Fleet Reserve Association
Statement of the Fleet Reserve
Association
on its Goals for 2000
Before a Joint Hearing of the
House Veterans Affairs' Committee
and the
Senate Veterans Affairs' Committee
Presented by the
Senior Chief Charles L. Calkins, USN
(Ret.)
National Executive Secretary
Fleet Reserve Association
March 7, 2000
Biography of Senior Chief Charles L. Calkins, USN,
(Ret.)
National Executive Secretary
Fleet Reserve Association
Charles L. Calkins is the National Executive Secretary of
the Fleet Reserve Association (FRA) a 153,000 member national organization of active duty,
reserve, and retired U.S. Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard enlisted personnel. The FRA
is Congressionally Chartered and represents the views and concerns of its members and
their families to the U.S. Congress and works to enhance the career compensation,
benefits, and entitlements, including veterans benefits, for Sea Service personnel.
As the FRA's senior salaried national officer, Mr. Calkins
manages the National Headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia, is a member of the National
Board of Directors, chairs the National Committee on Legislative-Service, and serves as
the senior lobbyist. In addition, he is the first President of the recently incorporated
Military Coalition.
He retired in October 1978 as a Senior Chief Signalman
after 21 years of naval service.
Mr. Calkins has been a continuous FRA member since July
1975, serving on Branch, Regional, and National Committees and as the New England Regional
President from 1993 to 1994.
Mr. Calkins was a Human Resources Specialist with the U.S.
Postal Service prior to his election as FRA's National Executive Secretary.
He is a member of the Greater Washington Society of
Association Executives and the Board of Directors of the Navy Memorial Foundation.
He and his wife, Lynda, reside in Alexandria,
Virginia.
CERTIFICATION OF NON-RECEIPT
OF FEDERAL FUNDS
Pursuant to the requirements of House Rule XI, the Fleet
Reserve Association has not received any federal grant or contract during the current
fiscal year or either of the two previous fiscal years.
Statement of Goals for 2000
Mr. Chairman. The membership is pleased the Fleet Reserve
Association (FRA) has been invited by the distinguished Joint Committees to present its
legislative goals for the year 2000. On behalf of nearly 153,000 shipmates, I extend
gratitude for the concern and active interest generated by the Committees in protecting,
improving, and enhancing benefits that are richly deserved by our Nation’s veterans.
FRA was established in 1924 and its name is derived from
the Navy’s program of transferring to the Fleet Reserve or Fleet Marine Reserve for
Marine Corps personnel, persons who leave the service after 20 or more years of active
duty but do not have 30 years to fully retire. During the required period of service in
the Fleet Reserve, personnel assigned earn retainer pay and are subject to recall by the
Secretary of the Navy.
FRA is the oldest and largest professional military
enlisted association exclusively serving and representing men and women of the three Sea
Services. It continues to seek protection and equity for those who serve in or have
retired from the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard, plus those veterans requesting
assistance from FRA. The Association has been active over the past 75 years in pursuing
Congressional and the respective Administration’s support for enlisted quality of
life and veterans’ programs for Sea Services’ personnel.
LEGISLATIVE GOALS IN BRIEF
FRA’s membership has an average age of 68 years, all
veterans of as many as three wars, mostly retired and from the Sea Services. They have
tasked the Association to seek Congressional action to authorize and fund the following:
- Expand health care for all veterans.
- Provide funds for the construction and leasing of additional
nursing and long-term care facilities.
- Enhance educational programs and provide voluntary open
enrollment in GI Bill for all current and past VEAP participants.
- Repeal the statute requiring the repayment of separation pay
if the service member re-enlists in the Reserve component, subsequently is entitled to
retired pay, or becomes entitled to VA compensation.
- Enact legislation to amend Title 38 USC to authorize
concurrent receipt of military retired pay and veterans’ compensation without loss to
either.
- Prevent Civil Courts from dividing veterans’
service-connected disability compensation and military retired pay.
- Expand cemetery facilities (including Arlington National
Cemetery) to provide adequate burial spaces.
