Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "55280621",
    "label": "Interagency Veterans Policy Group Meeting with VSOs [Veterans Service Organizations] 5/24-25 [1995]",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/55280621"
}

{
    "id": "55280621",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/55280621",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Interagency Veterans Policy Group Meeting with VSOs [Veterans Service Organizations] 5/24-25 [1995]",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/55280621",
    "collections": [
        "Records of the Domestic Policy Council (Clinton Administration)",
        "Molly Brostrom's Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/systematic/2012-0326-S/42-t-7763280-20120326S-013-005-2017.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/systematic/2012-0326-S/42-t-7763280-20120326S-013-005-2017.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/systematic/2012-0326-S/42-t-7763280-20120326S-013-005-2017.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/55280621",
    "naId": 55280621,
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "otherTitles": [
        "42-t-7763280-20120326S-013-005-2017"
    ],
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/systematic/2012-0326-S/42-t-7763280-20120326S-013-005-2017.pdf",
    "mediaId": "f500c294b9fb47a6",
    "ocrText": "Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet\nClinton Library\nDOCUMENT NO.\nSUBJECT/TITLE\nDATE\nRESTRICTION\nAND TYPE\n001. list\nInteragency Veterans Policy Group meeting attendees (partial) (2\n05/24/1995\nP6/b(6)\npages)\n002. list\nInteragency Veterans Policy Group meeting attendees (partial) (2\n05/24/1995\nP6/b(6)\npages)\n003. list\nInteragency Veterans Policy Group meeting attendees (partial) (2\n05/25/1995\nP6/b(6)\npages)\nCOLLECTION:\nClinton Presidential Records\nDomestic Policy Council\nMolly Brostrom\nOA/Box Number: 8398\nFOLDER TITLE:\nInteragency Veterans Policy Group Meeting with VSOs [Veterans Service\nOrganizations] 5/24-25 [1995]\n2012-0326-S\nkc785\nRESTRICTION CODES\nPresidential Records Act - |44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]\nFreedom of Information Act - 15 U.S.C. 552(b)]\nP1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]\nb(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]\nP2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]\nb(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of\nP3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]\nan agency |(b)(2) of the FOIA]\nP4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or\nb(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]\nfinancial information [(a)(4) of the PRA|\nb(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial\nP5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President\ninformation [(b)(4) of the FOIA]\nand his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRAJ\nb(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of\nP6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of\npersonal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]\npersonal privacy |(a)(6) of the PRA]\nb(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement\npurposes |(b)(7) of the FOIA]\nC. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed\nb(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of\nof gift.\nfinancial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]\nPRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.\nb(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information\n2201(3).\nconcerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]\nRR. Document will be reviewed upon request.\n05/12/95 12:29\n202 273 4876\nVA OFC OF SECTY\n001\nUT\nDATED VETERARS THE\nTHE SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS\nWASHINGTON\nSTATES OF\nFacsimile Cover Sheet\nTo: Molly B.\nCompany:\nPhone: (202) 456-7028\nFax:\nFrom:\nCompany: Office of the Secretary\nPhone:\nFax:\nDate:\nPages including this\ncover page:\nComments:\nPutting Veterans First\n05/12/95\n12:30\n202 273 4876\nVA OFC OF SECTY\n002\nETY\nVITERANS AMERICA\nTHE SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS\nWASHINGTON\nOF\nMAY 4 1995\nMEMORANDUM\nTO: Executive Directors:\nAmerican Legion\nAMVETS\nBlinded Veterans Association\nDisabled American Veterans\nMilitary Order of the Purple Heart\nNational Association of State Directors\nfor Veterans Affairs\nParalyzed Veterans of America\nFROM: Robert L. Jones, Office of Boston\nVeterans of Foreign Wars\nVietnam Veterans of America\nand Veterans Affairs\nSUBJ: White House Interagency Veterans Policy Group\n(Time Change)\nThe White House Interagency Veterans Policy Group meeting on\nMay 21, 1995, originally scheduled for 2:00 p.m. to 3:30\np.m. is now scheduled for 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. So sorry\n2:30\nfor the inconvenience.\nPutting Veterans First\n05/12/95\n12:30\n202 273 4876\nVA OFC OF SECTY\n003\nOF\nUNITED CREATMENT\nTHE SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS\nWASHINGTON\nSTATEM UP\nCITY\nAPR 26 1995\nMEMORANDUM\nTO: Executive Directors:\nAmerican GI Forum of the U.S.\nCatholic War Veterans\nJewish War Veterans\nMilitary Coalition\nNational Association of Black Veterans\nNational Association for Uniformed Services\nNational Guard Association\nNon Commissioned Officers Association\nReserve Officers Association\nThe Retired Officers Association\nThe Retired Enlisted Association\nFROM: Robert L. Jones, Office of Public Liaison\nand Veteran Affairs\nSUBJ: White House Interagency Veterans Policy Group\nWe cordially invite you to attend a meeting of the White\nHouse Interagency Veterans Policy Group. The meeting will\nbe held on Thursday, May 25, 1995 from 11:00 a.m. to 12:30\np.m. in Room 180, Old Executive Office Building.\nThe White House Domestic Policy Council, Office of Public\nLiaison, and Office of Cabinet Affairs recently created an\nInteragency Veterans Policy Group consisting of\nrepresentatives from federal agencies who are responsible\nfor veterans policy in order to provide a forum to discuss\nveterans policy issues that cross agency boundaries. This\ngroup allows the representatives from federal agencies\nrepresenting the needs of veterans to coordinate their\nefforts, to foster communication, and to better meet the\nneeds of the veteran community.\nThe Policy Group will also provide members of the Veteran\nService Organizations and the military coalition an\nopportunity T.O provide input into emerging policy issues\nPutting Veterans First\n05/12/95\n12:30\n202 273 4876\nVA OFC OF SECTY\n004\naffecting their membership. We are holding this meeting to\nprovide organizations an opportunity to highlight issues\nthat they would like the Policy Group to address. You are\ninvited to make a five minute presentation to Domestic\nPolicy. Cabinet Affairs, and Office of Public Liaison staff\non issues concerning your interests. Please submit written\nissue papers to Bob Jones, Office of Public Liaison, three\ndays prior to the meeting.\nDue to the space and time limitations we ask that you send\nonly one representative to the meeting. Please RSVP by\nfaxing or calling the date of birth and social security\nnumber for your representative to Virginia Copeland at (202)\n273-4836 or fax (202) 273-4876.\n-2-\nMeeting with Veteran Service Organizations\nMay 24, 1995\nSummary\nVSO Representatives: Attached\nWhite House Representatives: Kitty Higgins, Carol Rasco opened\nmeeting; Jeremy Ben-Ami, Lee-Ann Inadomi, Steve Hilton, Molly\nBrostrom, Bob Jones\nGeneral suggestion: Request for meeting between agency members\nof the IVPG and VSOs. WH said would consider for early fall.\nAmerican Legion\nSupport for Constitutional amendment prohibiting flag\nburning\nNormalization with Vietnam--no movement until significant\ncooperation and full accounting of POW/MIAs has been\naccomplished\nBlinded Veterans Association\nContinued advocacy for health reform and disability policy\nParalyzed Veterans of America\nPraise for WHCoA and generally for IVPG--pressure from White\nHouse is helpful\nLegislative hopes: health reform; and eligibility reform\nDisability policy review very important, particularly in\ncontext of budget and philosophical attacks on programs.