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 

50–055 2010

[H.A.S.C. No. 111–11] 

THE VIEWS OF MILITARY ADVOCACY AND 

BENEFICIARY GROUPS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD 

FEBRUARY 25, 2009 
(II) 

MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE 

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 

DEBRA WADA, Professional Staff Member 

JOHN CHAPLA, Professional Staff Member 

ROSELLEN KIM, Staff Assistant 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS 

2009 

Page 

HEARING: 

Wednesday, February 25, 2009, The Views of Military Advocacy and Beneficiary Groups ....................................................................................................... 1 

APPENDIX: 

Wednesday, February 25, 2009 .............................................................................. 31 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2009 

THE VIEWS OF MILITARY ADVOCACY AND BENEFICIARY GROUPS 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

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

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

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

WITNESSES 

Becker, F. Jed, Chairman, Armed Forces Marketing Council ............................. 11 

Brackett, Perri, Chairwoman, American Logistics Association ........................... 13 

Cline, Master Sgt. Michael P., USA (Ret.), Executive Director, Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States .......................................... 5 

Duffy, Col. Peter J., USA (Ret.), Deputy Director, Legislation, National Guard 

Association of the United States ......................................................................... 4 

McCloud, Margaret, Member, Gold Star Wives of America ................................. 9 

Moakler, Kathleen B., Director, Government Relations, National Military 

Family Association ............................................................................................... 7 

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

Military Officers Association of America ............................................................ 8 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Becker, F. Jed ................................................................................................... 140 

Brackett, Perri .................................................................................................. 160 

Cline, Master Sgt. Michael P., joint with Col. Steven P. Strobridge and 

Kathleen B. Moakler ..................................................................................... 55 

Davis, Hon. Susan A. ....................................................................................... 35 

Duffy, Col. Peter J. ........................................................................................... 39 

Moakler, Kathleen B. ....................................................................................... 108 

Ortiz, Hon. Solomon P., a Representative from Texas, Chairman, Readiness Subcommittee ....................................................................................... 38 

Wilson, Hon. Joe ............................................................................................... 37 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Statement of the Fleet Reserve Association on Military Personnel Policy, 

Benefits, and Compensation, February 25, 2009 ....................................... 187 
Page

IV 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD—Continued 

Statement of Gold Star Wives of America, Inc., February 25, 2009 ............ 238 

Statement of Michael H. Wysong, Director, National Security and Foreign 

Affairs, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, February 25, 

2009 ................................................................................................................ 207 

Statement of the Reserve Officers Association of the United States, February 26, 2009 ............................................................................................... 197 

Testimony of Todd Bowers, Director of Government Affairs, Iraq and 

Afghanistan Veterans of America, February 25, 2009 ............................... 217 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

[There were no Questions submitted during the hearing.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

[There were no Questions submitted post hearing.] 
(1) 

THE VIEWS OF MILITARY ADVOCACY AND BENEFICIARY 

GROUPS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE, 

Washington, DC, Wednesday, February 25, 2009. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 3:04 p.m., in room 

2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Susan A. Davis (chairwoman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

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

PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE 

Mrs. DAVIS. Good afternoon everybody. 

The hearing will come to order. I want to thank our witnesses 

today for coming. We will be focusing on the views of military advocacy and beneficiary groups. 

For the past several years, as many of you know, the subcommittee has found it beneficial to hear from a handful of beneficiary and advocacy organizations at the start of the legislative 

season on a wide range of policies that impact service members, 

their families, and retirees. 

And this approach has allowed the subcommittee to have a better 

understanding of the priorities of these organizations and where 

they stand so the members of the subcommittee gain a better appreciation of the many competing requirements that come before 

us. 

During the last Congress, the subcommittee was able to visit several of our members’ districts, and I look forward to continuing this 

new tradition and getting out to other districts in the coming year. 

These trips have also afforded us a firsthand view of the issues 

that affect our men and women in uniform. The current economic 

climate is a challenge. It is a challenge to all Americans. And our 

service members and their families are not immune to its effects. 

As such, we expect that the coming Department of Defense (DOD) 

budget will be streamlined, and finding additional funds to address 

the multitude of important personnel programs, particularly the increases in health care costs, will be even more challenging this 

year. 

More so than ever, we know that we are going to be forced to 

make difficult decisions, and it is important for the subcommittee 

to understand the priorities for service members, retirees, and their 

families when we make these decisions. 
2 

I want to welcome our witnesses today: Peter J. Duffy, Colonel, 

United States Army, retired, deputy legislative director for the National Guard Association of the United States. 

Nice to have you with us, all of you. 

Michael P. Cline, Master Sergeant, United States Army, retired, 

executive director, Enlisted Association of the National Guard of 

the United States; Ms. Kathleen B. Moakler, director, governmental relations for the National Military Family Association; 

Steve Strobridge, Colonel, United States Air Force, retired, director 

of government relations, Military Officers Association of America; 

Mr. F. Jed Becker, chairman of the Armed Forces Marketing Council; Ms. Perri Brackett, chairwoman, American Logistics Association; and Margaret McCloud, member, Gold Star Wives, also here 

testifying today, and we are delighted to have all of you. 

Let me also mention, Master Sergeant Cline, Ms. Moakler, and 

Colonel Strobridge represent their individual association, but they 

are also representing the position of the Military Coalition (TMC) 

here today. The coalition is comprised of over 30 uniformed services 

and veterans service organization (VSO). We could not have all interested individual organizations present their oral testimony, so 

we have asked these individuals to represent the coalition members 

here today. And we appreciate the fact that many of you have put 

your statements into the record, and we will certainly include 

those. 

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome. I would ask that you testify in 

the order that I stated. 

And Mr. Wilson, I wonder if you have any comments that you 

would like to add as well. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Davis can be found in the Appendix on page 35.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOE WILSON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM 

SOUTH CAROLINA, RANKING MEMBER, MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE 

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

this hearing today. 

And thank you each, as a member of today’s panel, for being here 

today. I truly appreciate your willingness to share your views on 

important issues spanning the full breadth of the subcommittee’s 

jurisdiction. This testimony will surely help to shape our legislative 

and funding priorities as we strive to improve the military personnel, health care, and morale, welfare and recreation (MWR) systems of the Department of Defense. 

I am especially grateful that we will hear today from Ms. Margaret McCloud, a Gold Star Wife whose husband, Lieutenant Colonel Trane McCloud, was killed in action in Iraq. Trane was an active duty Marine and served in our office as the Defense Legislative Fellow in 2003. Trane has been such a patriot. He was devoted 

to his country. He loved his wife and three children. I am so grateful to have Maggie here today. 

And thank you so much and God bless you. 

Also I would like to thank Chairman Davis for agreeing to my 

request that the panel include witnesses to address National Guard 

and Reserve issues. 
3 

Madam Chair, based on my review of the testimony submitted to 

us, the recommendations made by the various groups fall into two 

broad categories: one, those that are strictly policy issues that require little or no additional funding; and two, those legislative 

changes that would require additional discretionary or mandatory 

spending. 

While fiscally more difficult, many of the proposals that will 

make an immediate and positive impact on our service members 

and their families fall into the latter category. Some examples include an annual pay increase of one-half of one percent above the 

employment cost index, ECI; improving Reserve component compensation; eliminating the concurrent receipt and the Survivor 

Benefit Plan (SBP) and Dependent Indemnity Compensation (DIC) 

offsets; and prohibiting substantial increases in health care cost 

sharing. 

It has been said that a time was coming when we might not be 

able to come up with the offsets for these proposals. However, in 

today’s environment, when Congress and the President have committed to spending trillions of dollars, that is thousands of billions, 

to rescue the economy, it is my view that Congress can find the additional funding required to protect the men, the women, and their 

families who make incredible daily sacrifices in service to our Nation. 

I would urge that the subcommittee provide recommendations for 

additional mandatory spending authority to Chairman Skelton and 

Ranking Member McHugh for inclusion in the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) views and estimates letter. 

Madam Chair, I would welcome the opportunity to work with you 

in that effort. Again, I thank you for holding this hearing, and I 

look forward to the testimony of our witnesses. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson can be found in the Appendix on page 37.] 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Wilson. 

And I know that this is a difficult thing to do, but you have been 

asked to try and limit your comments to three minutes. That will 

give us more time to be sure that we have a chance to engage in 

a real discussion here, and we would like very much to do that. 

So if you could summarize your remarks and provide us with 

your top three priorities, that is helpful, too. If you don’t have it 

together in that way we will come back and ask you anyway. So 

however you choose to use those three minutes, we hope that we 

will have a chance to understand those very clearly before we leave 

here today. 

After reviewing all the written testimony, the totality of the program enhancements, the expansions and improvements that are 

being sought, the total as you can well imagine is in the billions 

of dollars both in mandatory and discretionary funding, and the reality, as you well know, is that we can’t do everything that we are 

seeking to achieve, certainly not in years past and not here. And 

we have tried to do that but we know that that is very difficult. 

So we will continue to make the kinds of improvements that you 

are here to talk about in incremental steps. To the extent we understand those better is really what we are here to do today. 
4 

We certainly can’t accommodate all the organizations who would 

like to speak and to present all of their oral testimony, but without 

objection, I would like to include in the record and ask unanimous 

consent that the testimony from the Fleet Reserve Association; the 

Reserve Officers Association; the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the 

United States; and the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America 

as well as the statement from Mr. Solomon Ortiz, the Chairman of 

the Readiness Subcommittee, be included for the record. 