The following military and miscellaneous goals of
Association are offered for your support. With the exception of the Uniformed Services
Former Spouses Protection Act (USFSPA) they are not addressed elsewhere in this statement.
Military
- Amend the USFSPA making it more equitable.
- Continue to improve the military’s health care program.
- Halt further reductions in military manpower.
- Improve and enhance compensation for mid-career
Non-Commissioned and Petty Officers of the U.S. Armed Forces.
- Provide adequate funding for military commissaries and
continue supporting its exchange systems.
- Improve the Uniformed Services Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP).
- Support equity in cost-of-living adjustments for all lawful
beneficiaries.
- Protect personnel benefits for retirees and families
residing at or near BRAC sites.
- Authorize and fund construction and maintenance of family
and bachelor housing and MWR facilities.
Miscellaneous
- Provide full Impact Aid funding for schools enrolling
children of military personnel.
- Ensure parity for Coast Guard personnel with DOD pay and
benefits.
- Amend tax code to exclude taxation on residential sales for
active duty members returning from overseas assignments.
- Support enactment of a Flag desecration statute.
Department of Veterans Affairs FY 2001 Budget
FRA seeks adequate funding for the DVA. The budget requests
approximately $48 billion or an increase of $1.7 billion over last year’s funding.
This request is being touted as having the largest discretionary dollar increase ever
proposed for veterans’ programs. The Association is pleased to see the Administration
take a positive step toward funding the DVA, however, more needs to be done. For example,
FRA is very disappointed to learn the budget mentions nothing about needed improvements in
the GI Bill. In addition, the Medical Care portion of the budget appears not to be
sufficient to provide care for the Nation’s veterans as outlined in the
Department’s mission.
FRA is most appreciative of the Committee’s oversight
of the Department’s budget and its efforts to ensure adequate appropriations for
veterans programs. The Association believes its concern with the VA Medical Care budget is
well founded and offers a comparison, as it did last year. This year, the Association has
selected several agencies whose programs may be compared to Medical Care provided to the
Nation’s veterans. It is noted that for comparability, VA Medical Care has not
received its fair share of the Federal budget over the years.
A comparison of funding for VA Medical Care appropriations
indicates DVA comes up woefully short from FY 1996 through FY 1999 when compared to PHS
and NIH appropriations. Using VA Medical Care figures through FY 2000 ($19,247), there has
been an increase of 14.4 percent since FY 1996, still 5 percent less than the nearest
Federal agency based on the previous FY.
FRA lists the following programs that should be authorized
or expanded in the DVA for FY 2001. The Association urges the adoption of its
recommendations and their eventual funding to assure America’s veterans they will be
fully recognized and, if applicable, compensated for the sacrifices made in service to the
Nation and its citizens.
Veterans Health Administration
Expand Access to Veterans Health Care
Eligibility Reform and the Uniform Benefits Package are an
appealing concept, offering our veterans a comprehensive health care plan that provides
the care they need. What is bothersome, however, is the annual enrollment requirement and
not knowing what priority levels will be enrolled each year. FRA believes the Veterans
Health Administration (VHA) medical treatment and care centers should be open to all
veterans’ regardless of their ability to pay. The Association agrees there must be a
system granting priority access for certain veterans; i.e. – service-connected
disabled at 30 percent or more; however, all veterans rated 20 percent or less, or
non-rated, should be granted access on an equal basis – first come, first served. The
latter group would include non-disabled military retired veterans who were promised free
medical care for life and received that care previously, but do not now have access to
military treatment facilities (MTFs). These military retirees are forced to seek treatment
from other than MTF sources.
Congress, through the Base Closure and Realignment Acts
(BRAC), voted to close MTFs, many of which were located in areas where retirees resided
for the purpose of obtaining the benefits promised to them and their families. It is only
fair that Congress should now allow them higher priority access to VA health care and
direct the Department of Defense to reimburse the VA for care tendered. Frankly, FRA
further believes that extending equal access to veterans as suggested above will improve
quality and the administration of care in veterans’ health care programs. Lastly,
until the military initiates or provides sufficient access to some type of health care
program for "displaced" (Base Closure) military retirees, VA treatment
facilities should be open for their use at no cost to the retiree. Therefore, FRA does not
advocate the adoption of TRICARE in VA medical facilities for military retirees.