\nDisabled American Veterans\nEmployment agenda: transition assistance--the current\ndownsizing/relocation in the private sector has resulted in\nsignificant focus on impact on civilians. Why is there not\na commensurate concern for veterans and military in military\ndownsizing/base closures?\nEmployment and Training system/vouchers--why not use GI Bill\nof Rights system for preventing fraud? no need to reinvent\nthe wheel.\nDVA and PVA are looking at legislation for 8A-like program\nto assist people with disabilities, including veterans\nHomeless veterans not given attention or preference at HUD;\nneed for more coordination and outreach during application\nprocess for HUD grants (HUD promised guidelines?)\nSupportive of Administration's Civil Service Reform\nproposal--better than Congressional; King has been very\naccessible\nNative Americans and claims process/denial of benefits--\nAdvisory Committee needs to look into.\nVeterans of Foreign Wars\nStrong support for VA health care eligibility reforms;\noppose Republican budget proposals\nVietnam Veterans of America\nHomelessness among veterans--continues to need greater\nattention, in particular at HUD. Veteran-specific programs\nare most effective. HUD doesn't recognize veterans as\nspecial needs population. Suggestion: Recognize veterans\nas special needs population and explore pass-through\n-\narrangement ordgetary temcessily send some $ directly to VAd,\n?\nDOL\nfunding for HVRP (srcassful, relatively charp)\nEmployment--concern about beginning of Vietnam Veterans\nemployment crisis; Vietnam Veterans are being hurt in\ndisproportionate numbers by recent downsizing and\ndislocation.\nSuggestion: Don't include veterans employment programs in\nconsolidation/block granting.\nProblem: VOC rehab doesn't do enough on the employment\n?\nside. (New issue: VA Voc Rehab/DOL Veterans interaction\nCivil Service Reform--important that OPM retains ability to\nmonitor agency compliance with federal personnel policies.\nNational Association of State Directors for Veterans Affairs\nBudget is top concern\nMeetings with VSOs and Military Coalition Groups (5/24-25/95)\nDate\nMinutes\nAttendees:\nVSOs 5/24\ncommuts//ssues Raised:\nDVA/PVA--looking at legislation for 8A-like program to assist\npeople with disabilities including veterans\nHUD grants: Do they go proportionately to veterans?\nAmerican Legion--New issues: 1) support for Constitutional\namendment prohibiting flag burning; 2) Normalization with\nVietnam--no movement until significant cooperation and full\naccounting of POW/MIAs\nBlinded Veterans Association--continued advocacy for health\nreform and disability policy\nParalyzed Veterans of America--Kudos for WHCoA and generally for\nIVPG--pressure from White House helpful. Legislative hopes:\nhealth reform; eligibility reform (sees $2 billion savings);\nDisability policy review very important, particularly in context\nof budget and philosophical attacks on programs.\nDisabled American Veterans--Employment agenda: transition\nassistance program; Supportive of Civil Service Reform proposal\n(better than Congressional; King very accessible); E & T\nsystem/vouchers--why not use GI Bill of Rights system for\npreventing fraud? no need to reinvent the wheel. Native\nAmericans and claims process/denial of benefits--Advisory\nCommittee needs to look into.\nVFW--presented paper opposing Republican budget proposals and\npromoting eligibility reforms.\nvet specific\npaper\nVietnam Veterans of America: 1) Homelessness among veterans--\nprogs not\ncontinues to need greater attention, in particular at HUD. 2)\nAust\nEmployment--concern about beginning of Vietnam Veterans\neffective\nemployment crisis, given downsizing, dislocation. Problem: VOC\nrehab doesn't do enough on the employment side. (New issue: VA\nSupput\nVoc Rehab/DOL Veterans interaction 3) Civil Service Reform #0f\nfor cant\nimportant that OPM retains ability to monitor compliance.\nvviswor\nSugg:\nagrees\nulfed'l\nof cove\nSDVA: Budget is top concern.\nsermind\npolicies\nHVD beart\nOPM: check\nregisterts\nVV disprip by affected by empl did\nas Sp needs\nSugg: Don't include vets progs in ansol\nSuggestion:\nHave DOL agencies check on status\nrecognized\nreads pup\n4) Gulf Wa\nword\n5) Presil Poulumit corn\nby explure\nminur Pers Gulf\npass then\nargut\nupdate\nMeeting with Military Coalition Groups\nMay 25, 1995\nMilitary Coalition Representatives: Attached\nWhite House Representatives: Jeremy Ben-Ami, Lee-Ann Inadomi,\nSteve Hilton, Molly Brostrom, Bob Jones\nWHCoA--suberb, but 3 veterans resolutions not passed (abstentions\ncounted as no's)\nNational Association for Uniformed Services\nWould like axth to\nMedicare subvention at military hospitals\ntest in pilot prof\nRetired Enlisted Association\n(budget media brfy; rondtash\nMedicare reimbursement/subvention\nAsk day Aftairs ifin\nDeferer Arth Hct\nUnder 65 military retiree and DOD Tri-Care Prime Program (AI M / dor)\n(going into Medicare HMOs negative for under 65. will have\nto pay Tricare premium); and U.S. Treatment Facilities; has\nbeen committed by gov't but military personnel are losing\ncentrul Bob\nKundred\nNat'll\nAssoctor Unitimed Service to for\nVP closing the Uniformed Services Medical School, based on\nflawed data; Congressional committees rejected--won't\nsucceed in future; affects quality of care.\n+ Jewish Wa Vets\nBob\nWho?\nFlect Reserve\nActive Duty Desert Storm people still being told there in\n?\nnothing wrong with them. but farced out\nRIF- Reduction Force\n?\nRIFs give preference to VA, not military. (?)\nVets Pref. Petivee Law_\nAmerican GI Forum\nIndividual Vita Mil Retiree is\nPreston\nlove,\nnot given vets\nHVRP is on rescision list; it is a priority.\npref in red of\nNon-Commissioned Officers Association\nMil. firee +> 50% of salary as retivent\nconcurrent receipt--going nowhere. must howeril\n1\nface (waddreys\nbeliab -D and drin both\nBob\nC In TVin regs\nretired pay & tidley\n@ OPM)\n2) RIF--special separation bonuses--pay 40% back to suecure VA\nentitlement. Taxes are included in amount to be repaid\n(Treasury issue--IRS 3-year statute of limitation coming up)\n(SSB?) When dec. made for red force, established on Can Z progs\nNational Guard\nspecial Sip.B\nHouse mark up cuts funding for youth-at-risk programs in\nNational Guard (House believes shouldn't be funded out of\nDOD; DOD supports the programs).\nbeing\nDOD needs to address\nDNPR\nREGO and National Guard Positions-- the bulk of REGO\nreductions happening at DOD; at the same time that Perry\nsays he wants to put greater emphasis on Guard/Reserve--\nthreatens the readiness of troops.\nReserve Officers\nErosion of earned benefits not discretionary entitlements--\ncan't just change them: e.g. health care, changing\nretimrement for people in system; survivors benefits\nprograms, COLAs.\nSeconded concern about troop readiness and REGO reductions.\nRetired Officer Association\nMedicare subvention- why is OMB blocking; HHS lobbying\nagainst.\nTriCare will lock many of DOD retirees out of DOD's health\ncare system--will cost HCFA at least ?$4800/person?.\nCOLA equity\nJewish War Veterans\nSubvention; Lock out from Military HEalth Care system.\nNational Association of Black Veterans\nRole of veterans in dealing with social problems, youth here\nin this country.\nMil. technician / civimilitary - one of most proveful Cobbay,\ngp\n- doesn't want to take their fair share\n- prob'ly get 65c\n1) e-mail\nsched' request will convene after\n2) JB rise @ 8.5.\n5/24/95 MEETING WITH USO',\nPOSTAL SERVICE /SSUES\nDVA / /PAV - (ating C legislation For 8A-like program\nto Assist people ~/ distilities incl. veterans.\nHUD granh: d then So proportionately jets?\nAm. LEGION: I VA Bjdger 2 ELIG REF IN VA med. care.\nCONSTIT Anone on Flag burning.\nVIETNAM Normalization AL way no rosests norm\nutil signif inc in coop in Accounts, For POU/MIA.\nAMVETS:\nBLINDED JETS : OHEALTH important 2 Dislosue encouraging.\n3\nInitiations this A.M. were encouraging.\nGORDON MANIFIELD - PSA: i 1 HJD issue c LEGISLATIVE people:\nHC, clig reform: $2B SAVINGS. 3 WHICH was geod.\n4\nDISAS POL ROUTEW -ver important.\nD.A.V. - Ros DRACH : , Briefing this Am was good.\n2\"\n=\nTransition Assistance Program:\n,\nJET, Prof.\n*\nf\nE+T system Voccurs. why not Use\nGI B.11 at Rights system?\nNOTE: N.A.'s concerned re' denial for benefits.