Each year, the Senate and House Armed Services Committees report their respective versions of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). These bills contain numerous provisions that affect military personnel, retirees and their family members. Provisions in one version are often not included in another; are treated differently; or, in certain cases, are identical. Following passage of each by the respective legislative body, a Conference Committee is typically convened to resolve the various differences between the House and Senate versions. This year, however, a formal Conference Committee was not appointed. Rather, a final bill was drafted by leaders of the House and Senate Armed Services Committee, who also published a "joint explanatory statement" which was essentially the equivalent of a conference report. The House amended this final version into the Senate-passed version of S. 3001 , and adopted it on September 24, 2008. The Senate then approved the bill on September 27 th , clearing it for Presidential consideration. In the course of a typical authorization cycle, congressional staffs receive many constituent requests for information on provisions contained in the annual NDAA. This report highlights those personnel-related issues that seem to generate the most intense congressional and constituent interest, and tracks their status in the FY2009 House and Senate versions of the NDAA. The Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, H.R. 5658 , was introduced on March 31, 2008, reported by the House Committee on Armed Services on May 16, 2008 ( H.Rept. 110-652 ), and passed by the House on May 22, 2008. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, S. 3001 , was introduced on May 12, 2008, reported by the Senate Committee on Armed Services on that same day ( S.Rept. 110-335 ), and passed the Senate on September 17, 2008. The entries under the headings "Original House-passed version ( H.R. 5658 )" and "Original Senate-passed version ( S. 3001 )" in the following pages are based on language in these bills, unless otherwise indicated. The entries under the heading "Final version ( S. 3001 )" are based on the language of the bill negotiated by leaders of the House and Senate Armed Services Committee and amended into S. 3001 , as discussed above. Where appropriate, other CRS products are identified to provide more detailed background information and analysis of the issue. For each issue, a CRS analyst is identified and contact information is provided. Note: some issues were addressed in the FY2008 National Defense Authorization Act and discussed in CRS Report RL34169 concerning that legislation. Those issues that were previously considered in CRS Report RL34169 are designated with a " * " in the relevant section titles of this report. Background: For several years the Administration has proposed increases in co-payments and enrollment fees for retirees and their dependents who are not Medicare-eligible. The Administration argues that the growing costs of Defense health care, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of the defense budget, require efforts to seek greater contributions by users. It argues that inasmuch as Tricare Prime enrollment fees were set in 1995 and have not been raised since, it is reasonable that they should be increased. Congress has thus far refused to give DOD the requested authority to raise the fees. Discussion: The health care portion of the Defense budget has grown from $19 billion in FY2001 to over $42 billion in FY2008. Since 2006 DOD has been attempting to raise co-payment and enrollment fees for retired military personnel and their dependents who are not eligible for Medicare. (Medicare-eligible retirees can use the Tricare for Life program which would not be affected by the proposed fee increases.) DOD asserts that retirees using Tricare Prime paid approximately 27 percent of their health care costs in 1995 but now pay only 12 percent. Consistent with recommendations of the Department of Defense Task Force on the Future of Military Health Care, the proposed DOD budget for FY2009 would have gradually raised enrollment fees for those using Tricare Prime, the HMO-like option, from the current $460 (self+dependents) to 2011 rates as high as $1,750 for retirees making over $40,000 annually. DOD also proposed creating an enrollment fee for retirees who use Tricare Standard, the fee-for-service option, of $120 per year. In addition, DOD maintains that retail prescription usage and costs have contributed significantly to the growth in health care spending and recommended increases in pharmacy co-payments (along with eliminating co-payments for pharmaceuticals provided by the DOD Mail Order Pharmacy). According to DOD, these fee increases would save some $1.2 billion in FY2009. Opposition from beneficiary organizations has been strong and the Government Accountability Office concluded in May 2007 that DOD's estimates of cost savings were over-estimated. Congress has twice denied DOD authority to increase Tricare fees in FY2007 and FY2008, and has encouraged DOD to find other approaches to restraining the growth of the health care budget. Reference(s): CRS Report RS22402, Increases in Tricare Costs: Background and Options for Congress. Task Force on the Future of Military Health Care, Final Report , December 2007 http://www.dodfuturehealthcare.net/images/103-06-2-Home-Task_Force_FINAL_REPORT_122007.pdf . Government Accountability Office, Military Health Care: TRICARE Cost-Sharing Proposals Would Help Offset Increasing Health Care Spending, but Projected Savings are Likely Overestimated , May 2007 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07647.pdf . CRS Point