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

page 38, and beginning on page 187.] 

Mrs. DAVIS. And with that, Colonel Duffy, could you please 

begin. 

STATEMENT OF COL. PETER J. DUFFY, USA (RET.), DEPUTY DIRECTOR, LEGISLATION, NATIONAL GUARD ASSOCIATION OF 

THE UNITED STATES 

Colonel DUFFY. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Thank you for this opportunity to present testimony. I will summarize. 

My three points will be related to medical readiness: one, in the 

context of premobilization medical readiness; the second, post-deployment medical readiness; and the third, mental health care as 

a readiness item both pre- and post-deployment. 

A few very brief words about the National Guard, with which I 

know you all are familiar. We are a unique component among the 

military. We are citizen soldiers. Once released from active duty, 

if we remain as members of the Selected Reserve, we go under 

Title 32 status under the command and control of the Governor 

where members of the National Guard will fight fires in California, 

ice storms in Arkansas, hurricanes in South Carolina and North 

Carolina, often with very little break time before returning to active duty. The National Guard is a community-based organization. 

I cannot amplify that or underscore that enough. 

Medical readiness needs: Currently, when the alert order comes 

out to activate a unit, our members are usually screened with the 

screening taking place ideally within about one year from the time 

of deployment. If there are medical and dental deficiencies found 

in that screening, there is no mandatory program to fix those. We 

want to mandate the Department of Defense not just to screen our 

members for medical and dental readiness but to fix any medical 

or dental deficiencies. And this should be done on an ongoing basis. 

Let me explain the concept of cross-leveling, which may sound a 

little bit unusual. If a unit of 70 persons is activated, alerted, and 

let’s say they are alerted 1 year prior to deployment, as they approach deployment, if 5 or 10 members are not fit for deployment, 

be it medical or legal reasons, other members in the state not part 

of that unit will be cross-leveled to be deployed with them. Sometimes the notice for cross-leveling can be as short as two or three 

weeks. Certainly those members do not have any adequate notice 

of the possibility of deployment to have attended to medical and 

dental needs. 

If we have full-time medical readiness, this would not be an 

issue. All members in the state National Guard would be medically 

and dentally ready if we had annual screenings and their defi-
5 

ciencies were repaired. Full-time readiness: If the Department of 

Defense is going to use the National Guard as an operational force, 

it should take care of them medically as an operational force, not 

in the staccato method that has been followed since this war began. 

Right now our members receive active duty equivalent medical 

care 90 days prior to being activated. We want this extended to the 

full alert period. 

Post deployment: The post-deployment health assessment 

(PDHA), as you may know, is administrated at the demobilization 

site. It is a self-assessment completed by the soldier or by the airman. The demobilization site is often far removed from the home 

station. For example, the Maryland National Guard had a unit that 

was demobilized in the State of Washington before returning to 

Maryland. When the member fills out the post-deployment health 

assessment it’s done subject to the instruction that if a major medical issue is cited, that member could be retained on active duty at 

the demobilization site. For a member who wants to go home, that 

member will tend to game the system and under-report or not report injuries. What this delays, of course, is diagnosis and treatment and also prejudices that member if he later files a service 

claim for a service-connected injury that was not reported. 

It is essential that the post-deployment health assessment be 

completed in a more soldier-friendly environment in the home station under the auspices of a treating health care professional. A 

treating health care professional can spot things that a self-assessing member cannot. And if geographical barriers are the inhibitor 

to full reporting on the PDHA, those would be removed if the member would be allowed to complete this at a home service station. 

It is not going to pick up everything. Some service-connected injuries will not be presented until months, maybe years, after the 

member returns, but it will produce a better yield. 

[The prepared statement of Colonel Duffy can be found in the 

Appendix on page 39.] 

Mrs. DAVIS. I know that your time is up. If we go and have an 

opportunity to hear from everybody, we will certainly come back on 

some other issue as well. 

Colonel DUFFY. Thank you. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Master Sergeant Cline. 

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

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

Sergeant CLINE. Madam Chair, Representative Wilson and members of the subcommittee, my testimony will focus on early retirement, TRICARE, Montgomery GI (MGIB) education benefits for 

Guard and Reserve. 

TMC named its top goal for the Guard and Reserve in 2009 as 

retroactivity of the early retirement eligibility. We suggest that the 

90-day rule be altered to reflect retirement year and not fiscal year 

accounting. 

The number of multiple Guard and Reserve tours since 9/11 has 

jumped to 194,466. The total number of Guard and Reserve members that have been mobilized since 9/11 has now risen to 691,086. 

Most of these tours will not count toward a reduced retirement age 
6 

for Guard and Reserve members. The TMC believes, as the Nation 

is committed to increased utilization of Reserve components and to 

maintain and retain a viable operational Reserve force, we must 

move forward to provide a reduced retirement age entitlement for 

all Reserve component members. That is an age-service formula or 

outright retirement age at age 55 to include provision for gray area 

retirees to include TRICARE access. 

Select Montgomery GI benefits: As you know the Webb GI bill 

did not include benefits for the Selected Reserve members who 

were joining. We ask that you restore basic Reserve MGIB benefits 

for initially joining the Selected Reserve to the historic benchmark 

of 47 to 50 percent of the active duty rate. We ask that you ensure 

all Reserve members utilized in post-9/11 in support of contingency 

operations or downsizing or force structure reductions in response 

to Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) are afforded the opportunity to participate in the GI bill improvements. 

Integrate Reserve and active duty MGIB laws into Title 38. 

Enact academic protections for mobilized Guard and Reserve students. 

The TMC is pleased with recent improvements in health care access for Guard and Reserve families, including implementation of 

TRICARE Reserve Select (TRS). These improvements point to congressional recognition that Guard and Reserve health care access 

must be commensurate with their increased responsibilities. We 

seek permanent legislation to allow gray area Reservists to purchase TRS health care coverage. 

Establish a moratorium on TRS premium increases and direct 

DOD to make a determined effort for the most efficient uses of resources allocated. Make DOD fiscally responsible for medical and 

dental care for Reservists, beginning with the issuance of an alert 

order and 180 days post-mobilization. 

Ensure Guard and Reserve members have adequate access and 

treatment in the DOD and Veterans Affairs (VA) health care systems for post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury 

following separation from active duty service and theater of operation. 

Allow the option of an equivalent offset to civilian plan premiums 

during activation similar to provisions of up to 24 months of Federal Employee Health Benefits (FEHB) premium coverage for mobilized Federal workers. 

Allow eligibility and continued health care benefits for Select Reservists who are voluntarily separating and subject to 

disenrollment in TRS. 

Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to present the 

views of the TMC Guard and Reserve committee. 

[The joint prepared statement of Sergeant Cline, Colonel 

Strobridge, and Ms. Moakler can be found in the Appendix on page 

55.] 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you very much. 

And we have had a call for a vote. We will try to hear maybe 

one or two more witnesses, and then we will come back. It is just 

one vote, so hopefully it won’t be too long. 

Ms. Moakler. 
7 

STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN B. MOAKLER, DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, NATIONAL MILITARY FAMILY ASSOCIATION 

Ms. MOAKLER. Madam Chairperson, Representative Wilson, and 

other members of the subcommittee, I will address issues affecting 

our service members, their families, and their survivors. 

Providing major increases in military end-strength for the Army 

and Marine Corps must continue as a top priority in order to have 

any significant prospect of easing rotation burdens. The coalition is 

disturbed by calls to reduce planned force growth as a means of 

funding weapons requirements. We also resist budget-driven rather 

than requirements-driven manpower reductions for the Air Force 

and Navy. 

We thank the committee for its sustained commitment to restoring full military pay comparability. We ask that you sustain military raises of at least .5 percent above the ECI until the current 

2.9 percent shortfall is eliminated. 

The coalition supports revised housing standards that are more 

realistic and appropriate for each pay grade. We urge the subcommittee to continue its efforts to extend the single-family detached house standard to those in grade E–8 and then to grade E– 

7 and below over several years as resources allow. 

Recently, Admiral Mike Mullen said, ‘‘The way the families are 

handling this thing is, they are just toughing it out until they get 

the relief. There is a concern about how long they can tough it out. 

We are going to have to continue to focus on that.’’ 

The TMC agrees. Focus should be on policies and programs that 

provide a firm foundation for families buffeted by the uncertainties 

of deployment and transformation. We understand that these are 

leaner times. But our families rely on these programs. We want 

sustained funding for those programs that work for families that 

are both high-tech and high-touch, reaching families of all services 

and components where they live and when they need it most. 

Families need access to behavioral health care. Counseling programs have proven beneficial. But when family members find they 

need more in-depth care, the wait for an appointment, or distance 

to a mental health provider can be a huge barrier when they need 

help the most. Improving access to mental health care for our military families needs to be a priority. 

Innovative strategies are required to address the non-availability 

of after-hours child care and respite care. The partnership between 

the services and National Association of Child Care Resource and 

Referral Agencies (NACCRRA) that provides subsidized child care 

to families who cannot access installation-based Child Development 

Centers (CDCs), including National Guard and Reserve families, 

needs to be expanded. These programs need to be sustained as part 

of the regular budget process and not just as part of supplemental 

funding. 

The elimination of the DIC offset to SBP remains a high priority 

for the TMC. We also support payment of SBP annuities for disabled survivors into a special needs trust so that they can continue 

to receive essential support services. We ask that you allow children of members who die on active duty to retain coverage under 

the active duty dependent dental plan until they age out. 
8 

TMC urges the subcommittee to authorize survivors of retired 

members to retain the final month’s retired pay for the month in 

which the retiree dies. This brings it in line with the VA disability 

payment and relieves economic complications in their time of grief. 