\nVFW: I Budger 2 ELIG REFORM\nVIET VETS Am: I HOMELESS VETS 2 Employment: SALSAGER\ncan\nno\nwer Emp system! -very concerned ast dislocation,\nExpiore\nTHESE\n(SSUES of\nretraining AreA Prois: use RETAL doesn't do ast\nmore\non the employment side.\nJETS PREF: imp- that OPM have abil +\nmonitor compliance\nNEW ISSUE: UA Joe REWAR / DOL UETS intraction.\nSDVA:\n1\nBudgen\n5/24 IVPG Mtg\nwaves\n6-6742\nkitty - Reactions to VE Emits\n273-5615 273 5615\n503:\nPossibility of joint onty w/ IVPG stuff\n- puhaps once/yr (fall)\nRon Drach : h'less nets\nKatz: hiless vets\nvit,\n93-94\nlazy where on applications\nA\nget statution lung b quotes from HUD\nHUD\npromised gilines an vets' applicatinsfor\ngrants\nAm Legin - VA budget\n(JohnSommos) - elig reform\ndrafting leg.\nNew: Constil around - agst Plag burning\n-H Judician Subcom hy today\n2) Numalization wl V'nam\nno ment whil\nsigit coop t full accty of BulMits\n(-Pres met w/ Kerry /Mclain yesterdey)\nAmVETS\n- Junes Kenney\nREGO reactions, perhaps\nBlinded Vetsl- Tom Miller\n-dirlogue encourapy\n- hrefam idisabs\n-DOD rep tomorrow?\nParalyzed Vets / Garden Mastield\n1.\nInteringency\npressure by WH impt\n- Message to leg.\nhreform elig. reform ($2B)\nWHEAT excellent Medicare\n- -Disability review very shipt\ndattacks from budget D\nphilosophical\n(Ron Drach\n- -employment agenda: transition assistace\n- civil serice return - like much bthr then Cong'l\n- kilyvey accessible\nHR 1617 - Goodling - fraud & abuse\n?\n-Gornn needs to look @ GI Bill's pross for\nprev's fraud\n- VETS transfer Congil hz\n-Ind. Budget\n$2B\nDOL\n[ Claims process + Native this\nAdv Comm needs to look cho\nsimplification\noutreach/set\nVFW - paper\nVietnam\n-hikesness : needs 8Pm attn i not beingiven @ HUD\n-enplymt: Comena abt beginning of VV enplaisis\nwks together well\ndomnsizey Cpub opur)\nBub Jones\nPreston Taylor\n-partly for disas vets\nCany evoc Rehab head)\n-VocRehab doesn't do good Gob on empl side\nVockshab: - Civil Service: impt that OPM retains desight dil\nouts fating\nSDVA - biggest concern is budget\n3- 3 - vetums specific resuls\nall failed\nWithdrawal/Redaction Marker\nClinton Library\nDOCUMENT NO.\nSUBJECT/TITLE\nDATE\nRESTRICTION\nAND TYPE\n001. list\nInteragency Veterans Policy Group meeting attendees (partial) (2\n05/24/1995\nP6/b(6)\npages)\nCOLLECTION:\nClinton Presidential Records\nDomestic Policy Council\nMolly Brostrom\nOA/Box Number: 8398\nFOLDER TITLE:\nInteragency Veterans Policy Group Meeting with VSOs [Veterans Service\nOrganizations] 5/24-25 [1995]\n2012-0326-S\nkc785\nRESTRICTION CODES\nPresidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]\nFreedom of Information Act - 15 U.S.C. 552(b)]\nP1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRAJ\nb(1) National security classified information |(b)(1) of the FOIA]\nP2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA\nb(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of\nP3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]\nan agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]\nP4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or\nb(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]\nfinancial information [(a)(4) of the PRAJ\nb(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial\nP5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President\ninformation [(b)(4) of the FOIA]\nand his advisors, or between such advisors |a)(5) of the PRA]\nb(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of\nP6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of\npersonal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]\npersonal privacy |(a)(6) of the PRAJ\nb(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement\npurposes |(b)(7) of the FOIA|\nC. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed\nb(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of\nof gift.\nfinancial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]\nPRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.\nb(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information\n2201(3).\nconcerning wells |(b)(9) of the FOIA|\nRR. Document will be reviewed upon request.\n[001]\n05/22/95 13:11\n6'202 273 4876\nVA OFC OF SECTY\n002\nWHITE HOUSE INTERAGENCY VETERANS POLICY GROUP\nOLD EXECUTIVE OFFICE BUILDING\nMAY 24, 1995\n1:00 PM - 2:00 PM\nRoom 180\nAmerican Legion\n-\nE.O.\nJohn Sommer\nSSN:\nP6/(b)(6)\nDOB:\nAMVETS\nJames Kenney 2 E.D.\nSSN:\nDOB:\nP6/(b)(6)\nBlinded Veterans Association\nTom Miller 3 E.D.\nSSN:\nDOB:\nP6/(b)(6)\nDisabled American Veterans\nRon Drach 4 N.E.D.\nSSN:\nP6/(b)(6)\nDOB:\nMilitary Order of Purple Heart\nGreg Bresser\nSSN:\nP6/(b)(6)\nDOB:\nNational Association of State Directors\nfor Veterans Affairs\n7\nCol. Joseph R. Clelan, Deputy Adjutant\nGeneral for Veterans Affairs\nSSN:\nP6/(b)(6)\nDOB:\n05/22/95 13:11\n202 273 4876\nVA 0FC OF SECTY\n003\nParalyzed Veterans of America\nGordon Mansfield\n4.5\nSSN:\nDOB:\nP6/(b)(6)\nVeterans of Foreign Wars\nFrederico Juarbe, Jr.\n?\nSSN:\nDOB:\nP6/(b)(6)\nVietnam Veterans of America\nWilliam F. Crandell\nI\nSSN:\nDOB:\nP6/(b)(6)\nWithdrawal/Redaction Marker\nClinton Library\nDOCUMENT NO.\nSUBJECT/TITLE\nDATE\nRESTRICTION\nAND TYPE\n002. list\nInteragency Veterans Policy Group meeting attendees (partial) (2\n05/24/1995\nP6/b(6)\npages)\nCOLLECTION:\nClinton Presidential Records\nDomestic Policy Council\nMolly Brostrom\nOA/Box Number: 8398\nFOLDER TITLE:\nInteragency Veterans Policy Group Meeting with VSOs [Veterans Service\nOrganizations] 5/24-25 [1995]\n2012-0326-S\nkc785\nRESTRICTION CODES\nPresidential Records Act - |44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]\nFreedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)|\nP1 National Security Classified Information |(a)(1) of the PRA]\nb(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]\nP2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office |(a)(2) of the PRA]\nb(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of\nP3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]\nan agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]\nP4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or\nb(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]\nfinancial information [(a)(4) of the PRAJ\nb(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial\nP5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President\ninformation |(b)(4) of the FOIA]\nand his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]\nb(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of\nP6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of\npersonal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]\npersonal privacy |(a)(6) of the PRAJ\nb(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement\npurposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]\nC. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed\nb(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of\nof gift.\nfinancial institutions |(b)(8) of the FOIA]\nPRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.\nb(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information\n2201(3).\nconcerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA|\nRR. Document will be reviewed upon request.\n[002]\n05/22/95 13:11\n202 273 4876\nVA OFC OF SECTY\n002\nWHITE HOUSE INTERAGENCY VETERANS POLICY GROUP\nOLD EXECUTIVE OFFICE BUILDING\nMAY 24, 1995\n1:00 PM - 2:00 PM\nRoom 180\nAmerican Legion\nJohn Sommer\nSSN:\nDOB:\nP6/(b)(6)\nAMVETS\nJames Kenney\nSSN:\nDOB:\nP6/(b)(6)\nBlinded Veterans Association\nTom Miller\nSSN:\nDOB:\nP6/(b)(6)\nDisabled American Veterans\nRon Drach\nSSN:\nDOB:\nP6/(b)(6)\nMilitary Order of Purple Heart\nGreg Bresser\nSSN:\nDOB:\nP6/(b)(6)\nNational Association of State Directors\nfor Veterans Affairs\nCol. Joseph R. Clelan, Deputy Adjutant\nGeneral for Veterans Affairs\nSSN:\nDOB:\nP6/(b)(6)\nC002]\n05/22/95 13:11\n202 273 4876\nVA 0FC OF SECTY\n003\nParalyzed Veterans of America\nGordon Mansfield\nSSN:\nDOB:\nP6/(b)(6)\nVeterans of Foreign Wars\nFrederico Juarbe, Jr. Horold Seven\nSSN:\nDOB:\nP6/(b)(6)\nVietnam Veterans of America\nWilliam F. Crandell\nSSN:\nDOB:\nP6/(b)(6)\nWithdrawal/Redaction Marker\nClinton Library\nDOCUMENT NO.