Medicare Subvention
FRA is concerned with dwindling access to health care. In
its statement on the proposed VA Medicare Subvention Demonstration Program in July of last
year, FRA stated this concern: "its membership, with an average age of 68 years, will
be compelled to seek health care in non-military treatment facilities, even though the
vast majority are military retirees." When these retirees made their decision to
retire in a certain area of our country, they did so with the thought of being close to a
military installation or MTF. As stated earlier, many of those installations have closed
and MTFs are no longer available.
FRA believes it would be cost-effective for the VHA and the
Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) to allow Medicare-eligible veterans to
voluntarily utilize VHA facilities for their health care. Medicare Subvention is integral
to fulfilling the promise of health care for veterans who served the Nation in war and
peace.
HCFA would reimburse the VA for care provided
Medicare-eligible veterans and at the same time collect from third party insurers
providing veterans Medigap or other commercial healthcare policies. Instead of Medicare
dollars going to a commercial entity, authorizing Medicare Subvention for the VA would
then become one of the major building blocks to encourage DVA to continue and expand
modernization of its health care program.
FRA recommends that a demonstration project be authorized
for the VA to test the feasibility of establishing Medicare Subvention programs within its
health care facilities.
Medical Care Collections Fund (MCCF)
The MCCF program has achieved mixed results. Past
performance suggests the program failed to reach its collection estimates while the costs
to conduct the program continue to increase. Recent trends indicate that VA’s
collections have decreased over the past few years. VA collected $523 million in 1995,
$495 million in 1996, $450 million in 1997, and $442 million in 1998. The MCCF balance as
of September 30, 1999 was approximately $396 million, sustaining this trend.
FRA firmly believes the MCCF program was never intended as
a substitute for adequate appropriations, but rather as a program to compliment or
supplement appropriations. The Association recommends that to aid in providing additional
funding for the VHA health care system, VA should continue to collect reimbursements
through the MCCF program. However, VHA should be authorized to retain receipts from this
program and these should not be included in the VA budget.
Tobacco-related Illnesses
In 1998, Congress changed the law prohibiting
service-connection for disabilities related to smoking. Arguments have been made that
smoking is a matter of personal choice and veterans should not be compensated for an
illness that resulted from their choice. Counter arguments have been made that military
life created an environment and culture that encouraged smoking.
Many veterans began using tobacco during their military
service, it was a way of life. Information detailing the health risks associated with
tobacco use and nicotine addiction was nonexistent. There are some who believe the Armed
Services facilitated smoking by including cigarettes in meal rations and provided
cigarettes at discounted prices in military exchanges. FRA recommends Congress revisit and
repeal its 1998 decision.
The Association further recommends that DVA continue to
actively pursue procurement of funds from the tobacco industry for the purpose of
establishing care and treatment for tobacco-related illnesses attributed to smoking while
veterans were active members of the Nation’s Uniformed Services.
Nursing Homes, Long Term Care, and other Health Care
Programs
World War II and Korean veterans are in their 60s and
above, as are some Viet Nam veterans, and require a greater level of long-term care. This
year, the number of veterans 65 or older will peak at 9.3 million, and by 2010
approximately 8.5 million veterans will be 65 or older¼which equates to 42 percent of the
entire veteran population. No one can argue against the fact that as our veterans are
aging, more and more of them will become dependent upon the VA to provide the necessary
care in nursing homes, domiciles, state home facilities, and its underused hospital beds.
The Nation can ill afford to wait for out-year funds before it expands nursing or
long-term care.
FRA is grateful to Congress for the passing of Public Law
106-117, the Millennium Health Care Act. This statute makes great strides to achieve the
long-term care our veterans deserve. One concern of the Association, however, is the
proposed method by which VA plans to fully fund the Millennium Health Care Act.