Thank you and I await your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Moakler can be found in the Appendix on page 108.] 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you very much. 

Colonel Strobridge, I think we have time. And then we will go 

vote and come right back. 

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

ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA 

Colonel STROBRIDGE. Madam Chair, Representative Wilson, and 

members of the subcommittee, my testimony will focus on wounded 

warriors’ health care and retirement issues. 

On wounded warriors, we need permanent authority for the Senior Oversight Committee (SOC) that will expire at the end of this 

year. We are also concerned that the transition from active duty to 

retiree TRICARE or to the VA coverage catches many wounded 

warriors and their families unaware. They need the same protections that we provide when someone dies on active duty: three 

years of continued active duty level coverage to assure a smooth 

transition. 

We urge a consistent package of training and compensation for 

wounded warriors’ full time caregivers. The services have separate 

programs in that area, and the VA offers very little, and the caregivers lose all support when the member is disability retired. We 

owe them a fairer deal. 

Regarding psychological health and Traumatic Brain Injury 

(TBI), DOD and VA are moving out on those issues, but most of 

those efforts are going to take time. As Kathy said, we have overwhelming numbers who need help now, but many have to wait 

months for appointments, and that is, frankly, not good enough. 

We need to do a better job there. 

On TRICARE fees, we hope the new Administration won’t continue the past budget efforts to raise fees and drive retirees away 

from using their earned coverage. TRICARE costs are inflated by 

unique military requirements and inefficiencies, and DOD has lots 

of options to cut costs without passing beneficiaries the bill. 

We ask you to put language in this year’s Defense Authorization 

Act expressing the sense of Congress that military people pay huge 

upfront premiums through decades of service and sacrifice over and 

above of their cash fees. We don’t think that gets enough acknowledgement. DOD surveys show that military beneficiaries are less 

satisfied with their care than most civilians are. We think the Pentagon needs to focus more on fixing TRICARE and less on trying 

to charge more for it. 

On concurrent receipt, we believe, as you know, that military retired pay is earned by service and shouldn’t be reduced for a service-caused disability. We hope that you will be able to fix a glitch 

in the combat-related special compensation law that causes some 

to lose the pay that Congress meant for them. 
9 

We are also very concerned about the REDUX retirement system and the so-called $30,000 career status bonus that entices thousands of unwary members to forfeit the hundreds of thousands of 

dollars in future retired pay. In fact, the bonus is a lifetime loan 

against future retired pay with a usurious 24 percent Annual Percentage Rate (APR) for the typical enlisted member and a 35 percent APR for the typical officer. We would be pleased to explore options with the subcommittee staff to better protect members 

against mortgaging their financial futures. 

Finally, we hope the subcommittee will not support the 10th 

Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation’s military retirement proposal which would defer receipt of full military retired pay 

until age 58 or 60 and authorize vesting at 10 years. We believe 

that a civilian-style plan is inappropriate for military service conditions. It would take money from career people to pay those who 

leave early. We think it would undermine long-term retention and 

readiness and prove disastrous in a wartime environment like today’s. 

Madam Chair, that concludes my remarks. 

[The joint prepared statement of Colonel Strobridge, Sergeant 

Cline, and Ms. Moakler can be found in the Appendix on page 55.] 

Mrs. DAVIS. I understand that we only have one vote so we 

should be able to come back—three votes. But it is the last votes 

for the day. So that is a good thing. We will be back. Thank you. 

Actually, it is three votes. It could be, if you need to go get something to eat, at least a half-hour, 45 minutes. I hate for you all to 

have to wait through that, but there is no other way. Thank you 

very much for your patience. 

[Recess.] 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you for your patience, everybody. We are now 

going to resume. 

Ms. McCloud, we look forward to your testimony. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF MARGARET MCCLOUD, MEMBER, 

GOLD STAR WIVES OF AMERICA 

Ms. MCCLOUD. My name is Maggie McCloud. The last time I was 

in this room was last year when the Marines posthumously presented me with my husband’s Bronze Star Award. I am the proud 

widow of Marine Lieutenant Colonel Joseph Trane McCloud. Trane 

died on December 4, 2006, when his helicopter crashed at Haditha 

Dam in the al-Anbar province of Iraq. When he died, our three children were two, five and seven. 

Thank you so much for the opportunity to be here today. 

Thank you, Congressman Wilson, for the friendship and support 

you have shown my family since Trane’s death. I will always be 

grateful. 

Chairwoman Davis, I have met with you before, and I appreciate 

all that you have done and continue to do for our military families 

and survivors. 

I have also met with Congressman Jones, and he has been a 

loyal friend. 

The reason I am here today is to talk about the Military Surviving Spouses Equity Act, H.R. 775, recently introduced by Congressmen Solomon Ortiz and Henry Brown, which eliminates the 
10 

unjust offset of the Survivor Benefit Plan by Dependent Indemnity 

Compensation. This legislation currently has 136 cosponsors. Eleven of the sixteen members of this subcommittee have cosponsored. 

Thank you. 

By law, SBP is offset dollar for dollar by DIC. DIC is an indemnity payment paid by the Department of Veterans Affairs to the 

surviving spouse for a service-related death. SBP is an annuity 

purchased by the retired military service member and provided to 

the spouse of active-duty deaths. 

Approximately seven percent of the 54,000 SBP/DIC surviving 

spouses became eligible through active-duty death. The remaining 

93 percent are survivors of disabled retirees who paid premiums to 

ensure that their families receive a continued portion of the earned 

lifetime retired pay upon their death. The retiree paid for it, and 

now their spouse is being denied it. 

DIC is a reparation; SBP is a retirement. They are distinct and 

separate things. There is no reason that receiving one should offset 

the other. But that is exactly what happens. 

Shortly after Trane died, I sat the kids down and I made them 

a promise. I told them that our lives without daddy would certainly 

be different. How could it not be? He was the most amazing husband, the most amazing father, and he is now gone from our lives. 

But I promised them that although our lives would be different, 

they would still be good—different, but good. 

Trane did his job willingly. He served his Nation, he did it well, 

and he gave his life doing it. He did his job, and I will do mine: 

live a good life and raise our children well. 

Shortly after burying my husband at Arlington, I was faced with 

a decision, the same decision that all surviving spouses with young 

children have to make: whether to accept the child option and receive the full SBP payment without offset of DIC only until the 

youngest child reaches the age of majority, or receive a decreased 

SBP payment to me for life. 

Military widows of nonservice-related deaths are not forced to 

make this same choice. They receive the full SBP and any other 

survivor benefits their husband may have earned post-military retirement. 

My children have already suffered an unimaginable loss, and I 

did not want to compound that loss further by greater financial 

hardship during their youth. So I, like most other widows with 

young children, took the child option. When I made that decision, 

I didn’t fully understand the short- and long-term consequences. I 

will never regret trying to secure my children’s financial future, 

but, in doing so, I sacrificed mine, and that is an injustice. 

No amount of money will make up for the loss of Trane or any 

of our service men or women. All of us would give anything for 

them to come home from that last deployment. But these men and 

women went willingly to serve their country. They knew the risk, 

and they took it. They took it because they know the job at hand 

is of paramount importance to our country and to generations of future Americans to keep us safe and secure. They took it for us, and 

they asked very little of us. 

I, like all of you, am grateful that there continue to be young 

men and women who rise to the call of duty to preserve our call 
11 

of freedom. We, as a country, need to honor our obligations to them 

and their surviving spouses. That means paying the retirement 

benefit that is rightfully theirs, either because they paid premiums 

for it after retiring from service or they paid for it with their lives. 

The dead and the disabled are a consequence of this war. Providing for the well-being of the surviving families of these American heroes is a cost of war. If we can find the money to fund this 

war, if we can find the money to continue funding supplementals 

for this war, we must find the money to fulfill our obligations to 

our military families whose service member paid the ultimate price 

for this country. 

Respectfully, and in conclusion, this issue has been before Congress for years. Congress has eliminated other offsets to retired pay 

and survivor benefits. Why does this offset remain? 

If our voice isn’t loud, it is only because we have been silenced 

by our grief. So let me say in the memory of those that have fallen 

and in the name of the families left behind, please right this 

wrong. Find the funding to eliminate this egregious offset and restore the rightful benefit of retired pay to the surviving spouses of 

the men and women who have died in service to our country. 

They gave their last full measure. The least Congress can do is 

give them what they have earned. Give them the peace of knowing 

that their loved ones are cared for. Please pass H.R. 775. 

Thank you so much for the opportunity to be here today. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you for your testimony. And I know I speak 

for all of my colleagues when we express our condolences to you, 

your family, and to everybody who is here today as well. I know 

we have a lot of Gold Star Wives in attendance, and we appreciate 

the fact that you have taken your grief and advocated for other 

military families. 

Ms. MCCLOUD. Thank you. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Mr. Becker. 

STATEMENT OF F. JED BECKER, CHAIRMAN, ARMED FORCES 

MARKETING COUNCIL 

Mr. BECKER. Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chairwoman 

and distinguished members of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel. My name is Jed Becker, and I am chairman of the Armed 

Forces Marketing Council. Thank you for inviting me here today to 

offer comments regarding the military resale services and the vital 

role they serve in supporting the quality of life of our service members and their families. 