\nSUBJECT/TITLE\nDATE\nRESTRICTION\nAND TYPE\n003. list\nInteragency Veterans Policy Group meeting attendees (partial) (2\n05/25/1995\nP6/b(6)\npages)\nCOLLECTION:\nClinton Presidential Records\nDomestic Policy Council\nMolly Brostrom\nOA/Box Number: 8398\nFOLDER TITLE:\nInteragency Veterans Policy Group Meeting with VSOs [Veterans Service\nOrganizations] 5/24-25 [1995]\n2012-0326-S\nkc785\nRESTRICTION CODES\nPresidential Records Act - |44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]\nFreedom of Information Act - 15 U.S.C. 552(b)|\nP1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]\nb(1) National security classified information |(b)(1) of the FOIA]\nP2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]\nb(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of\nP3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]\nan agency |(b)(2) of the FOIA]\nP4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or\nb(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]\nfinancial information [(a)(4) of the PRAJ\nb(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial\nP5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President\ninformation |(b)(4) of the FOIA]\nand his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA|\nb(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of\nP6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of\npersonal privacy |(b)(6) of the FOIA]\npersonal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRAJ\nb(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement\npurposes |(b)(7) of the FOIA]\nC. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed\nb(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of\nof gift.\nfinancial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]\nPRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.\nb(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information\n2201(3).\nconcerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]\nRR. Document will be reviewed upon request.\n[003]\n05/22/95 13:11\n202 273 4876\nVA OFC OF SECTY\n004\nWhite House Interagency Veterans Policy\nThursday, May 25, 1995\n11:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.\nOEOB - Room 180\nAmerican GI Forum\nGretchen Navas Carlos Martinez\nSSN:\nDOB:\nP6/(b)(6)\nCatholic War Veterans\nRay Williams\nSSN:\nDOB:\nP6/(b)(6)\nJewish War Veterans\nCol. Herb Rosenbleeth\nSSN:\nDOB:\nP6/(b)(6)\nMilitary Coalition\nWilford G. Butler\nSSN:\nDOB:\nP6/(b)(6)\nNational Association of Black Veterans\nThomas H. Wynn, Sr.\nSSN:\nP6/(b)(6)\nDOB:\nNational Association for Uniformed Services X\nCharles C. Partridge\nSSN:\nDOB:\nP6/(b)(6)\nNational Guard Association\nGeneral MG Robert F. Ensslin\nSSN:\nDOB:\nP6/(b)(6)\n05/22/95 13:12\n202 273 4876\nVA 0FC OF SECTY\n4\n005\n[003]\nNon Commissioned Officers Association\nRichard Johnson\nSSN:\nP6/(b)(6)\nDOB:\nReserve Officers Association\nGen. Roger Sandler\nSSN:\nP6/(b)(6)\nDOB:\nThe Retired Officers Association\nCol. Paul Arcari\nSSN:\nP6/(b)(6)\nDOB:\nThe Retired Enlisted Association\nMike Zabko\nSSN:\nP6/(b)(6)\nDOB:\nFLEER.\n5/25/95\nNA Unif Serv Choch MIL COALITION\nRET Ene\nFLOTT\nBLACK VETS\nG Form\nNCO Dich S\nNATE G. Bob Ew\nRes off Rgv\nRET\nHerb Resenslity\nI\nWHCOA - issue of 3 (esos was caised.\nAbstentions were caused by \"no's.\"\nCOMMITMENT TO GET BACK ON CONCERN alon JOTING\n2\nChuck PARTRIDGE : MEDICARE REIMBURSEMENT * SA hospitals.\n+ MILITARY hospitals\n3\nMike ZABRO\nREIMBRSOMENT ssses\nUnder 65 mil setires - AND instruct in\nTRICARE proj.\nUS TREATMENT Fixes - JSTFS. into snation\nink TRICASE - going into Tricare will\nbe negative fos under\nK\nwill have & PAY TRICARE premium\n-hat been committed by Gou't: bet mil\npersonal are losing.\n-\nUP closing the Xsa.Medical 2 School\n- Flared data - possibly false\n- Affects quality of care.\n- would welcome opportunity to\n- wait SICCECE in Hill Anywar.\n3\nActive Date DESART from people still being\ntold type is noting wrong with then.\nRIFS? non Jets have pref in RIFS?\n4\nGIFOROM - Carlos MARTINEZ\n- -HURP is in rescission - is it Apriority.\n5\nNCOA - -Dice Johnson\n- Concurrent receipt?\nRIF- special SRP bondsses - PAY back to secure\nJA entitlement.\nTaxe pd Are included :- ant & be sepaid.\nTreasure issue.\n6\nNATL GUARD -\n-House mark up who york X\nDOD has been supportive - incls high-screal\ndroposh.\ntest in tn shates.\nNAR Go. positions:\nBolton line: too web of LEGO ceduction out\nof millitions - partic concerned T redetion\nof GUAR positions.\n7\nRES. Off. ASSN\nRoger Sandles.\nTreamph ilsr of technicians in the RESERVED.\n- readiness issue.\n- Air NATL Guard AI well AT NATL GUARD.\nERGIN of earned benefits.\n- not discretanary - can't\njust change benefits, health pselage;\nCOLAS.\n8\nRETIRED off ASSN\n- when is OMB placking the doins. sebsention?\n-HHS lobbying A3Airsh.\n- OMB Against.\nwaking for support on the subsention inc.\nALSO: COLA equit.\na\nJewish war VETERANS (Hesb)\n-ech deph of feeling on he benefits\n10\nBLACK JETS\nNice shatmal on role of KY in desling\nin Social problems, your hase in this\nCountry.\n5/25 IVPG Mtg w/ Military Coalition Groups\nWHCOA - superb - but 3 resolutions\n-600+signatues on each\nnot passed\n- brewing\n-voting\n900 /100 - 900 ab sterting\ncounted as no\nNatil Assoc for Unifaned Services\n-Allow use of Medicane at Militry hosps\nSubventia\nRetived Enlisted Assoc\n- 265 mil retiree\nDOD Tri-Cave Prime progm\nHMO Medican\nvery Upse\nHerb\nVP Closing of Mit. Medical School\nUniformed Services\nany / Duns, Comittees\n\\\n(bedect)\n- flawed data\nrejected\nN\n- Soldies Navy\n?\n- RIF's give preference to VA, not military\nif\nAm. GI Form\n-HVRP progr\nNCOA\n- -concument receipt Egory nouture\n?\n- Drawdown? / SSB - regulatory issue\n*\n- Treasury - IRS 3-yr state\nNatil Grad\nhs disport, enhance thing science's muth\n- -H cut youth at - risk progs in nat'l and -\nH belief that shouldn't by fuiled at of DoD -\nP.D supports pugs\n- ReinvGa - bulk of dran dounce DOD (20% add'l\nto already I'd 1060% Govd) -at Same fine as Perry\nsays he wants to put 8th enphasis on Gred/Res\n-threaters readiress of mits\nReserve seconded Offices\n-Erosion of earned benefits : Heave, A'gRehnet\nfor pple in syst; suriva benefitsprogs; couts\n-Mediceve Subrention: Shall Cobby.s\npatile\n- but Tri-Cere will lock my of DOD retivees oct of\nDOD's he system - will cost HCFA@6ast\n$7:00\nJewish Veterms\nas Subrention / Lockat (afor Mil. Hear\nBl Veteras\nMil. Coalition mtys\nAd Hoc Mtrs\nwkg draft\nINTERAGENCY VETERANS POLICY GROUP\nWORKING AGENDA\nJune 28, 1995\nShort term Issues\n1. Budget\nThe budget continues to be of primary interest to the veteran service organizations (VSOs)\nand military coalition groups. The groups reiterated their support for the President's 1996\nbudget and opposition to Republican proposals.\nThey also expressed concern about provisions in the Republican Rescission package,\nincluding a $50 million cut in VA medical care and a $5 million cut/elimination of DOL's\nHomeless Veterans Reintegration Program.\nOMB will report on status of Rescission package and these specific provisions.\n2. White House Conference on Aging\nRepresentatives of veterans service organizations had high praise overall for the the 1995\nWhite House Conference on Aging, held on May 2-5. The Conference included 20\ndelegates appointed by Secretary Brown and 40 appointed by veterans' organizations.\nVSOs and the military coalition groups expressed concern, however, about the resolutions\nvoting process and outcome. The WHCoA staff, working with Veterans Affairs, are in the\nprocess of scheduling a meeting for early to mid-July to discuss these concerns.\n3. Uniformed Services Medical School\nSeveral of the military coalition groups are concerned about an Administration proposal to\nclose the Uniformed Services Medical School. The proposal has been a part of the Vice\nPresident's National Performance Review, the President's budget. and the Pentagon's\nBottom Up Review. The groups have concerns about the data used in making the decision\nto close the school, and claim that the proposal has no chance in Congress given past\nopposition. GAO is in the process of conducting a review of this issue.\nNPR, OMB, and DOD will give background and any update on the issue.\n4. Constitutional Amendment to Ban Flag Burning\nAt a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Commitee. Walter Dellinger presented the\nAdministration position that, while the President has a long and vocal record in support of\nprotecting the Flag from desecration and worked to craft legislation to outlaw such\ndesecration, he does not support a Constitutional amendment to ban Flag burning.