After reviewing the DVA budget request, FRA disagrees with
the methodology used in collecting $350 million for the Millennium Act and then
transferring that money over to the Treasury. VA’s rationale for this is, in doing
so, it will allow more room for discretionary VA spending under the current caps set in
the Balanced Budget Law. The Association views this as a slight of hand rather than a
business practice and firmly believes any money collected from veterans for veterans
health care should stay with VHA.
FRA is opposed to consolidating the newly created Health
Services Improvement Fund and the Extended Care Revolving Fund with the Medical Care
Collections Fund (MCCF). The new funds were created as part of the Millennium Health Care
Act with the intent of improving various health services to veterans. The Association
believes there was never any intent on the part of Congress to allow the commingling of
these funds and asks that you keep them separate. This will allow for better tracking of
collections, but more importantly, it will ensure money collected for veterans long-term
care will be spent for future veteran long-term care¼just what Congress intended.
Medical and Prosthetic Research
Dollar for dollar, VA is widely recognized for its
effective research program. FRA continues to support adequate funding for medical research
and for the needs of the disabled veteran. The value of both programs within the
veterans’ community cannot be overstated. The need is there.
Veterans Benefits Administration
EDUCATION
Montgomery GI Bill (GI Bill)
As in the past, the GI Bill is one of the major enticements
for enlisting in the United States Armed Forces. FRA believes that improvements to the GI
Bill are necessary in order to continue to attract new recruits per congressionally
mandated recruitment levels each year. The Association is grateful for those actions taken
during the First Session of the 106th Congress in pursuing increases for
educational benefits for veterans eligible to participate in the program. This experience
suggests it will be very difficult to pass the comprehensive bills now before Congress.
The basic educational assistance allowance is set at a
monthly rate and is increased from time-to-time as described in 38 USC 3015. Although the
law provides for a percentage increase based on a rise in the Consumer Price Index (CPI),
annual legislation has overruled this adjustment and in some instances either reduced or
eliminated it altogether. That, coupled with education costs on the rise at a greater rate
than the increase in the cost-of-living established by the CPI, has placed an unreasonable
financial burden on those seeking a four-year degree.
Presently, the GI Bill provides a monthly stipend of $536
for nine months out of the year or $19,296 over a four year period. According to VA
calculations, the current average annual cost of college tuition, fees, and board is $981
monthly or $8,829 for the typical nine month academic year. Over a four year period the
current allowance pays just over half the average cost for tuition, fees, and board.
Estimates for the 2000-2001 academic year amount to $1000 a month or $36,000 over four
years.
FRA believes Congress should increase the GI Bill allowance
to an amount at least equal to the average cost of pursuing a four year college education.
The Association continues to subscribe to the belief once offered by the Treasury
Department that veterans who take advantage of their GI bill will eventually return more
money to the U.S. Treasury for every dollar spent by the Federal government for their
education.
Termination of the $1,200 Contribution to the GI Bill
FRA opposes the termination of the $1,200 contribution
(payroll deduction) to the GI Bill. The Association believes the contribution adds an
incentive for the service member to further his or her educational pursuits because of
this investment. However, in lieu of $100 per month for 12 months, the Association
recommends $50 monthly deductions over a 24 month period. At the end of the two year
period, he or she would be eligible to begin receipt of GI Bill benefits. Also recommended
is the reimbursement of contributions with interest if, at the end of the enlistment or
period of honorable service, the member chooses not to participate in the GI Bill.
Further, if the member fails to complete the term of enlistment or service, or is in
receipt of less than an honorable separation, no refund of contributions would be
authorized.
Transfer of Education Benefits to Spouses and Children
FRA opposes the transfer of education benefits to spouses
and children of those who have served less than a 20 year career in the Armed Forces. The
Association believes if this were allowed, the cost of providing education benefits to
veterans’ family members will soar to new heights. It’s difficult to forget the
years 1975 and 1976 when the high cost of funding the Vietnam GI Bill caused the major
veterans’ organizations and the incumbent Administration to call for its demise. Many
Vietnam veterans subsequently lost out on education benefits.