of Contact (POC): Dick Best, x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: The FY2005 Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act ( P.L. 108-375 ) established the Tricare Reserve Select program which permitted some drilling reserve personnel to utilize Tricare but required that they pay enrollment fees interpreted to be equivalent to the 28 percent charged to Federal civil servants under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). The FY2007 John Warner National Defense Authorization Act ( P.L. 109-364 ) extended the benefit to all drilling reservists. In December 2007 the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that the premiums DOD established had actually exceeded the costs of providing the Tricare benefit. Discussion: Tricare Reserve Select (TRS) provides a health care benefit to reservists who are in drilling status and not on active duty. (Reservists called to active duty have regular Tricare benefits that have no enrollment fees.) Current monthly premiums are $81/self or $253/self+family. Enrollment in TRS has been lower than estimated, suggesting that premium rates discourage selection or that reservists have access to more affordable civilian health care options. A GAO report published in December 2007 concluded that the premiums DOD established exceeded the reported average cost of providing care through TRS. This situation resulted, according to GAO, from DOD having used FEHBP Blue Cross/Blue Shield rates as benchmarks that in practice proved to be higher than necessary to cover DOD's costs. GAO recommended that DOD base premiums on actual costs and DOD has indicated its support for that approach consistent with available cost data. Reference(s): GAO Report Military Health Care: Cost Data Indicate that TRICARE Reserve Select Premiums Exceeded the Costs of Providing Program Benefits, GAO-08-104, December 2007 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08104.pdf . CRS Point of Contact (POC): Dick Best, x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: Continuing combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have stressed the nation's armed forces, especially the Army and Marine Corps. The FY2008 NDAA supported increasing the Army end strength by 65,000 to 547,400 by FY2012 and increasing the Marine Corps end strength by 27,000 to 202,000, also by FY2012. While the Army and Marine Corps grow, the Navy remains stable and the Air Force continues manpower reductions that began in 2005 to support the recapitalization of modernized aircraft. The Air Force is projected to reduce from 359,700 in FY2005 to approximately 300,000 in FY2009. Discussion: The Army and Marine Corps have been successful, so far, in growing to meet the congressional goals. The Army plans to meet its ultimate goal of 547,400 by 2010, two years earlier than the congressional benchmark. The Secretary of Defense recently recommended that the Air Force end strength not fall below 330,000, a strength that has not yet been integrated into the FY2009 NDAA. The House version authorized 1,023 more Navy personnel and 450 more Air Force personnel above the budget request to restore military positions in the military medical community. The Senate committee version authorized 171 more Air Force personnel above the budget request to support the operation and maintenance on 76 B-52 aircraft. Reference(s): CRS Report RL31334, Operations Noble Eagle, Enduring Freedom, and Iraqi Freedom: Questions and Answers About U.S. Military Personnel, Compensation, and Force Structure , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Point of Contact (POC): Charles Henning, x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: Ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, combined with end strength increases and recruiting challenges, continue to highlight the military pay issue. Title 37 U.S.C. 1009 provides a permanent formula for annual military pay raises that indexes the raise to the annual increase in the Employment Cost Index (ECI). The FY2009 President's Budget request for a 3.4 percent military pay raise was consistent with this formula. Congress, in FY2004, FY2005, FY2006, and FY2008 approved the raise as the ECI increase plus 0.5 percent. The FY2007 pay raise was equal to the ECI. Discussion: A military pay raise larger than the permanent formula is not uncommon. Mid-year, targeted pay raises (targeted at specific grades and longevity) have also been authorized over the past several years. This year's proposed legislation includes no mention of targeted pay raises. Reference(s): CRS Report RL33446, Military Pay and Benefits: Key Questions and Answers , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Point of Contact (POC): Charles Henning at x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: Chapter 15 of Title 10, sometimes referred to as the Insurrection Act, provides the President with the authority to call the militia into federal service and to use "the armed forces" to respond to certain domestic disorders, including aiding state governments in suppressing insurrection (10 USC 331), enforcing the laws of the United States and suppressing rebellion (10 USC 332), and preventing domestic violence which interferes with the execution of federal and state laws (10 USC 333). Discussion: The amendments contained in Section 591 of the H.R. 5658 would specify that the President's authority to use the armed forces to respond to these domestic disorders includes the ability to activate members of the federal reserve components (Army Reserve, Navy Reserve, Air Force Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, and Coast Guard Reserve) and use them as part of the response effort. Activation