\nOPL will report on White House discussions with the American Legion on this\nissue.\n5. Department of Labor Advisory Committee on Veterans Employment and Training\nThe Department of Labor's Advisory Committee on Veterans Employment and Training is\nexpected to present a report of its findings to the Secretary by July 1.\nDOL will present a preliminary report on the Committee's findings,\nhighlighting any areas where the IVPG may be helpful in addressing\nrecommendations.\nof Vets Prets\nLonger Term Issues\n1. Eligibility Reform\nEligibility reform continued to be of primary importance to the VSOs. The second phase of\nthe Department of Veterans Affairs' National Performance Review (REGO II) which VSOs\nand Military Coalition groups were briefed on prior to the May 25th Vice Presidential\nannouncement takes important steps toward addressing this concern. The initiatives\nincluded under this effort are designed to improve services to veterans, revamp VA's\ncomplex medical care eligibility rules, determine pilots to test the use of Medicare benefits\nat VA hospitals, and save money by streamlining. privatizing, or consolidating unnecessary\nor activities.\nMil duplicative Hospes are also very , trasted S.S. Bused The test pilot VA fuels\nOMB will report on any reactions to and on the status of the will REGO II to help OMB/ICA\nproposals 7 in particular the apilot\nassess feasil,\nMedical subv\nMedicare Subvention in Military Hospitals??\n(DOL\nDisnb Dets Otreach Prog Specialists (DVOPS)\n2. Employment Issues\nLocal Vet Emplynt Reps (LVERS)\nEmployment issues were high on the VSOs agendas. Several organizations raised the\npeciulists who help nets gain employment (not traching p-ojs\nconcern that insufficient attention is being paid to the employment impact on veterans and\nvets\nthe military of recent military downsizing and base closures. The Vietnam Veterans of\nAmerica in particular are concerned, fearing that an employment crisis is beginning among\nVietnam Veterans. They presented statistics stating that veterans are being hurt in\nIs\ndisproportionate numbers because of recent downsizing and dislocation in the private\n1-\nCareer\nsector as well as military Iseuhve in govt.\nstop\nCtrs\nproposed in Admin Card Hill?) - don't give vets privity\nDruch? seeks amend prov's for\nSpecifically. the groups cited the following issues:\nvets priority intain\nelig det referral fut\na) Employment and Training Consolidation proposals\ncritzy into EST pwgs\nThere are several proposals on the Hill that would cosolidate and/or block grant\nAlso y cont of DOL's\nA\nVETS\nemployment and training programs, including the Veterans Employment Training System.\nVSOs are concerned that, in moves toward streamlining and state/local control, veterans\ncontinue to be recognized as a federal responsibility. VSOs are pleased with language\nthat has been included in House E&T consolidation legislation requiring veterans\nHR\n1617\nrepresnetation on local and state boards.\nb) Voc Rehab effort to present renew or memorander fundeshing\nvets' emplynt\nrep in Astop\nCareer ctr syst\nDOL to present any updates on these issues. to discuss how\nb\nVA\nstaff Nets spily for disa\ncoup an better beach'd.\n3. Homelessness\nMuintof 7AP/DTAP\nprogram\nVSOs continued to name homelessness among veterans as a top issue of concern. The\nconcern is multiple: One, the size of the problem among veterans (20% of the homeless) job seace\nand the need to expand efforts to end it. Two, the perceived reluctance of HUD to fund\ntrunning\nto sep'g\nAs refs progs folded in, must maintmin structure\npersonal\nmilitary\nMaint of Natlvets Thereing\nveteran-specific programs and generally to reach out to veterans. Three. the need for\ngreater interagency coordination in addressing homelessness among veterans.\nTo address the need for greater interagency coordination, we are creating an IVPG staff-\nlevel homelessness subgroup. [ICH GROUP??] All agencies with programs affecting\nhomeless veterans (especially HUD, VA, HHS, DOL, and the Corporation for National\nService) should bring the name of your designee to the subgroup to the June 28 meeting.\nIn addition. a meeting has been scheduled between the Assistant Secretaries at HUD and\nDOL to discuss interagency cooperation.\nHUD will present any further updates.\n4. National Guard Reductions\nThe National Guard is concerned that reductions in National Guard Military technicians at\nthe same time that DOD is placing greater emphasis on the National Guard/Reserve will\nthreaten troop readiness.\nDOD to discuss.\n5. Disability Policy\nVSOs continued to highlight the importance of disability policy to many members of the\nveterans community. The Administration's review and commitment to disability policy was\nseen as even of greater importance in the context of budget and philosophical attacks on\nthe programs.\nThe Administration's National Disability Policy Review (NDPR) team includes Dennis Duffy\nfrom the Department of Veterans Affairs. and the team has included the Paralyzed\nVeterans and the Disabled Veterans of America on its outreach list. NDPR will continue to\nkeep these groups informed of progress and solicit reactions to proposals.\nA specific concern was raised about how Native Americans are affected in disability claims\nprocessing and denial of benefits. [WHO WOULD ADDRESS? ARE THESE VA BENEFITS\nOR SSA?NEED TO TALK TO RON DRACH. ]\n6. Backlog at Board of Veterans Appeals\nThe Department of Veterans Affairs has been working to address the backlog of claims at\nthe Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) and the Board of Veterans Appeals (BVA)\nthrough internal administrative initiatives, legislation. and the creation of panels of experts\nto review and improve procedures.\nIn addition, the President's FY 96 budget included almost $30 million for information\ntechnology improvements to assist in claims processing.\nVA will continue to update the IVPG on progress being made.\n7. Persian Gulf Veterans\nOn May 26, the President signed an Executive Order creating and naming the members\nand chair of the Presidential Advisory Committee to review and make recommendations\naimed at finding the causes of this illness and improving the care available to Persian Gulf\nveterans.\nOther Administration initiatives support the Presidential Advisory Commitee. For example,\nveterans who have disabling illnesses that have defied diagnosis are, for the first time,\neligible for veterans' compensation benefits. In addition, DOD will, for the first time.\nprovide research grants to university faculty and other non-Federal scientists to study the\ncauses, treatment, and possible transmission of Gulf War illnesses. The Administration\nwill spend $8-13 million on new research -- epidemiological research, research on the\ninteractions between anti-nerve gas pills and insecticides and other chemicals, and a wide\nrange of other research.\nNSC will provide any update on update on the announcement of members of\nthe Advisory Committee.\n8. Veterans Preference\n+context of\nThere is general support for the Administration's proposals for civil service reform,\nvis budget\nincluding praise for the degreee of access OPM Director King has given the groups. The\nconcern was raised that in these proposals/: OPM should still retain the ability to monitor\nagency compliance with federal personnel policies.\nhave\nOPM and NPR will update on the status of civil service reform proposals and\naddress the concern about OPM oversight.\nW -Retention issue as much as\nemployment.\n9. SBA 8A Program\nThe Small Business Administration's 8A Program provides assistance in obtaining\ngovernment contracts for economically and socially disadvantaged individuals. The IVPG\ncontinues to work with the SBA in exploring greater access for both veterans and for the\ndisabled to 8A preferences in contracting.\nThe President's National Disability Policy Review team has agreed to consider this issue in\ntheir review of federal programs. The IVPG will follow and report on these discussions.\nCHECK WITH DIANA--UPDATE?