Education Benefits for Active Duty Personnel
FRA again suggests an amendment to provide stipends to
active duty personnel pursuing education under the GI Bill. If the service member has two
or more years of honorable active service and the inclination to enroll in a course of
education after regular duty hours, he or she should be authorized a partial stipend
depending on the number of hours completed each month. Today, many service members must
seek employment after hours in order to provide every-day comforts for the family. If the
member receives a stipend for enhancing his or her level of education instead of
"moonlighting," then we create a win-win situation where veterans can obtain the
best education for which they quality.
PAY AND COMPENSATION
Separation Pays
To ease service member’s transition, Congress agreed
to provide certain separation payments for those with six or more years of active service,
but less than 20. On departure from their uniformed service, they were encouraged to join
the Reserve or National Guard. However, few knew or were aware that if they eventually
retired and received retirement pay, their separation pay, special separation benefit
(SSB), or voluntary separation incentive (VSI) payment would have to be repaid to the
Federal government. The same applies to those who are later awarded service-connected
disability payments from the VA.
FRA is totally opposed to the requirement of repayment.
Under current law the service member who is released from active duty and does not qualify
for veterans disability payments, or is not accepted by the National Guard or Reserve,
never has to repay any portion of separation pay. If, however, qualified for either,
it’s time for pay-back. FRA has difficulty understanding why the individual willing
to further serve the Nation in uniform or is awarded service-connected disability
compensation should have to repay the Federal government for that privilege. The
Association recommends the repeal or the necessary technical language to amend the
applicable provisions in Chapters 51 and 53, 38 USC, to terminate the requirement to repay
the subject benefits. (Also requires an amendment to 1704(h)(2), 10 USC.)
Concurrent Receipt
FRA continues its advocacy of concurrent receipt of
military retired pay and veterans’ service-connected disability payments without loss
to either.
Late in the nineteenth century, Congress was looking at
military retired pay and disability pensions and found the administration of the programs
in shambles. There were instances of persons receiving military disability pensions while
still on active duty. In an effort to correct the problem, Congress inserted language in
the FY 1892 appropriations legislation prohibiting an individual from receiving both
military retired pay and a disability pension. Currently, the prohibition is described in
38 USC 5304(a)(1) and reads as follows:
- § 5304 (a) (1) Except to the extent that retirement pay is
waived under other provisions of law, not more than one award of pension, compensation,
emergency officers’, regular, or reserve retirement pay, or initial award of naval
pension granted after July 13, 1943, shall be made concurrently to any person based on
such person’s own service or concurrently to any person based on the service of any
other person.
Most retired military veterans abhor the knowledge their
Federal civilian counterparts can receive their government pension concurrently with
veterans’ compensation for service-connected disabilities. It is difficult to
comprehend the fact that retired military personnel, unauthorized to draw military retired
pay concurrently with veterans’ compensation, may gain employment in the Federal
establishment, switch his or her military retired pay to a Federal employee pension, and
be eligible for concurrent receipt of both the Federal pension and veterans’
compensation.
The argument of "same period of service to the Nation
cannot be compensated twice" follows. If this were true, why is a Federal employee, a
member of the National Guard or Reserve, paid by the military for the annual 14 day
training period and, at the same time, in receipt of payment for his or her Federal
employment, plus a credit for both civilian and military retirement purposes? This is,
without a doubt, dual payment for the same period of service. (Note: This is in no way
to be construed as advocating a change to the procedure of rewarding Guard and Reserve
personnel who also are Federal employees.)
FRA has long believed the statutory dollar-for-dollar
offset in military retired pay for any amount of VA disability compensation is an unfair
penalty, particularly for severely disabled retirees whose disabilities have precluded any
post-service working career. The Association is grateful for the passing of Special
Compensation for Severely Disabled Retirees last October and views this as a good first
step. We have recently learned there are many in Congress who believe that inclusion of
section 658 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal year 2000, now Public Law
106-65, fixed the concurrent receipt issue. That is far from the truth¼they are two
separate issues and concurrent receipt remains high on the Association’s agenda.
