 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

MARCH 23, 2010 

(29) 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

MARCH 23, 2010 

(113) 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 

Æ