\n10. National Guard/Reserve Job Security\nDuring Desert Storm, an unprecedented number of Ready Reserve of the Armed Forces\nwere called to active duty, causing disruption in their lives in many ways, including\neconomically. As a result. proposals have been raised to provide economic assistance or\nassurance for members of the Ready Reserve to alleviate the economic effects of activation\nfor service in support of urgent operational missions or in times of national crisis.\nThe Department of Defense is developing a proposed insurance program to be offered to\nreservists to protect them against financial disaster if mobilized for a long period of time.\nThe IVPG will continue to monitor the status of this proposal.\nDOD and OMB will present any update.\nNormalization with Vietnam?\nIssues to Monitor\nThe IVPG has continued to monitor several issues that were of concern in the past, but\nabout which the Administration plans no change in policy. If there is any change in the\nstatus of any of these issues, agencies will bring them to the attention of the IVPG.\n1. Taxation of Benefits\nThe Administration is not considering taxation of veterans benefits.\n2. Veterans Employment Training Service (VETS) Program\nThere are no Administration plans to change the structure or management of the VETS\nprogram. either by consolidation with ETA or movement to the VA.\nNew Issues/Concerns\n1. World War II End Commemoration. Commemoration of the end of World War II\ncontinues through November 11, 1995. The President will travel to Honolulu in early\nSeptember for VJ Day activities.\n2. Korean War Veterans Memorial. On July 27, the new Korean War Veterans memorial\nwill be dedicated. President Clinton and South Korea President Kim will participate in the\ndedication, and it is estimated that close to 100,000 Korean War veterans will participate\nin commemoration ceremonies in Washington. An Interagency Coordinating Group under\nthe National Security Council is working on the event.\nDISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS\nPOSITION PAPER\nON\nVETERANS' PRIORITY OF SERVICES\nIN CURRENT CONGRESSIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE\nEMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING INITIATIVES\nDEPARTMENT AMERICAN\nVETERANS\nRONALD W. DRACH\nNational Employment Director\nDisabled American Veterans\nNational Service and Legislative Headquarters\n807 Maine Avenue, S.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20024\n(202) 554-3501\nMarch 30, 1995\nOut of recognition that the existing categorical employment\nand training programs do not adequately meet the needs of the\npeople for which they were designed, the past two decades have\nseen numerous administrative and congressional proposals\nredefining employment and training initiatives. During the\nClinton Administration and the current Congress a consensus\nappears to be building around certain concepts:\n1) There is a need to consolidate employment and\ntraining's categorical programs. This would be done\nby repealing the legislative authority establishing\nmany of the categorically funded programs and by\ngranting authority to waive requirements for other\nemployment and training programs which are perceived\nhurdles to consolidation efforts.\n2) The need to create One-Stop Career Centers which\nwould provide a common intake, eligibility\ndetermination and referral system for applicants for\nemployment and training services.\n3) Many of the Congressional initiatives which appear\nto be most favored on Capitol Hill provide for block\ngrants of federal funds to state governments according\nto formula. Under these laws state and local entities\nwould be created to administer these funds with\nminimal federal regulation and oversight.\nAn apparently unintended result will be the loss of\nveterans' priority of services in existing programs which would\nbe repealed by these laws. The current proposals have no\nconcomitant provision for such services. Thus, initiatives\nwhich may ultimately result in increased services to applicants,\nreduced administrative costs and increased local initiatives,\nmay have the unintended result of repealing priority employment\nand training services for veterans.\nOther veterans programs that would be impacted by loss of\npersonnel and administrative structure include:\n1)\nVeterans reemployment rights to jobs in the private\nsector. Chapter 43 of Title 38 USC provides for\ncertain military personnel to be able to return to\nunifamed Oct 94\ntheir jobs following separation from active duty and\nservices\nprohibits employers from discriminating against\nEmplymt\nNational Guard and Reserve members. As the active\nduty military is downsized, adequately trained and\necemply\nstaffed Reserve and National Guard units is critical\nRts Act\nto national security. However, many National Guard\nand Reserve members are forced by their employers to\ngive up their Reserve or Guard obligation or be\ndisciplined for missed work due to their participation\nin military readiness training and mobilization in\ntimes of national emergency.\n(2)\n2)\nThe Transition Assistance and Disabled Transition\nAssistance Programs (TAP/DTAP) which provide job\nsearch training to separating military personnel.\nThese programs have been shown to increase the quality\nof jobs obtained and reduce the period of unemployment\nfollowing separation by separating military personnel\nwith subsequent reduced unemployment insurance\npayments by the Department of Defense (DoD) to\nseparating service members.\n3)\nThe National Veterans Training Institute (NVTI) which\nprovides training to enhance the delivery of veteran\nservices by training DoD and employment and training\npersonnel in the following areas:\na)\nCase management of veterans with severe barriers\nto employment.\nb)\nDissemination of information outlining veteran\nemployment and training programs and support\nservices.\nc)\nIdentification and dissemination of veteran\nservice program models which improve veteran\nservices in employment and training delivery\nsystems.\nd)\nTraining for new programs such as the recently\ndeveloped TAP/DTAP programs, the recently revised\nveterans reemployment rights legislation, and\ncase management of veteran applicants with severe\nbarriers to employment.\nA BRIEF VETERANS EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING HISTORY\nHistorically, every nation that has intended to establish\nsafe borders for its citizens has either maintained a military\nor purchased the services of mercenaries -- often at its own\nperil -- for the common defense. Even at this time, when there\nis much debate about the proper role of the federal government,\nno rational justification has been provided for establishing a\nnational defense by allocating these responsibilities to the\nfifty states and territories. If there is an area of common\nagreement, it is that the safety of the U.S. citizen and the\nstates and territories is dependent upon the maintenance of a\nstrong military by the federal government.\nHistorically, citizens who served in the national defense\nhave been offered privileges and benefits because of the cost to\nthe individual which resulted from their service in the\nmilitary. In general, the benefits were intended to satisfy\nissues arising from low military wages, the effects of\nconscription, the loss of civilian wages or produce from\nfarming, loss of businesses, separation from family, compliance\n(3)\nwith a military structure designed to enforce organization and\ndiscipline with potential concomitant loss of individual rights\nenjoyed by virtually every civilian citizen, loss of time in the\ncivilian labor force and, ultimately, the horror, damage and\npain endured by those who suffered combat. The justification\nfor veterans' priority of service in existing employment and\ntraining programs and special employment rights grew out of the\nrecognition that there was a cost to individual citizens who\nserve in defense of their country. Also, it was in the national\ninterest to ameliorate the damage they suffered if the military\nwas to be able to sustain itself through the conscription and\nfinally the recruitment of quality men and women to serve in the\nmilitary. It was reasonably presumed then, and must be a\nconsidered factor now, that ultimately those who serve will\ncarry a message to their families and friends regarding the\nimpact of military service on their lives. It benefits future\nrecruitment and the general well-being of a nation for the\nconsensus to be that these men and women were treated fairly by\nthe government and the nation they served.