of the Army National Guard and Air National Guard is already provided for under the original language authorizing the President to order the militia into federal service (the militia includes, but is not limited to, the National Guard). Reference(s): CRS Report RL30802, Reserve Component Personnel Issues: Questions and Answers , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Point of Contact (POC): [author name scrubbed], x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: Section 12304 of Title 10 allows the President to activate certain reservists for a period of up to 365 days for specified purposes. This authority is commonly referred to as Presidential Reserve Call-up (PRC) authority. A subparagraph of section 12304 prohibits the President from using this authority for "providing assistance to either the Federal Government or a State in time of a serious natural or manmade disaster, accident, or catastrophe," unless responding to an certain emergencies involving weapons of mass destruction or terrorist attacks. Discussion: Section 594 of H.R. 5658 would allow the President to use PRC authority to activate Selected Reserve units from the purely federal reserve components (but not the National Guard) to respond to disasters or emergencies which met the definitions of the Stafford Act. A somewhat similar provision was passed as part of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for FY2007 ( P.L. 109-364 , section 1076); however, among other differences, it applied to the National Guard as well as the federal reserves and was opposed by many state governors. It was later repealed by section 1068 of P.L. 110-181 . Reference(s): CRS Report RL30802, Reserve Component Personnel Issues: Questions and Answers , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Point of Contact (POC): [author name scrubbed], x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: Last year Congress authorized $30 million for continuation of assistance to eligible local agencies impacted by enrollment of DOD military and civilian employee dependents, and $10 million for assistance to agencies with significant changes due to base closures, force structure changes, or force relocations. Discussion: The language contained in the final version of S. 3001 is similar to last year's efforts regarding impact aid. Reference(s): CRS Report RL34169, The FY2008 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues, p. 7-8. CRS Point of Contact (POC): [author name scrubbed] at x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: Military families are relocated quite frequently during a military career. Non-military spouses seeking employment at a new duty location are often frustrated because many of the skills they have may not be portable to a new location. Often, work skills must be learned anew. It has been reported that local employers prefer a more stable workforce with less turnover and less training needed. Discussion: Although this language is permissive in nature, if implemented, spouses may be more likely to continue a career following relocation to a new duty station. Reference(s): None. CRS Point of Contact (POC): [author name scrubbed] at x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: Each service supports educational programs that permit selected members to temporarily attend civilian educational institutions and then return to the parent service without interrupting their normal career pattern. However, there is currently no program that allows an extended break in service for personal or professional reasons. Discussion: These programs, called "Career Intermission" in the House report and "Career Flexibility" in the Senate committee version, are aimed at enhancing retention by allowing personnel an opportunity to pursue other personal or professional goals. The House and Senate programs would be capped at 40 service members per year for each armed force and require a service obligation of two months for every month of program participation. Reference(s): None CRS Point of Contact (POC): Charles Henning, x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: In recent years, both Congress and the Department of Defense have shown significant interest in increasing the ability of military personnel to operate in foreign countries by enhancing their cultural knowledge and foreign language proficiency. However, building these language and cultural skills has proven challenging due to the intensive study required for mastery and the competing demands of other training and operational requirements for currently serving personnel. There is currently statutory authority to provide bonuses to those who are already proficient in designated foreign languages (37 USC 316), but not for those who are seeking to become proficient. Discussion: Section 619 of the original House-passed and Senate-passed bills both sought to improve the language skills of new officer accessions by giving them a financial incentive to study foreign languages and cultures before they begin active service. The original House provision would have also required the Secretary of Defense to establish a pilot program for currently serving reserve personnel who undertake such studies, and it permits the Service Secretaries to use such financial incentives for currently serving active and reserve personnel who pursue such studies. The original House-passed language also had a higher maximum payment cap. The final version of S. 3001 combines both of these provisions, resulting in three distinct options (one bonus authority and two incentive pay authorities) for compensating individuals who seek to acquire foreign language proficiency or cultural skills. Existing