Madam Chairwoman, the Council strives to do its part to assure 

the continuation of the military resale system and the value it provides to our service members and their families. We hope the information and perspectives presented here will be useful in your review of military resale activities. 

Given the current economic environment and the challenges it 

presents, we believe it more important than ever that your oversight fully recognizes the exceptional value of the resale benefit for 

our military families. 

American taxpayers and their elected representatives can share 

pride in the fact that dollars appropriated to support this benefit 

produce a savings and a value that far outweigh the cost. In 2008, 
12 

the Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA) produced savings for military families of $2.5 billion; this at a cost of $1.3 billion. Stated another way, every dollar appropriated for the commissary provides 

nearly $2 in benefits for military families. That is an extraordinary 

return on investment that cannot readily be found in the Federal 

Government. 

The high-value proposition of the benefit is true for the exchange 

systems as well, which provide an average savings of 20 to 25 percent. 

In the interest of time, I would like to make note of a couple of 

items that are a bit out of the mainstream but threatening to resale benefit as we look forward. We seek your support of H.R. 257, 

calling for the repeal of a three percent withholding on payments 

made to vendors by government entities. 

In 2005, Congress passed and President Bush signed into law 

H.R. 4297, the Tax Reconciliation Act of 2005. This legislation included a provision, section 511, which mandates that federal, state, 

and local governments withhold three percent from their payments 

to their goods and service suppliers. It is our desire that section 

511 be repealed, which is the intent of H.R. 275, a bill sponsored 

by Representative Kendrick Meeks. 

Although this legislation does not fall under the jurisdiction of 

this subcommittee, the implementation of this section 511 would 

have a significant destructive effect on the military benefit. 

Another item that I would like to make note of is the price parity 

on tobacco products sold in commissaries and exchanges. It has 

come to the Council’s attention that there is a move to further raise 

the price of tobacco products sold in the military resale system by 

five percent, to match the prices on those items in the civilian marketplace, a policy being termed ‘‘price parity.’’ 

While we are sensitive toward the intentions behind this initiative, we are very concerned about establishing noncompetitive pricing structures for selected products sold in the resale system. It is 

our belief that the pricing structure should remain consistent for 

all products sold in the resale system to maintain the integrity of 

the benefit. The imposition of noncommercial pricing programs is 

nothing less than a tax on these products, which will diminish the 

value of the resale benefit. 

In conclusion, I would like to thank you again, Madam Chairwoman and the members of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel, for the opportunity to appear before you here today and 

your attention and consideration of the Armed Forces Marketing 

Council’s opinions. We appreciate your interest in assuring the best 

for our troops. I stand ready to receive your questions. 

And can’t help but to make note that there are others at the 

table who are facing challenges that deserve a great deal of your 

time. In the case of the areas that we are focused on, you have 

achieved a great deal. Our pursuit is having you maintain those 

great successes. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Becker can be found in the Appendix on page 140.] 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Ms. Brackett. 
13 

STATEMENT OF PERRI BRACKETT, CHAIRWOMAN, AMERICAN 

LOGISTICS ASSOCIATION 

Ms. BRACKETT. Madam Chair and distinguished members of the 

subcommittee, it is an honor to be here today as chair of the American Logistics Association (ALA). These are extraordinary times for 

our Nation’s economy, military, and our veterans. The challenges 

are unprecedented, and it is important that our military remain 

strong and viable. 

ALA member organizations are a strong force in our national 

economy supporting the military. Collectively, our member companies contribute nearly $1.2 trillion to the economy and generate 

millions of jobs for Americans. The contribution is large overseas, 

where $4 billion in U.S. products are sold to our patrons, funds 

that would otherwise flow to foreign economies. The MWR and resale system generates over $18 billion in sales and $500 million in earnings that directly contribute to the qualityof-life program. MWR provides 120,000 jobs. A large percentage of 

these jobs are held by military family members. Goods and services 

purchased by the resale system generate thousands of jobs in communities adjacent to military bases, with a large percentage of 

these businesses being smaller and independently owned. 

It is a formula that works, and the House Armed Services Committee’s strong perennial support has laid the groundwork for the 

system to prosper and rise to meet the challenges in these tough 

times. Your investment is paying off each and every day in savings 

and jobs. 

We urge you to continue your support for funding of commissaries, shipment of American products to overseas bases, and 

full support for all authorized categories of morale, welfare, and 

recreation programs. 

Continue your support and authorization for construction funding of bases that are expanding as a result of global restationing 

and BRAC. 

Ensure that industry representatives and authorized patrons 

have unimpeded and secure access to military installations. 

Extend commissary and exchange benefits to 30 percent disabled 

veterans. Extend commissary and exchange benefits to all military, 

particularly those who are involved in the global war on terror, for 

three years following their service to allow them to succeed in 

tough times. 

Correct a longstanding injustice by relieving non-appropriated 

funds of the burden to pay for cost-of-living allowances for U.S. citizens choosing to live abroad. Congress needs to allow the services 

to use prior-year funds to pay this cost. 

Repeal the provisions of the Tax Increase and Prevention Reconciliation Act of 2005, requiring Federal Government entities to 

withhold three percent of payments due to vendors providing goods 

and services to the Federal Government. 

In closing, we are proud to be an important part of the quality 

of life equation. You can be proud of the system that you nurture 

and protect. The system could not prosper, contribute to the economy, take care of our military, and employ so many people without 

your support. We are grateful for your leadership. 

Thank you. 
14 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Brackett can be found in the Appendix on page 160.] 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you very much. 

We really appreciate you all being here. And we are going to take 

some time now to have perhaps a little bit more of a conversation. 

One of the things we asked you—and I recognize that you all, in 

one way or another, really expressed your highest priorities. But 

for the sake of trying to prioritize within that, I wonder if you will 

let us know—and we will go down—if you could give us your top 

three priorities, recognizing that, you know, we all have a list and 

they are all issues and benefits that we believe are important. But 

it is not likely that we are able to address all of them. And then 

perhaps from that group we can make certain that we absolutely 

do everything within our power to make certain that we are addressing each one of those in some way. 

So, Colonel Duffy, again, I know that you expressed this, but can 

you tell us top three. 

Colonel DUFFY. Sure. Yeah, I will do this in more bulleted form, 

too, and skip my prose. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Okay, that is great. I know you are all familiar with 

that game sometimes people play, where they put all the lists on 

the wall and then people go back with their dots and they put their 

dots up there. So, you know, where would you put your dot? That 

is what we are trying to get at. 

Colonel DUFFY. All right. 

Number one, provide all members of the National Guard and Reserves with annual medical and dental readiness screenings at no 

cost, with the Department of Defense mandated to provide any 

treatment necessary to correct those deficiencies discovered in the 

screenings. That is a readiness item. 

Number two, mandate medical and behavioral screening of all 

National Guard members returning from deployment by health 

care professionals at the home station before releasing the members from active duty. 

The reasons for these bullets are in my writing. I am not going 

to repeat those at this time, following your instruction. 

Three, authorize and appropriate programs that will require the 

Department of Defense to coordinate with the National Guard Director of Psychological Health to provide treatment for National 

Guard members and their families post-deployment with qualified, 

community-based health care providers. 

Those are my three. Thank you. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you very much. 

And one of the things that I observe is that you are really focusing largely not just on mental health care but physical care, preparation and exit and transition, because that is what is critical in 

that kind of support service. 

And so I think, as we go through, perhaps the rest of you, as 

well, might want to say whether those are things that your organizations also would be very interested in as well, or if they are totally different. And, in some cases, I understand, just by the nature 

of the organization, that they would be somewhat different. 
15 

But we hear that a lot. We think that there have been some improvements in those areas, and yet it is clear that we are not 

where we need to be yet. 

Colonel DUFFY. Yes, ma’am. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Master Sergeant Cline. 

Sergeant CLINE. Retroactivity to restore early retirement to 

Guard and Reserve people back to 9/11. 

Restore Chapter 1606 Montgomery GI Bill benefits to its historic 

rate of 47 to 50 percent of the active-duty rate. 

And provide gray-area retirees the opportunity to buy into 

TRICARE Reserve Select at the full-cost premium. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Ms. Moakler. 

Ms. MOAKLER. We do support the issues that our colleagues have 

brought up here. 

We look for sustained support for family readiness programs for 

the long term. And that covers the waterfront in so many areas. 

We also look for better access to behavioral health care and counseling for families of all components; and responsive child care programs to support geographically dispersed, deployed families; and 

respite care for the families of the wounded and survivors. 

Some of these issues are beginning to be addressed, and we applaud that. But we want to make sure that these respite services 

will be available for the families of the wounded, families who have 

a deployed service member, and also surviving families as well. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Colonel Strobridge. 

Colonel STROBRIDGE. Thank you. 

I am feeling a little bit of pressure here, because, as we go down 

the list, we have heard from the Guard and Reserve associations, 

the family associations, and logically they have a responsibility to 

talk about the priorities in their area. I am very sensitive that I 

am here as the co-chair of the Military Coalition, and we make a 

conscious effort to avoid trying to say we support this at the expense of that for our top one, two, or three issues. 

We do try to prioritize, in general, our top seven or eight kinds 

of things, and some of those have already been covered. Those 

would include end-strength increases; wounded warrior improvements, which encompass some of the things that you have heard. 

Avoiding the unfair TRICARE fee and hikes, obviously, has been 

a big issue for the last several years. Pay comparability is one. 

They talked about the Guard and Reserve issues; concurrent receipt, SBP/DIC offsets. 