\nAs a class, veterans status results from a unique\nrelationship with the federal government. This unique status\narises out of national security responsibilities of the federal\ngovernment. For example, conscription was imposed during\nperiods of national conflict. Draft evaders could receive\nimprisonment and large fines if they refused to serve. Since\n1973, the all-volunteer force has replaced conscription but has\nbeen dependent on a rising public reputation which followed\nconsiderable derision in the latter part of and immediately\nfollowing the Vietnam War.\nThe very nature of maintaining a military requires the\nflexibility to increase the number of personnel in preparation\nfor or during conflict. The result is that separating military\npersonnel will dramatically increase the number of veterans in\nthe civilian population following periods of conflict or when\nthe military is being reduced as a result of shifts in\ngeopolitical threats. During periods of major build ups, the\ncivilian sector may suffer due to the loss of its civilian\nworkforce. However, during periods of military downsizing, the\ncivilian sector generally has difficulty absorbing the rapidly\ndemobilized or downsized military forces.\nThe recognition of these burdens on servicemembers has\nresulted in laws adopted by first the Colonies which provided\nfor the maintenance of veterans disabled during war and the\nwidows and orphans of military personnel. Veterans' preference\nin federal civil service employment laws resulted from high\nunemployment rates of military personnel following the Civil\nWar. The GI Bill and other education and training initiatives\npassed just prior to the end of World War II, which were\ndesigned to assist separating military personnel who were\nexpected to overwhelm the civilian labor market. It was feared\nthat there would be so many unemployed veterans that civil\n(4)\nunrest could result due to their high unemployment rates and the\nconcomitant loss of so much of what they had fought for. The\nGulf of Tonkin Resolution was passed by the U.S. Congress on\nAugust 5, 1964. Eight years later the Congress enacted Public\nLaw 92-540, The Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance\nAct. In part, this law recognized the long-standing employment\nproblems of Vietnam veterans who served during an unpopular war\nand were discharged into a recessionary economy. That legacy\nstill colors the judgement of many as the nation examines the\nrole of national security in these changing times.\nFor the military to effectively respond to national\nemergencies, the men and women who serve operate under uniform\nstandards, rules and programs which assure congruence between\nmilitary activities. There is a subsequent ability to interact\neffectively in communications, command structure and\nactivities. Without such uniformity, combat effectiveness would\nbe severely reduced. For men and women who served in national\ndefense, there is an expectation that programs designed to serve\nthem would also generally meet such national standards of\nuniformity. Thus, as they move from place to place, they expect\na consistency in the level of employment and training services\nthey qualify for. Why would a veteran from Kansas be treated\nmore or less favorably than a veteran from New York City in a\nfederally funded program?\nAs documented in a Government Printing Office publication,\nThe Anvil and The Plow, the law creating the federal\nDepartment of Labor was passed on March 4, 1913. Initially the\nDepartment collected and disseminated labor force information,\nprevented the exploitation of cheap alien labor to the detriment\nof American wage earners, enforced child labor welfare laws,\nadministered naturalization laws for aliens and created a\nconciliation service to act as a mediator in labor disputes.\nHowever, only four years later, when the United States\nentered World War I, the federal Department of Labor became the\nnation's War Labor Administration. This organization had as one\nof its primary purposes the creation of a system of labor\nexchanges to ensure an adequate and stable labor force for war\nindustries. The labor exchange system was an important tool for\nresolving the conflict which arose out of competing interests: a\ngrowing military force which was dependent upon civilian\naccession and the civilian industry whose labor force needs\nexploded to satisfy the military's need for manufactured goods\nand armament.\nFollowing the war, several hundred Veteran Employment\nBureaus were established by the Federal Employment Service to\nhelp returning veterans find employment in the civilian labor\nforce. Ultimately that experience led to the passage of the\nWagner-Peyser Act on June 6, 1933. While veterans were not the\nsole recipient of employment services, this law was the\n(5)\nprogenitor of the veterans' priority of services concept in\nemployment and training programs.\nThe veteran employment offices dropped from about 1,000 to\n60 during the 1920s. In 1928, the Congress established veteran\nemployment offices in larger metropolitan areas. The\nWagner-Peyser Act provided the authority for the U.S. Department\nof Labor to require priority placement services for veterans in\nemployment service agency activities funded by taxes raised\nunder the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA).\nOn December 7, 1941, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. As\nthe nation moved to full scale war production, the War Manpower\nCommission was created and the U.S. Employment Service was\ntransferred to it to ameliorate the competing interests of\ncivilian and military labor force needs. As a part of its\nfunction, it absorbed the federal/state labor exchange system.\nThe War Manpower Commission was abolished in 1945, and the\nEmployment Service was returned to the U.S. Department of\nLabor. The labor exchange system which had been federalized to\nmeet the combined civilian and military labor needs was\ndefederalized and returned to the federal-state relationship.\nThe Employment Service at the end of World War II drew up a\nsix-point program calling for an effective placement service to\naid returning servicemen and women and disabled veterans. It\nalso provided for special services to veterans, including\nemployment counseling and preferential placement services with\npriority for disabled veterans.\nThe Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944 (GI Bill of\nRights) provided for the Veterans' Employment Service within the\nUnited States Employment Service and created the position of\nLocal Veterans' Employment Representatives in each office.\nThe Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act\n(Public Law 92-540) passed on October 24, 1972, more clearly\nspelled out priority veterans' employment services in\ncounseling, job training and placement services. Succeeding\nlaws created the position of Assistant Secretary for Veterans'\nEmployment and Training in the U.S. Department of Labor and\nprovided for Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program personnel.\nThese laws improved veterans services in existing programs which\noften appeared to serve veterans as an afterthought in spite of\nthe mandated priority of service.\nVETERANS DEMOGRAPHICS\nAs of September 1989, male veterans made up less than 14\npercent of the nation's labor force of approximately 126 million\nworkers. Nonveteran males and females made up approximately 42\npercent and 45 percent of the labor force, respectively.\n(September 1989, Bureau of Labor Statistics)\n(6)\nOf the 17.1 million male veterans who make up the civilian\nlabor force, 6 percent are disabled, 7 percent are over age 65,\n9 percent are black, and 3 percent are Hispanic. It is\nimportant to note that 72 percent of these male veterans were\nsubject to the draft during wartime.