FRA remains committed to enactment of full concurrent
receipt for all disabled retirees. Retired and disability pays are totally different.
Retired pay is a force management tool designed to attract and retain large numbers of
high quality service members to pursue a military career. It is offered in recognition
that members are forced to start a new civilian career in their forties and face a
substantial income loss when leaving the military. Disability pay, on the other hand,
helps to compensate members for injuries or disease incurred in the line of duty. The
monetary benefits compensate for pain, suffering, or injury, plus the member’s
reduced earning potential.
FRA, as it did last year, recommends the repeal of 38 USC
5304(a)(1).
Court-Ordered Division of Veterans Compensation/Retired
Pay
The intent of service-connected disability payments is to
financially assist a veteran whose disability may restrict his or her physical or mental
capacity to earn a greater income from employment. FRA believes this payment is
exclusively that of the veteran and should not be a concern in the States’ Civil
Courts. If a Civil Court finds the veteran must contribute financially to the support of
his or her family, let the court set the amount allowing the veteran to choose the method
of contribution. If the veteran chooses to make payments from the VA compensation award,
then so be it. The Federal government should not play a collector’s role. FRA
recommends the adoption of stronger language offsetting the provisions in 42 USC, now
permitting Federal enforcement of State court-ordered divisions of veterans’
compensation payments.
FRA is truly grateful to the Chairman, House Committee on
Veterans Affairs, for his concern for the inequitable treatment in Federal law, not only
of veterans described immediately above, but veterans earning military retired pay for
long and faithful service to the Nation in the uniformed services. Last year, and again
early in the 106th Congress, Mr. Stump and his colleague, Mr. Norwood, had the courage to
sponsor legislation that provides sorely needed equality in the way military retired pay
is treated by State Civil Courts but, most importantly, by the very government to which
the veteran has devoted years of honorable service.
COMPENSATION AND PENSION PROGRAM
Disability Compensation Claims Processing
FRA believes the processing time for a disability
compensation claim continues to be excessive. Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA)
reports the average processing time for initial claims is 160 days. If that claim is
appealed to the Board of Veterans Appeals (BVA), as many are, the average time for a
decision is 700 plus days. Speed is an issue. More important is accuracy, a component of
processing ignored for years and the cause of many delays in finalizing a claim.
The Association is grateful for the budget and personnel
increase, however, more employees and money are not the answer if they are not properly
trained. VBA’s own Statistical Accuracy Report program (STAR) shows an error rate of
thirty to forty percent in their Regional Office’s (RO’s). Manager’s of
those RO’s attribute inadequate staffing and lack of training as the primary reason
for the high error rate.
National Cemetery Administration
Cemetery Systems
In 1862, President Lincoln signed into law legislation
authorizing establishment of national cemeteries "¼for the soldiers who shall die in
the service of the country." Fourteen cemeteries were established in that year making
the beginning of what has become the National Cemetery Administration (NCA). The NCA has
undergone many changes since its inception. Currently, the administration maintains over
13,000 acres of developed and undeveloped land containing over 2.2 million grave sites.
That equates to 117 cemeteries throughout 41 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto
Rico. The NCA anticipates the opening of two new cemeteries in spring of 2000.
One quarter of the nation’s 26 million veterans alive
today are over the age of 65. A rapidly aging veteran population coupled with the death
rate of World War II veterans creates resource challenges within the NCA. In 1989, there
were 459,000 veterans’ deaths according to DVA; nine years later there were 537,000
deaths and in 1998 that number reached 550,000 deaths. DVA estimates about 572,000
veterans will die in 2000 which is a rate of approximately 1,567 per day. Based on this
data, the NCA estimates its annual interment rate is expected to reach over 80,000 for FY
2000. Future projections suggest the number of deaths will increase to 601,000 in 2003,
and by 2008 that number will increase to 620,000 annually, or an average of 1,700 funerals
a day. During this time period, the interment rate will continue to rise thereby placing
even greater strain on NCA’s workforce and equipment.