provisions of law (37 USC 353(b) and 371(b)) would prevent an individual from receiving more than one proficiency bonus or incentive pay at a time for the same period of service and skill. Reference(s): None. CRS Point of Contact (POC): [author name scrubbed], x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: Section 411h of Title 37, U.S.C., authorizes the military departments to pay travel and transportation allowances for family members of service members who are seriously injured, seriously ill, or in a situation of imminent death when the appropriate authority (physician, commander of the military medical facility concerned, for example), determines that the family's presence may contribute to the service member's health or welfare. Discussion: This Senate report language makes no change in law but suggests that the Secretary of Defense broaden the current travel and transportation policy for family members of those with serious psychiatric conditions. Reference(s): None. CRS Point of Contact (POC): [author name scrubbed], x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: Section 586 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 ( P.L. 110-181 ) contains the following provision: "The Secretary of Defense shall establish appropriate procedures to ensure that an adequate family care plan is in place for a member of the Armed Forces with minor dependents who is a single parent or whose spouse is also a member of the Armed Forces when the member may be deployed in an area for which imminent danger pay is authorized under section 310 of title 37, United States Code. Such procedures should allow the member to request a deferment of deployment due to unforeseen circumstances, and the request for such a deferment should be considered and responded to promptly." Discussion: Under the change proposed in H.R. 5658 , a military member with minor children who has a spouse already serving in an imminent danger pay area and facing simultaneous deployment may request a deferment to such an area until the spouse returns from such a deployment, regardless of the existence, or lack thereof, of "unforeseen circumstances." Reference(s): None. CRS Point of Contact (POC): [author name scrubbed], x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: The Department of Defense defines sole survivors as the only remaining son or daughter in a family where the father or mother, or one or more sons or daughters, while serving in the Armed Forces, was killed, died as a result of wounds, is captured or missing, or is permanently 100% disabled. Sole survivors may voluntarily enlist if they waive their right to separation as a sole surviving son or daughter but may apply for a protective assignment which precludes their assignment to an overseas area designated as a hostile-fire or imminent danger area. Enlisted service members who become sole survivors after entering the service may apply for separation. Discussion: The administrative discharge of a sole survivor is considered a voluntary separation. Under current policy, if the separation occurs prior to the completion of the initial enlistment, there are no benefits associated with the discharge. Section 651 of the Senate bill would authorize certain benefits, typically associated with involuntary separations, for sole surviving sons and daughters who elect to separate. Reference(s): CRS Report RL31334, Operations Noble Eagle, Enduring Freedom, and Iraqi Freedom: Questions and Answers About U.S. Military Personnel, Compensation, and Force Structure , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Point of Contact (POC): Charles Henning, x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: National Guard and Reserve personnel who qualify for disability retirement or placement on the temporary disability retired list (TDRL) have their disability retired pay calculated using a formula that factors in "years of service" or disability rating, whichever is more favorable to the service member. However, unlike regular component personnel – who are on duty every day of the year and receive a year of service for each year of duty—reserve component personnel, who normally serve part-time, have their years of service calculated using a more complex formula based on their level of participation. This method sums up a reservist's participation "points" and divides by 360 to produce the number of equivalent years of active-duty service. Given the less-than-full-time nature of reserve service, this means that an individual who has been serving in the reserves for 20 years may only have four or five years of service for retired pay computation purposes. Discussion: Section 641 of H.R. 5658 would have modified the method of calculating "years of service" for reservists who become eligible for disability retirement or are placed on the TDRL based on a combat-related injury. Rather than using the reservist's participation points to calculate active-duty equivalent years of service, as is currently done, this provision would have awarded a year of service for each year in which a reservist met the minimum participation standard of 50 points. Hence, under this provision, a reservists with 20 qualifying years of reserve service would have been awarded 20 years of service for his disability retired pay computation. It would have benefitted some combat-injured reservists, particularly those with a modest disability rating (30-40%) but many years of reserve service. Reference(s): CRS Report RL30802, Reserve Component Personnel Issues: Questions and Answers , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Point of Contact (POC): [author name scrubbed], x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: The House Committee notes that there have been a number of recent incidents in which individuals have fraudulently claimed to have been awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor or other decorations of valor. The committee believes that false claims reduce the prestige of these decorations and that the valor of these decorations could be preserved if the general public had access to a searchable database listing individuals and the decorations for valor they have been awarded. Discussion: The House bill's report language is exploratory in nature. It is expected that this would discourage false claims as such a list would allow for easy verification of their validity. Such a database may raise privacy issues. Reference(s): None. CRS Point of Contact (POC): [author name scrubbed], x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: On May 12, 1975, in the aftermath of the Vietnam War (approximately two weeks after the fall of Saigon), a U.S. merchant ship, S.S. Mayaguez, was seized by the Khmer Rouge Navy. Thirty-nine sailors were captured and taken to the island of Koh Tang. A rescue operation was mounted and the battle began on May 15. By most accounts, the result was a failure with four U.S. helicopters shot down or disabled and 41 Marines killed. Ironically, the number killed outnumbered the number of sailors captured by the Khmer Rouge. Shortly thereafter, all 39 sailors were released. Discussion: This language in H.R. 5658 would authorize the Vietnam Service Medal for participants in the Mayaguez rescue. It is not clear what other benefits, if any, would accrue from recognizing these individuals in this manner. Reference(s): None. CRS Point of Contact (POC): [author name scrubbed], x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: Chapter 80 of Title 10 United States code is concerned with "Miscellaneous Investigation Requirements and Other Duties." It includes provisions concerning complaints of sexual harassment, civilian orders of protection and domestic violence data. Discussion: The intent of these provisions is to maintain a protective order until it has been officially resolved and to ensure that civilian authorities are aware of such orders when the individual(s) involved do not reside on a military installation. Reference(s): None. CRS Point of Contact (POC): [author name scrubbed], x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: Over the years reports of sexual assault involving military personnel have brought about a number of reforms, including changes in the Uniformed Code of Military Justice, training, and creation of the Defense Incident Based Reporting System which tracks criminal acts, especially sex crimes, and reports these data to the Justice Department. Discussion: This language would provide more centralized, more detailed and arguably better reporting of sexual assault incidents in the Armed Forces. Reference(s): None. CRS Point of Contact (POC): [author name scrubbed] at x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: At present, when a member of the armed forces becomes the father of a child and wishes to take time off for paternity purposes, he uses his regular leave. Such leave accumulates at the rate of 2 ½ days per month of active service. Discussion: The language in the final version would provide a new type of leave for paternity purposes, which would be in addition to the service member's regular leave. It would apply only to children born on or after the date of enactment. Reference(s): None. CRS Point of Contact (POC): [author name scrubbed], x[phone number scrubbed] Background: Under 10 USC 1482(a), when a member of the armed forces dies in service, a burial flag is presented to the person designated to direct disposition of the remains and to the parents of the service member. Discussion: The House and Senate-passed bills both proposed authorizing the provision of a burial flag to a surviving spouse if someone else is authorized to direct the disposition of remains; the Senate-passed bill also allowed for providing a flag to the surviving children of the decedent. The final version of the bill permits a burial flag to be presented to the surviving spouse and each surviving child. Reference(s): CRS Report RL32769, Military Death Benefits: Status and Proposals , by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed]. CRS Point of Contact (POC): [author name scrubbed], x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: Current DOD policy requires a minimum of four months following the birth of a child before a military mother can be assigned to a dependent-restricted or unaccompanied tour. The Secretary of the military department has the authority to extend that time. The Army and the Air Force provide a minimum of four months, while the Marine Corps defers for six months and the Navy for up to one year. Discussion: The Senate report directs the Secretary of Defense to describe changes to DOD or service policies as the result of this review. Reference(s): None. CRS Point of Contact (POC): [author name scrubbed] at x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: The Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) provides annuities to the surviving spouse, children, former spouse, or spouse/former spouse and children. If a spouse or former spouse remarries before age 55, SBP annuities cease. Children remain eligible until age 18 or 22, if a full-time student. An eligible child who marries loses SBP. If a spouse is eligible to receive benefits under the Veterans Affairs Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC), the SBP is offset or reduced on a dollar- for-dollar basis. A surviving spouse of a service member killed