That is the constellation of eight, I think, that we have unanimity among all the coalition associations as being the top priorities. As you said, we fully recognize you can’t do everything on 

those, but we have had times when the subcommittee has been 

able to work five or six of those things, maybe not to do all of them, 

but to make some progress. We appreciate that. I think we have 

got a track record of trying to work with the subcommittee, recognizing when the time comes when decisions have to be made, we 

try to work with you to make sure that we hit the things that are 

most important. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Great. 
16 

And, Ms. McCloud, I think you were clear on what your high priority would be. Would you like to expand? 

Ms. MCCLOUD. Just once again, as you can see, there is a lot of 

yellow behind me today. And we are just so grateful to be at this 

table. It is huge. And on behalf of the many, many woman who 

couldn’t be here today, thank you. 

It is simple: SBP/DIC offset, it needs to be eliminated. They are 

two different programs from two different agencies for two different 

reasons, and one should not have to give up one for the other. 

In the case of the active-duty deaths, I could tell you sob stories, 

both from my own family and hundreds of others, and I am not 

going to do that today. That is not what this is about. But suffice 

it to say that it is not right to add unjust financial burdens to families that are dealing with unimaginable grief and raising our children on our own every single day. 

Trane did his job; I will do mine. You ask any of the people that 

have served in the military, they didn’t always like the orders they 

got, but they did them. And they carried them out, and they did 

them well. I certainly don’t like the order my family got, but we 

will do it. But I shouldn’t have to make financial sacrifices for a 

benefit that he earned. 

In the case of the retirees, one could even say it is more egregious. These people paid premiums. I read that, in instances when 

service members were retiring from the military, in instances they 

did not even know about the offset. So here they are, year after 

year after year, paying for premiums, going without, so that their 

spouse will be provided for, only to find out, ‘‘No, sorry.’’ 

If I could paraphrase Senator Bill Nelson from Florida, who is 

the author of the companion legislation in the Senate, he was a 

former insurance commissioner for the State of Florida. And he 

stated that he knew of no other purchase annuity program that can 

then turn around and refuse to pay you the benefits that you purchased on the grounds that you are getting the benefits from somewhere else. If you can’t do it in the private sector, the Federal Government certainly shouldn’t be able to do it. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

My five minutes is up. I think we are going to go to the other 

members, and we will come back and we will talk about the issues 

that you are here with, as well. Thank you. 

Mr. Wilson. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

And, Colonel Duffy, thank you for your presentation. As a National Guard veteran, the father of three persons serving in the National Guard, I appreciate you bringing up the issue of the home 

of record and the difficulties that can be in providing services. I 

look forward to working with you on that. 

Colonel DUFFY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WILSON. Additionally, I am very grateful for the presentation 

and representation this afternoon by Maggie McCloud of the Gold 

Star Wives. She certainly has come across with some very positive 

information. And I am grateful to be working with the Gold Star 

Wives in support of enactment of H.R. 775, which would eliminate 

the SBP/DIC offset. 
17 

I have two brief questions, Maggie, that I would like for you to 

review. One is, under the offset requirement, on average how much 

is the SBP payment? How much does the survivor lose? 

Ms. MCCLOUD. As you know, SBP is based upon rank and time 

of service, so it is different for the individual survivors. But, on average, these people are losing about $1,000 per month, less taxes. 

Mr. WILSON. And that is amazing. And people need to know that. 

Ms. MCCLOUD. And I would say that $1,000 a month might not 

sound like a lot of money here in Washington, D.C., but we have 

elderly widows on food stamps. I have participated in message 

boards where we have tried to assist members finding out about 

food pantries and things like that. A thousand dollars a month is 

going to go a long way to putting food on the table and keeping a 

roof over these people’s heads. 

Mr. WILSON. That is so important for a family. So I appreciate 

you bringing and explaining that. 

Additionally, given the 10-year cost of repealing the offset, why, 

in your view, should Congress authorize the full repeal of the offset 

instead of continuing the current survivor indemnity allowance? 

Ms. MCCLOUD. Regarding the Special Survivor Indemnity Allowance, it is hardly an answer to this problem. As you know, Congress passed the special allowance, and it amounts to 50 taxable 

dollars per month, increasing over the next several years until it 

is $100 a month, and then it disappears. 

I don’t think there is any recipient of the special allowance that thinks getting $50 a month, which in today’s dollars won’t even fill 

your tank with gas, is an adequate answer to removing the offset 

that is costing these people $1,000 a month for a benefit that their 

husbands either earned through premiums or paid for with their 

life. 

It is most definitely about fairness and honoring commitments to 

our service members and their families. 

Mr. WILSON. Well, thank you again for bringing that to our attention. 

For the Military Coalition, thank you for being here today. A 

question that I have is in regard to raising the TRICARE fees. 

Each of your written statements addresses the possibility of raising 

TRICARE fees for non-Medicare-eligible retirees, which I personally oppose. Given the difficult economic times the country is facing, would you rather that we not allow the Department of Defense 

to raise TRICARE fees in 2010? 

Colonel STROBRIDGE. I think we can say with unanimity that 

that would be our preference. 

Mr. WILSON. And that is the coalition view. 

Colonel STROBRIDGE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WILSON. Additionally, a second question in regard to health 

care initiatives. I was pleased of your support for providing health 

care for the gray-areas identified retirees of H.R. 270, a bill by Mr. 

Latta of Ohio. 

I also want to bring to your attention, Congressman John Kline 

and myself have introduced H.R. 972. This would let a Reserve retiree, just as any other retiree who is under age 60 and receiving 

retirement pay, participate in the full range of TRICARE programs, 

including TRICARE Prime. 
18 

What are your thoughts as to this benefit? 

Ms. MOAKLER. Excuse me, sir. Would those be under-65 Reserve 

retirees? 

Mr. WILSON. It is early retirees. 

Sergeant CLINE. We will take it, Congressman. Where do we sign 

up? 

Mr. WILSON. I urge you to look up the bill, for all of you. Something that I know that Congresswoman Davis and I have discussed 

is to have your members contact Members of Congress and this 

subcommittee. And individual information, as was presented by 

Ms. McCloud, is so helpful for us to know the real-world impact of 

the legislation that we pass, the regulations that are out there. 

The home of record problem, Colonel, that you pointed out, 

please bring that to our attention so we can act on it. 

Thank you very much. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Dr. Snyder. 

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Joe, are we all on the same number here? The 10-year cost for— 

I have two women named Maggie that work for me, so I like to use 

the word ‘‘Maggie’’—but that the 10-year score is $6.9 billion? Is 

that the number that we are all working from? 

Colonel STROBRIDGE. The number we saw, I think, sir, was $7.1 

billion. That is the mandatory spending side. 

Dr. SNYDER. Okay. 

On other topic, a couple of days ago Secretary Garrett was talking about the interstate compact on military children education. 

Ms. Moakler, you talked about it in your statement. I am from the 

State of Arkansas, and the bill in Arkansas is being considered. I 

think it passed the House and has gone to Senate committee today. 

But they decided to do it without actually joining the compact. I 

think they are doing about everything that is in the language of 

the bill but chose not to actually join the compact. And I haven’t 

talked to them about why they are deciding to go that way. They 

withdrew one bill that did the compact and passed this other one. 

Do you have any sense—I would think that, substantively, that 

wouldn’t make much difference to the kids if they are passing all 

the provisions of the bill. Do you have a sense for—I suppose it is 

more of a legal argument than anything. 

Ms. MOAKLER. I think that the advantage of joining the compact 

is then being part of the commission that helps evolve how these 

changes are going to be implemented. And just as no man is an island, no state is an island in this compatibility between the states, 

because you want a state to be a good sending state and a good 

receiving state. And so, joining the compact and working with the 

commission allows everyone to share best practices on how they are 

enabling their students as they go on to other schools and how they 

are welcoming students that come either from another state or 

from the Department of Defense system. 

Dr. SNYDER. I am just going to have to learn more about why 

they chose that route. My guess is it is going to work out fine. They 

have good intent about it, but I wasn’t sure. 

In August of last year, at the Little Rock Air Force Base, the 

base arranged for me, and a staff member, to meet with the parents of autistic children. And I think it was a very worthwhile dis-
19 

cussion for a lot of reasons, but the one thing that struck me the 

most was it was the first time they had met each other. I mean, 

this is not like Fort Hood or something. This is a fairly small base. 

And it brought home to me, it seems like there ought to be something we can do systemwide to help the parents of special-needs 

kid to have, not a forum necessarily, but an opportunity to formally 

get together because of the coming and going. You know, you make 

friends, you figure out how the systems works in a town, and then 

you are transferred to someplace else. What the base commander 

did on the base, I think, is he, at some point, had kind of a town 

meeting for parents with special-needs kids, and I am told that it 

went well. 

Are you aware of anything formal that is being done systemwide? 

Ms. MOAKLER. I don’t know of anything formal being done systemwide, because it varies from service to service. 

Dr. SNYDER. And base to base. 

Ms. MOAKLER. Of course, each service has their exceptional family member person on the installation who coordinates services and 

makes parents aware of services. I know for a fact—I have attended meetings at Fort Belvoir, where they regularly have briefings for the parents of autistic children. 

So it could vary from service to service, installation to installation. But it might not be a bad thing to have some kind of consistency in the program. 

I know the Marine Corps is expanding the role of their exceptional family member program coordinator to assist in continuity of 

care. It is a little bit outside the original role of the exceptional 

family member person, which was to help the families with assignments. But they realized that these families need some kind of 

guide as they go from installation to installation to help them on 

their way. 