The NCA has been doing much to meet resource challenges and
the demand for burial spaces for aging veterans. It could do more, but without the
necessary funds, the system will never meet the demand. FRA urges increased funding,
fenced so the NCA has exclusive use for the purchase of land, preparation, construction
and operation of new cemeteries, the maintenance of existing cemeteries, and the expansion
of grants to States to construct and operate their own cemeteries. FRA strongly supports
the NCA’s appropriation request of $110 million and an increase of 47 FTE for FY2001.
Other Recommendations for Consideration
The following are recommendations related to the goals of
the Association as resolved by the FRA membership in convention in August 1999.
TRICARE and DOD
FRA does not support HMO-style health care for military
personnel. The current dissatisfaction with DOD’s TRICARE system is adequate reason
to oppose any recommendation to expand the program within the VA Medical Services.
Arlington National Cemetery
FRA endorses the Bill, H.R. 70, that will establish new
eligibility requirements for burial in the Arlington National Cemetery. The House passed
this Bill on a 428-2 vote March 23, 1999 and it was placed on the Senate Calendar June 28,
1999. If this goes to conference, FRA recommends the Senate defer to the House proposal.
Additionally, FRA continues its support for the expansion
of the cemetery to include portions of the property now housing the Arlington Navy Annex
and any available property adjacent to the cemetery grounds.
Transition Assistance Program
FRA welcomes any recommendation to improve and adequately
fund the Military’s Transition Assistance Program. The Association has in the past
few years opposed the Department of Defense’s attempts to reduce this critical
program that assists service members in returning to civilian life when their periods of
active service in the Armed Forces are concluding.
FRA believes that if the Armed Forces had a more effective
program it would encourage members enrolled in the GI Bill to pursue their education
benefits upon separation. In this respect, the Association is pleased that the
Committees’ H.R. 4110 (P.L. 105-368) requires the VA and, in another section,
military service secretaries, to "ensure separating service members are well informed
of the eligibility requirements for education benefits." However, FRA is concerned
that the law is limited to service members released from active or reserve commitments at
the "convenience of the government." And, also, restricted to those enrolled
only in VEAP. FRA recommends that language be amended to cover all departing service
members whether enrolled in VEAP or GI Bill.
Uniformed Services Former Spouses Protection Act
(USFSPA)
In 1998, the Chairman held hearings on the USFSPA. It was
clear the original law made its way through Congress under suspicious circumstances and
has become a one-way weapon used by many former spouses, and their attorneys, to
financially bleed their military spouses of outrageous sums.
Late last year, FRA sponsored a voluntary survey and
received 327 responses from both male and female members of the Armed Forces, mostly
active duty and retired enlisted personnel in pay grades E5 through E9. The Association
sent a letter, along with a summary of survey responses, to most members of Congress
requesting their support for having a bad law revisited. The current statute is offensive.
It is not equitable to all it serves, and it is discriminating to many.
FRA strongly endorses Messrs. Stump and Norwood’s
proposal, H.R. 72, and urges all members to support amendments to the USFSPA. The
Association believes USFSPA should be as fair to the military retiree veteran as it is for
his or her spouse.
Conclusion
Mr. Chairman. In closing, allow me to again express the
sincere appreciation of the Association’s membership for all that you, the Veterans
Affairs Committees, have done for our Nation’s veterans over these many years.
Particularly gratifying is the passage of H.R. 2116 (P.L. 106-117) covering many
improvements in veterans’ health care.
FRA again thanks the Joint Committees for having its
representatives aboard for a review of the Association’s 2000 goals. Granted, not all
veterans’ issues are cited in this statement, however, the Committees do have the
Association’s support for the improvement or enhancement of any veterans programs not
addressed herein.
Back to Witness List |