in the line of duty is eligible to receive both SBP and DIC. To avoid the offset, Congress allowed survivors in this example to designate their children as SBP beneficiaries, allowing the surviving spouse to receive VA's DIC. Discussion: Essentially, this House language would return eligibility for SBP to a surviving spouse or former spouse, who allowed the dependent child or children to be designated as SBP beneficiaries to avoid the SBP/DIC offset, following the termination of the remarriage and the end of eligibility for the child or children. Reference(s): CRS Report RL31664, The Military Survivor Benefit Plan: A Description of Its Provisions , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Point of Contact (POC): [author name scrubbed], x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: A Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) eligible spouse who is eligible for Dependency and Indemnity Compensation will have his or her SBP reduced or offset on a dollar-for-dollar basis by Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (see previous page). For certain beneficiaries affected by the offset, section 644 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, created a new survivor indemnity allowance to be paid to survivors of service members who are entitled to retired pay, or would be entitled to reserve component retired pay but for the fact they were not yet 60 years of age. This monthly allowance, effective October 1, 2008, would be $50, and would increase annually by $10 through FY2013. Discussion: This final version of S. 3001 provides additional benefits to offset-affected survivors of active duty service members. Reference(s): CRS Report RL31664, The Military Survivor Benefit Plan: A Description of Its Provisions , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Point of Contact (POC): [author name scrubbed], x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: The National Defense Act for Fiscal Year 1997 ( P.L. 104-201 , September 23, 1996, 110 Stat. 2489) contained language that prohibited the sale of sexually explicit material on military installations. An eight-member board (Resale Activities Board of Review) was established to review materials for resale. Once the board determined that an item was 'sexually explicit,' it was removed and not available for resale or rental on military installations. The review board reviewed 473 titles in 1998 and determined 319 to be sexually explicit. In May, 2006, the board reversed its decision with regard to Playgirl and Penthouse. A Christian group (Alliance Defense Fund) wrote a letter to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates protesting the sale of these and other items. Discussion: The House language would re-establish the existing review board and modifies its composition. Its intent grew out of efforts to ban particular items for rental or resale. This provision was included in the final version. Reference(s): None. CRS Point of Contact (POC): [author name scrubbed], x[phone number scrubbed]. Background: JROTC is a federal program sponsored by the Armed Forces in high schools to instill the values of citizenship, service to the nation, personal responsibility and a sense of accomplishment. Current law does not establish a minimum or maximum number of JROTC programs for the Department of Defense or the Services. However, there are approximately 3,300 JROTC units currently operating in high schools and overseas in the Department of Defense School System. Discussion: JROTC was created in 1916 and the program has been expanded several times. While generally viewed as a positive influence on high school youth, some have criticized the program as a military recruiting tool for the Services or a program that tends to militarize schools. Reference(s): None. CRS Point of Contact (POC): Charles Henning at x[phone number scrubbed].

Summary: Military personnel issues typically generate significant interest from many Members of Congress and their staffs. Ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan in support of what the Bush Administration terms the Global War on Terror, along with the emerging operational role of the Reserve Components, further heighten interest and support for a wide range of military personnel policies and issues. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) selected a number of the military personnel issues that Congress considered as it deliberated the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2009. In each case, this report provides a brief synopsis of sections that pertain to personnel policy. It includes background information and a discussion of the issue, along with a table that contains a comparison of the bill (H.R. 5658) passed by the House on May 22, 2008, the bill (S. 3001) passed by the Senate on September 17, 2008, and the final version (S. 3001) passed by the House on September 24, 2008 and by the Senate on September 27, 2008. Where appropriate, other CRS products are identified to provide more detailed background information and analysis of the issue. For each issue, a CRS analyst is identified and contact information is provided. Note: some issues were addressed in the FY2008 National Defense Authorization Act and discussed in CRS Report RL34169 concerning that legislation. Those issues that were previously considered in CRS Report RL34169 are designated with a "*" in the relevant section titles of this report. This report focuses exclusively on the annual defense authorization process. It does not include appropriations, veterans' affairs, tax implications of policy choices or any discussion of separately introduced legislation. This report will be updated as needed.