Also, several of the TRICARE contractors have case managers for 

these exceptional family member families. But the kind of case 

management they provide is not consistent across all three of the 

contractors. 

Dr. SNYDER. My time is about up, Madam Chair. 

But, Ms. McCloud, you referred to the people in yellow here 

today. Would you like to introduce each one of them? 

Ms. MCCLOUD. I sure would. Thank you very much. 

Dr. SNYDER. Of course, they have to stand up when you call their 

name. 

Ms. MCCLOUD. If I could do the ladies that traveled from Kentucky first, because they traveled the furthest. 

We have two active-duty deaths—ladies, if you could stand up— 

their husbands were active-duty deaths. They traveled all the way 

from Kentucky to be here today on their own dime. 

And I couldn’t be more happy. If we had more time, I guarantee 

you, sir, I could have had the hall filled outside with women wanting to be here today. 

Ms. STANLEY. My name is Christy Stanley. And my husband was 

Chief Warrant Officer 3rd Class (CW3) David Stanley, and he died 

September 11, 2007. 

Ms. DOSTIE. I am Stephanie Dostie. My husband was Sergeant 

First Class John Dostie. He died December 30, 2005. 
20 

Ms. MCCLOUD. Kristen and Kimberly, are other active-duty 

deaths I know that are here. 

Ms. HAZELGROVE. I am Kimberly Hazelgrove. My husband was 

Chief Warrant Officer 2nd Class (CW2) Brian Hazelgrove, killed in 

Iraq in January of 2004. We had four children. They are currently 

5, 8, 15, and 16. 

Ms. FENTY. My name is Kristen Fenty. I was married to Lieutenant Colonel Joseph Fenty, who was killed May 5, 2006. We had 

been married 19 years without a single pregnancy, and by some 

miracle, I was pregnant when he was deployed, and I have the gift 

of a beautiful baby girl. He never got to meet her. He served 21 

days short of 20 years. He was looking forward to retirement to 

share with his daughter. I know that he would be happy to know 

that his daughter will be well cared for. 

Ms. MCCLOUD. Sandy, Martha, and Rose are also active-duty 

deaths, although not of the current conflict. 

Ladies, if you could stand up. 

And Pat, as well. 

Ms. SHARP. I am Patricia Sharp. My husband was Brigadier General Richard A. Sharp. He died on active duty at Hunter Army Air 

Field in Savannah, Georgia, in 1983. 

Ms. DOUTHIT. My name is Martha Douthit. My husband, Lieutenant Colonel David A. Douthit, was killed in the Persian Gulf 

War, May 3, 1991. 

Ms. DREW. I am Sandra Drew. My husband was Colonel Nelson 

Drew. He was killed in Bosnia, August 19, 1995, negotiating the 

ceasefire. 

Ms. MCCLOUD. Rose, our president emeritus. 

Ms. LEE. My name is Rose Lee. My husband was named ChewMon Lee, a colonel in the United States Army. He died on active 

duty in 1972. That was after the beginning of SBP, before the law 

passed. By the way, he also received the Distinguished Service 

Cross for service in Korea. 

Ms. MCCLOUD. And Edie Smith. 

Ms. SMITH. Edie Smith. My husband was a Marine Lieutenant 

Colonel who died in 1988 after 12 years of a very disabling illness. 

And this committee worked really well with me. I would like to 

thank John Chapla and Mike Higgins, who were here from the beginning to improve our medical care for the disabled. So we appreciate all your work. 

Ms. MCCLOUD. Did I get everybody? Two more. I am sorry, ladies. 

Ms. HARVEY. I am Carolyn Harvey. My husband is Bernard Harvey, Colonel, U.S. Air Force. He died in January 2004. 

Ms. REMBER. I am Sara Rember. My husband, Colonel Bruce 

Rember, died of a service-connected disease. 

Ms. MCCLOUD. If I could just say one more comment, Dr. Snyder, 

in my family we count the blessings and not the losses. And we are 

very blessed. 

I would give anything not to be here today. I would give anything 

never to have heard of this matter and to be still working on key 

volunteer issues and family readiness issues on K-Bay (Kaneohe 

Bay) in Hawaii where I was supposed to be. But I am here, and 

I am here because Trane died serving his country. He did his job. 
21 

I had the opportunity to come here today, and I took it. And I am 

so grateful for the attention you have given us. 

I am here speaking for 54,000 widows who are affected by this 

problem. Trane took care of his Marines. My husband made sure 

that his men always had what they needed to get the job done. I 

am trying to follow his lead, and I am trying to make a difference, 

as are these ladies. 

This issue affects a relatively small number of people, but they 

have already suffered an unimaginable loss. I beseech you, we need 

to pass this legislation. It means so very much. 

Thank you. 

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

And thank you to all of you for traveling here, for being here, for 

your sacrifices. We appreciate it very much. You put a very personal face on all of this for us, and it means a great deal. Thank 

you. 

Ms. Tsongas. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Yes, thank you very much. It reminds us again 

that service in war is a life-changing event for your husbands and 

your loved ones who you so tragically lost, but so bravely, but also 

for you and your families. 

My question really is: What kind of services do you have immediately in the aftermath of learning that you have lost a loved one? 

I am curious just what the various services provide, both in the 

near term, medium term, and long term, quite beyond the issues 

we are talking about of compensation or support as you get further 

away, but all the other kinds of services, including mental health 

services or emotional support, if needed. 

Ms. MCCLOUD. Thank you again for your concern. 

I might defer to some of my colleagues, if that is permissible. I 

don’t know. 

Honestly, in the immediate aftermath, your head is swimming. 

I mean, it has been—in my case, my husband was killed a little 

over two years ago. Some days it feels like it was just yesterday, 

and some days it feels like it was an eternity. 

I work. You know, I am both mother and father to my children. 

I hold down a job. I am the disciplinarian. I am the tutor. I do all 

the things that two loving parents are supposed to be doing. But 

you go forward. 

As far as services that are available, I am probably not the best 

person to speak to that, and I apologize. All I can say is the Marines did an incredible job taking care of my family. I have heard 

of people that haven’t had the best of situations afterwards. I am 

grateful, in my case, the Marines did a phenomenal job. 

Major Eric Kelly was my Casualty Assistance Control Officer 

(CACO). I would love his name on the record. He deserves an 

award for everything he did for my family and holding my hand 

through some terrible, terrible times. 

I do know there are services that are available, but another 

issue, too, is you move away. You move away from your base. My 

husband and I were stationed in Hawaii. We were stationed in 

Kaneohe Bay, a great place to visit, not a great place to be if you 

lose your husband and you don’t have a family member, except for 
22 

a really, really, really long plane ride away. And that is the case 

with a lot of these families. Where you are when it happens is not 

where you stay. I had a home and a job to come back to in the D.C. 

area. I am grateful. But as far as support of my husband’s command, that was a different story, because I chose to leave Hawaii. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Are there things you wished you had? Even the assistance in moving or returning back. 

If others would like to comment? 

Ms. MCCLOUD. Edie is saying that TRICARE does not provide 

grief counseling for our children. I know I have private insurance. 

I am grateful to have it. And I do take my children, specifically one 

of my children, to see a counselor every week. He needs it, and I 

am grateful that I am doing it. But I am not doing it through that; 

I am doing it through my private insurance. 

Ms. FENTY. Could I address that question? 

Unfortunately, there is inconsistency in the services, not just by 

the service that the soldier or military member serves in, but also 

place to place. 

The Army recently established the Survivor Outreach Services 

program to provide for high-quality benefits administration and to 

cater to the needs of Army families. I don’t believe there is anything like that across the services. There is also long-term family 

case management for Army families, and I think there is something similar in the Marines. 

So, the lesson to learn here, if it is not uniform, it is not consistent, then it needs to be, where there are best practices that 

needs to be shared. 

As for quick benefits administration, I heard this woman say 

today that when her husband passed away from a disability, a 

service-related disability, it took five years for her to receive it. So 

there is work to be done in expediting that. 

As far as mental health services, it is not happening. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. We appreciate that. And we are certainly 

focusing on mental health care, as well. 

Ms. Moakler, I didn’t know whether you wanted to respond 

quickly. 

Ms. MOAKLER. I was just going to give an overview. 

The families of the survivors of active-duty deaths are allowed to 

remain in housing or receive a housing allowance for one year after 

the death of the service member. The children receive an activeduty health care benefit until they reach age 21, or 23 when they 

graduate from college. 

Ms. MCCLOUD. That doesn’t include dental. And we would love 

for it to be able to have the dental program expanded so that they 

can get the same dental care through 21 or 23, as they do for the 

health care, which we are most grateful for. 

Ms. MOAKLER. The surviving spouse receives an active-duty 

TRICARE benefit for three years after the death of the service 

member and, after that, receives the retiree TRICARE health care 

benefit. 

There are education benefits for the surviving spouses through 

the VA, the GI home loan. 

And the VA also offers bereavement counseling through the vet 

centers. That can be spotty. It is not a consistent benefit every-
23 

where, especially if you are not located near a vet center. And also, 

sometimes bringing your child into a vet center that is used to catering to older veterans is not the best care scenario either. 

Ms. TSONGAS. So if there was anything you could ask for? 

Ms. MOAKLER. I certainly would like to see a change in a 

TRICARE co-designation to include grief counseling for survivors 

as a TRICARE benefit. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Thank you all. 

Colonel STROBRIDGE. I do want to give the subcommittee credit, 

because the issue of inconsistency of support between the services 

has been an issue that I know we have talked with the staff and 

I know the subcommittee has tried to address in the past. As always, things are never perfect, but I know the subcommittee has 

tried to do that and tried to make some progress, and we do appreciate that. 

Ms. MCCLOUD. If I could add one other comment, because the 

subject of TRICARE fees came up. In the case of the widows that 

I am talking about today, we have 33,000 widows who receive no 

SBP whatsoever. Their SBP is offset entirely by the DIC. So they 

do not even have that payment to pay for the TRICARE fees that 

are involved. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Thank you, Ms. Tsongas. 

I want to return to one of the issues that we always talk about 

and, yet, I think that it wasn’t mentioned specifically. And I am 

making an assumption that it is important—I think in your testimony earlier it was, but although not necessarily your three highest priorities. And that is the one of pay raise and trying to make 

certain that the gap between the military and the private-sector 

pay does not go beyond the 2.9 percent. 

We know that we may be facing some budget challenges, and I 

would like you just to weigh in, if you will, on whether continued 

pay raises above the ECI is a must-have among the military personnel programs. Are you making an assumption that that is going 

to be there, that that is critically important? Or, when it comes to 

some of the other benefits that we talked about, it may not be as 

critical as other benefits? 

Colonel STROBRIDGE. If I might be able to address that, Madam 

Chair. 

One of the things that we have tried to sustain over 30 years, 

perhaps maybe the single most consistent issue, has been that pay 

comparability is a fundamental underpinning of the All-Volunteer 

Force. The problem that we get into is, in more years than not, 

even though the subcommittee in the last decade has made a consistent effort to restore pay comparability, we got into real problems every time we said, ‘‘Gee, we can’t afford to sustain that.’’ 

And right now we have a track record where the subcommittee 

has worked hard not to close it—this has been one of those issues 

where we, you know, try to eat away every year—but we are still 

short of the comparability standard. And I think we are very reluctant to say comparability doesn’t matter. 

One of the things that is always talked about is, ‘‘Gee, in the interest of shared financial sacrifice.’’ I think that sometimes we say 

it a lot, but we forget that military people have been asked to bear 
24 

100 percent of the national wartime sacrifice for almost the last 

decade. And we are a little bit reluctant to give up on the fundamental principle, as was referred to before, when we have just 

spent trillions of dollars. It seems like kind of quibbling sometimes 

over the last half a percent of one pay raise. 

Mrs. DAVIS. All right. Thank you. 

Colonel STROBRIDGE. I realize it is not that easy for the subcommittee to deal with. But when you ask the question, we have 

to give the answer. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Yeah, no, I appreciate that. 

Anybody else wanted to weigh in on that particular issue? 

Colonel DUFFY. Just second his remarks. 

Mrs. DAVIS. We will make an assumption that that is critically 

important. 

The other one that we are very aware of is end strength and the 

extent to which end strength contributes to—the operational requirements and that contribute to the welfare of service members 

and families. Obviously, that means lower deployments and more 

dwell time. 

Where, then, in this calculation as well, does the issue of end 

strength lie? Are we placing it in a high priority compared to other 

personnel initiatives? And where does it lie vis-a-vis increases in 

health care fees, for example? 

Colonel STROBRIDGE. I think that is where we get into a little bit 

of a problem trying to say, look, we want this one at the expense 

of that other one. 

I think we would all agree that end strength is a huge priority. 

I think we are all very, very concerned, and we have talked with 

the subcommittee staff. You know, the rubber band is stretched so 

far. We all thought it was going to snap years ago. We are amazed 

that it hasn’t snapped yet. Those of us who have been saying it is 

going to snap—you know, we have been down this road before. You 

just can’t keep doing this to folks. 

And as Kathy, I think, said in her verbal, we get very concerned 

when we start talking about backtracking on planned increases, because that is the only, frankly, the only way of providing any kind 

of short-term relief. And even the planned end-strength increases 

we know are not going to solve the problem. 

So, to us, we have to send any message we can to the folks who 

are currently paying such a penalty that we are doing our best to 

provide that relief. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. And what we are all aware of is the discussions that the supplemental is not necessarily going to be there 

to adjust for end-strength increases. And so that is an issue that 

we are all going to be facing, in terms of making certain that the 

budget is more obvious, and in terms of what we are doing and how 

we feel that we are stating our priorities, quite clearly. 

Colonel STROBRIDGE. Madam Chair, we realize that nobody is 

more sensitive to this issue than the people on this subcommittee. 

We do get concerned that some others in government, not out of 

any intent but just because people have been responding for so 

long, and we all have our jaws agape that we already haven’t had 

some massive retention problem—we try to put ourselves in their 
25 

shoes, I know I do, and I can tell you I would have been gone a 

long time ago. 

And I don’t feel it is unpatriotic to say that. I think there is a 

limit to what you can expect of people. And I think sometimes that, 

not for any intent, we come to take their sacrifice for granted. And 

I think we do that at our peril. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. I appreciate those comments. I know everybody in the room does, as well. 

We will certainly turn to the resale issues. I am going to go to 

my colleagues, and if they don’t ask the questions, then we will 

come back and we will discuss a few of the issues that we have before us. 

Mr. Wilson. 

Mr. WILSON. Again, a statement I want to make. I want to thank 

all of you for being here. I want to thank you for your presentations. 

You also represent organizations that are very important to those 

of us who serve in Congress. I want to urge you to write letters— 

they can be handwritten letters, they can be e-mails—of how particular legislation, either that is pending or needs to be adjusted 

or regulations that need to be improved. I think it would really be 

helpful if we had individual responses to the members of this subcommittee, to the members of the full committee, to your resident 

Members and U.S. Senators from your home states. 

And that would be a comment that I would make based on what 

I have heard today. And it is just so helpful, not to invade anybody’s privacy, but it just would be so helpful to know specifically 

what we are dealing with, how it affects families and individual 

soldiers. And that would be my urge at this time. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

We are alone. So let me turn to the increase in tobacco products, 

briefly. We know that there has been some discussion at the suggestion of the DOD medical authorities that we terminate the five 

percent discounted price in favor of price parity with local civilian 

retailers. 

A DOD study concluded that, notwithstanding a reduction in 

sales, the price increase would result in an increase of $3.3 million 

in gross profits within the military resale community, an increase 

of $1 million in the exchange dividend payment to MWR programs. 

So, from your perspective then, what would the vendors and brokers who work in military resale, how would they respond to an 

increase in tobacco prices? And what do you think would be their 

perspective regarding the potential impact on sales and revenues? 

Then I will turn to the military community, as well, in terms of, 

how do you think people are going to respond to that? 

Mr. BECKER. Madam Chairwoman, you mentioned some math 

that I wasn’t familiar with, in terms of the increased sales and the 

associated contribution. I would question the sensitivity, the price 

sensitivity of the demand for the product, given that scenario. I assume that math was done with the assumption that consumption 

would be maintained at an existing level. My experience questions 

that assumption. 

I think the benefit of the efforts that have been extended by 

Health Affairs and by the exchanges working together to properly 
26 

merchandise the product, to separate the product from the consumer flow in the store and all, are admirable efforts. 

I am dubious as to the course that the exchanges would be forced 

to be placed on if they were to introduce that type of force to pricing in any product category. Because, much as I would have noted 

had I gotten to my three top priorities, your oversight has done an 

extraordinary job in leveraging the value of the infrastructure that 

has been built in the resale system itself. And compromising the 

tenets on which it rests I think are very risky and amount to more 

than the simple math. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Did you want to comment as well? 

Ms. BRACKETT. Just briefly. Echoing Mr. Becker’s comments, 

what I would just really like to underscore, the exchanges are to 

be complemented for their aggressive education program. And we 

feel that that is an important area to continue to focus on, versus 

the pricing parity. 

Mrs. DAVIS. And to the advocacy groups, do you believe or have 

you heard any reaction from military patrons that would suggest 

that they see this really as a loss of benefits if the price were increased to parity with the civilian sector? 

Ms. MOAKLER. I have to agree with the argument that Mr. Becker raised about having noncompetitive pricing on specific items. I 

think you are opening the door if we are going to have that with— 

and I may be making it too simplistic. We are doing it with cigarettes today. Are we doing it with gallons of milk tomorrow? 

I think that the proper emphasis on tobacco products—having 

been a lifelong commissary patron, I have seen the shelf space decrease from an entire aisle to a very closed area with limited access 

for folks who want to buy their tobacco products. So I think that 

they are placing the right emphasis on health, but I don’t believe 

we can open that door to allow noncompetitive pricing on selective 

items. 

Sergeant CLINE. On the Guard and Reserve side of the house 

where commissaries are not readily available to our members, 

those who do use the commissary and the exchange system, it is 

a very valuable tool for them, especially when families are deployed 

and they make that monthly trip to save a few dollars because 

their monies have been decreased because of their husband’s or 

their spouse’s deployment. 

So it is very valuable. And, therefore, I would say the commissaries need to keep the prices down. We need to stay below 

Wal-Mart. 

Colonel DUFFY. We have heard mention of H.R. 270, Representative Latta’s bill to make TRICARE available to our gray-area retirees by purchasing at government cost. Well, one benefit our grayarea retirees do have is the commissary benefit. And that is greatly, greatly appreciated. And it really draws a lot of our retired 

members back to the military installations, which is a fine thing. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Another issue that we were hearing a little bit is opening up the 

commissaries and exchanges to disabled veterans. And we know 

that there have been a number of bills introduced. I think that 

there is sometimes a misunderstanding. There are a number of vet-
27 

erans who do access the commissaries, but this would be to open 

it up to a greater extent. 

And we have asked that question in the past. I don’t know if anybody wants to weigh in on that. We certainly hear different messages coming from different advocacy groups, which one would expect. I wonder if there is something you would like to add to that 

conversation. 

Colonel STROBRIDGE. Madam Chair, the coalition has taken the 

position that we don’t support that. We think it is important to 

maintain the distinction between DOD benefits and VA benefits. 

And DOD benefits are for those who are currently serving, those 

who are retired. Whereas, VA benefits, those retired and currently 

serving may qualify for the VA, or at least the retired ones, but the 

two populations don’t overlap. 

We get very concerned about—I think a lot of people, a lot of 

Americans, and sometimes some people in Congress or in the Administration don’t seem to understand the difference between the 

two, and they think a veteran is a veteran. 

To us, we would like to be able to say that if you serve a career, 

you have a package of DOD benefits that are provided by DOD as 

an employer, of which the commissary and exchange are one. If you 

separate from the service and then go on and work a second career 

and subsequently acquire a disability, the VA provides for that disability. To us, that doesn’t reconnect you to qualify for DOD employer-provided benefit. 

And we think that is an important distinction. And we would like 

to maintain that distinction because there are people who would 

like to say, for example, for health care, once you retire, let’s just 

turn you over to the VA. We feel very strongly DOD has an employer’s responsibility to its career people to provide the TRICARE 

system. And the same argument applies to commissary and exchange and other DOD benefits, in our view. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Do you want to comment? 

Ms. BRACKETT. I would, please. 

As far as expanding the benefit for veterans with 30 percent disability, the arguments we hear is that it will overcrowd the stores 

and increase costs. Not according to the resale commanders, who, 

in an unofficial poll, stated it would have minimum impact. 

In addition, in these tough economic times, doesn’t it make sense 

to give a temporary lifeline to our military as they do transition 

from active service to new careers? We feel it is the right thing to 

do. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. I appreciate both of those perspectives. 

And when you think about the fact that we are talking about 

people who have disabilities greater than 30 percent, that would be 

entitled to the commissary, it seems like a relatively, perhaps, 

small fraction of a greater population. But I think, in reality, if you 

go back and you look at that, the numbers are probably fairly 

large. And it would depend on the community, obviously, in which 

that occurs. 

But I know that it is an issue out there. And I think for some 

people it seems that it is an opportunity to bring further revenue 

to MWR programs and to allow people to have that opportunity. 

And yet we know that it is a very sacred, really, benefit that people 
28 

receive. And once they have been separated for long periods of 

time, I understand that perspective. 

Colonel STROBRIDGE. Yes, ma’am. I think sometimes, again, people, they think of this as a wounded warrior issue. And they think 

of the people who are being, you know, put out with significant disabilities. Well, in fact, if you leave the service with a 30 percent 

or greater disability, you are a retiree and you are eligible. So we 

are mainly talking about people who didn’t have that disability rating at the time they left and acquired it later. And, to us, that is 

the distinction. 

And, as a matter of fact, we haven’t had the issue recently, but 

for those of us who have been working these issues for 30 years or 

so, periodically we have serious attacks on the commissary subsidy, 

and we start getting a little concerned when somebody says, ‘‘Gee, 

you are spending a billion dollars on somebody who spent a whole 

career doing something else and acquired a 30 percent disability at 

age 70, and we are spending commissary dollars to give them access.’’ We would rather not have to worry about adding another argument to defend the commissary subsidy. 

Ms. MOAKLER. In addition, Madam Chairperson, those folks 

would not have identification (ID) cards. And in these times of limited access to military installations, there would have to be some 

mechanism, which would cost money, either by time or issuing 

some kind of ID, for those folks to access the installation. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Some security issues that would be at play there. 

One of the other military resale issues is around jewelry and furniture and whether or not we basically protect the interests of 

those businesses that are out in the community or enable the military resale associations to sell more of it. 

Now, I think that those issues, have they been settled to an extent that people are comfortable with that? 

Mr. BECKER. I will address that quickly, if I may. And this oversight has done a tremendous job in the recent past in ensuring that 

the infrastructure that already exists on military bases is leveraged 

more beneficially by expanding some of the categories, particularly 

some price restrictions. 

I would call your attention to the fact that originally some of 

these restrictions were in place to assist small businesses, many of 

whom are really nonexistent today. In fact, a lot of them were electronics retailers and such. 

The fact remains that the bases, in some instances, don’t have 

the physical space to sell things like furniture and are still precluded from expanding their physical plant in order to be able to 

sell furniture. 

As we have seen in the contemporary environment, it is creditors 

who have largely laid behind the problems for consumers. And one 

of our arguments have long held that if the exchanges were given 

greater scope of authority to sell furniture, military patrons would 

at once enjoy not only the privilege to buy the product but, simultaneously, access to superior terms on those purchases. 

We would continue to seek support from this committee to relieve 

the restrictions on the exchanges from construction, so to improve 

the facilities to be able to sell furniture, in particular. There are 
29 

a few other minor areas that we think would offer opportunity, but 

that, in particular, we would appreciate your consideration. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

In the course of discussing a number of the other issues that you 

have brought, the retiree programs, concurrent receipt continues to 

be a concern. Even though we have moved on that, I think that it 

still continues to come up. And I am just wondering where in the 

list of priorities you would place expansion of concurrent receipt 

today. 

Colonel STROBRIDGE. I think that is another one, Madam Chair, 

where the subcommittee has made an effort to try to make some 

progress. You know, the reality is, whenever we make progress on 

something and we still got a long way to go, you always have glasshalf-full people from the people who have been taken care of and 

glass completely empty for the people who haven’t. And so it creates pressure on all of us. 

We believe that we agree with that. We have tried to work with 

the subcommittee to make incremental progress and try to identify 

various steps that we can take. We have worked with the subcommittee in the past to see, if you will let us know how much 

money you have, we will tell you who is the most important priority to try to take care of next. 

I think we have a consensus that one of the things, probably the 

single biggest issue, is to fix the glitch in the law that Congress 

already passed on combat-related special compensation. Through 

no fault of the committee’s, there was a glitch in the law that 

doesn’t deliver that compensation. So we have people who are 60, 

70 percent combat disabled who do not receive the combat-related 

compensation. We thought we were working on getting a fix last 

year. Unfortunately, at the end-of-the-year crunch we didn’t get it 

through. 

But we have talked with the staff about it. I think there is a consensus both in the House and the Senate that this is the right 

thing to do. If you can only do one thing, we would say that is the 

thing to do. 

Mrs. DAVIS. All right, thank you. 

Mr. Wilson. 

Mr. WILSON. As we—— 

Ms. MCCLOUD. Oh—— 

Mr. WILSON. Oh, no, I definitely want to hear from Maggie. 

Ms. MCCLOUD. May I be so bold? If we are talking about concurrent receipt—and I am delighted that Congress has acted on this 

issue over the past several years. If we are speaking of fairness, 

Congress should have addressed the issue of SBP/DIC offset for the 

widows when it implemented concurrent receipt for disabled retirees. We should have been included then, and we weren’t. If our 

spouses were alive today, our 100 percent disabled spouses, they 

would be receiving this benefit. 

On a personal note, I will say that when Trane was back on the 

Hill working for Congressman Wilson in 2003, he worked on concurrent receipt for disabled veterans. And I remember him coming 

home, I remember him coming home when Congress was working 

on this issue, and he was so excited, he was so proud that Congress 

was addressing this issue that was going to help so many disabled 
30 

retirees. One of my fellow Gold Star Wives even remembers meeting with Trane on this issue. 

How ironic is it? What would he think today, I can’t help but 

wonder, that the very legislation he was so excited about and so 

proud about left out his own family, left out his own wife, and left 

out the ladies sitting behind me? I just can’t imagine what he 

would think. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. I appreciate that. I think we are also 

aware that you have worked on these issues, on a host of different 

issues, and that, of all the competing needs, I think that you said 

quite clearly that this is the one that you would hope would be addressed. 

Mr. WILSON. And I would like to thank the chairwoman for having this hearing this afternoon. It really has been very helpful to 

me. I know it will be helpful to our colleagues here in Congress. 

It is certainly a big day to have the Gold Star Wives recognized. 

And all of you who are here, I was sitting here thinking you bring 

real-world experience, real-world knowledge, but you also bring 

real-world credibility. I thank all of you for being here today. 

I want to thank the chairwoman for her putting this together. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you all very much for being here. If there is 

anything that you failed to say that you would like to be sure that 

we are aware of, please do not hesitate to communicate that with 

us. 

Thank you all so much for being here. 

[Whereupon, at 5:20 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 
A P P E N D I X 

FEBRUARY 25, 2009 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

FEBRUARY 25, 2009 

(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 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 
183 
184 
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

FEBRUARY 25, 2009 

(187) 
188 
189 
190 
191 
192 
193 
194 
195 
196 
197 
198 
199 
200 
201 
202 
203 
204 
205 
206 
207 
208 
209 
210 
211 
212 
213 
214 
215 
216 
217 
218 
219 
220 
221 
222 
223 
224 
225 
226 
227 
228 
229 
230 
231 
232 
233 
234 
235 
236 
237 
238 
239 
240 
241 
242 

Æ