\nAs of December 1989, there were over 1 million female\nveterans in the civilian, noninstitutional population of whom\n595,000 were in the labor force. Almost 47 percent (509,000)\nwere over 50 years of age. (BLS unpublished data, December\n1989, Veterans Tables, Matrix: b100, p. 41)\nSince 1973 when the draft was eliminated, the demographics\nof armed services personnel have changed significantly. For\nexample, before 1973 the minority participation rate in the\narmed services was virtually the same as their proportion of the\nU.S. population. By 1990 the lack of opportunity in the\ncivilian labor force and the promise of opportunity in an all\nvolunteer military encouraged minorities of both sexes to enlist\nand reenlist in the military at disproportionately high rates.\nThe result was a military whose minority participation rate was\nmore than double their proportion of the U.S. population.\nJune 1990 data from the Department of Defense shows that\nminorities are disproportionately assigned to combat duties (29\npercent.) Personnel assigned to these military occupations\nreceive training which is least transferable to the civilian\neconomy and have the greatest number of combat and training\ncasualties.\nAn October 1989 Congressional Budget Office study, Social\nRepresentation in the U.S. Military, indicated that in\naccession year 1987, blacks made up 27.8 percent of the female\nrecruits and 18.5 percent of the male recruits. This study also\ndraws conclusions regarding the family incomes of accessions\ncompared to the general population by correlating the addresses\nof the new recruits to family income data available by zip code\narea and found: \"About 55 percent of the male active-duty\nrecruits in 1987 came from areas with family-income levels\nplacing them in the bottom half of the (income) distribution\nacross all zip code areas.\"\nThe combination of draft exemptions, programs like Project\n100,000, Department of Defense marketing strategies, threats of\njudicial action for draft evasion, public relations programs\ntouting the value of military training, and limited\nopportunities in the private sector encouraged a\ndisproportionate number of enlistments and reenlistments of the\nsocioeconomically disadvantaged. For example, during the\nVietnam era, the draft deferment system was a major factor in 1)\nincreased student enrollment in college (student deferments) by\nthose who could afford to attend an institution of higher\nlearning; 2) an extremely low representation of minorities in\nthe National Guard and Reserves (deferments from active duty)\n(7)\nand 3) a military force that was approximately race proportional\n(U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstracts of the United\nStates 1977, 98th ed., p. 368, table 587.) but disproportionate\nin combat casualties suffered by minorities. (Department of\nDefense, U.S. Casualties in Southeast Asia bv grade and\nmilitary service, Unpublished, December 31, 1978).\nThe military draft, which has had a tremendous impact on\nwho serves and who does not, was first implemented during the\nCivil War and was reimplemented during conflicts until 1973,\nwhen the all volunteer military force concept was initiated.\nThe draft was necessary because the government could not depend\non enough volunteers, even when the nation was at greatest\nrisk. During the Civil War, for example, the first draft was\ninitiated because the Union could not obtain enough volunteers\nto continue the War. Accordingly, without a draft, the United\nStates as we know it today, would not exist.\nEfforts to reduce political fallout from the draft during\nthe Vietnam era led to programs like Project 100,000 which\nmodified draft standards to conscript young males who were\notherwise not draft eligible because of low IQ levels and\neducational attainment. The impact was felt predominantly by\nthe disadvantaged -- and disproportionately by minorities. The\n\"100,000\" refers to the number of conscripts who met the revised\ndraft standards in training at any one time.\nThe study by the Human Resources Research Organization,\nEffects of Military Experience on the Post Service Lives of Low\nAptitude Recruits: Project 100,000 and the ASVAB Misnorming,\nDecember 1989, 14 years after the Vietnam war was declared over,\nindicated the following for Project 100,000 conscriptees:\n*\nFifty-six percent served in Vietnam (compared to 34.8\npercent for all veterans).\n*\n\"\nA higher proportion of Project 100,000 veterans\nwere unemployed as compared to nonveterans with\nsimilar characteristics.\" (emphasis added)\n*\n\"Three income measures were examined (hourly pay,\ntotal household income, and yearly earnings), and in\neach case, the nonveterans were found to be making\nsignificantly more than their veteran counterparts. \"\n(emphasis added)\n\"Significant differences were found in regard to\neducation and training, with those who never served in\nthe military somewhat better educated and more likely\nto have participated in a training program of some\nkind. \"\nBureau of Labor Statistics data which compares the\nunemployment rate of veterans to nonveterans of the same age\n(8)\ngroups show that veterans unemployment rates will exceed the\nnonveteran counterpart unemployment rates for about ten years\nfollowing separation from the military. For example, in 1970,\n1,043,000 Vietnam veterans were released from active duty at the\naverage age of 23 years. When they reached the 30-35 age group,\nabout 10 years later, their unemployment rate finally dropped to\ncomparable unemployment rates of similarly aged nonveterans.\nHowever, Bureau of Labor Statistics and Employment data\n(\"The Employment Situation: February 1991\") showed that the\nunemployment rate for Vietnam era veterans in the 35-39 age\ngroup exceeded their nonveteran counterparts by 4.7 percentage\npoints (10.7 percent versus 6.0 percent) 15 years after the\nVietnam conflict. During each recession following the Vietnam\nconflict the lower labor market penetration of the more recently\nseparated veteran has reflected a disproportionately higher\nunemployment rate than nonveterans of the same age group.\nThe Bureau of Labor Statistics article in Monthly Labor\nReview, \"Employment Status of Vietnam Era Veterans,\" published\nin April 1990, reported on a 1987 survey. That article\nindicated that 14 years after ground troops were removed from\nVietnam in 1973, those who actually served in the Southeast\nAsian Theater, especially those with service-connected\ndisabilities, continue to experience greater employment related\ndifficulties than their peers. The report also revealed\ndisproportionately high unemployment rates for female veterans.\nAn October 21, 1994 Bureau of Labor Statistics news\nrelease, \"Employment Situation of Vietnam Era Veterans,'\nindicated that only 20 percent of the disabled veterans rated 60\npercent or more by the Department of Veterans Affairs were in\nthe labor force. This compared to a 91 percent participation\nrate for nondisabled veterans.\nThe popular myth is that the training veterans receive in\nthe military gives them an advantage in the civilian labor\nmarket. A June 1969 study, Labor Market Activity of Veterans:\nSome Aspects of Military Spillover, conducted by Paul A.\nWienstein, Director of the University of Maryland, Department of\nEconomics, concluded:\n15.9 percent of Army veterans use their military\ntraining while 28 percent of the Navy veterans did.\nNot only was there a relatively low rate of\nutilization of the (military) skills, but we found\nthat the market did not work effectively in aiding\nthose veterans who were interested in using their\nservice experience. For veterans who did look and\nfind jobs related to the military experience, we\ninquired about the benefits received and whether, in\nfact, these were attributable to the military\nexperience. We found half of the Army veterans\n(9)\nreceived no benefit at all as a result of the military\nexperience. (emphasis added)\nA Department of Veterans Affairs study, Readjustment\nProfile for Recently Separated Vietnam Veterans, (June 1973)\nindicated:\nOnly about 49.3 percent (of the veterans polled)\nreceived some academic or technical training in the\narmed forces. Of these veterans, only 29.6 percent\n(about 15 percent of the total) indicated that their\ntraining was helpful in obtaining a job when they\nreturned to civilian life. (emphasis added)\nA November 1986 Department of Defense study of the all\nvolunteer armed forces, The Economic Return to Military\nService (Daymont, Thomas N. and Andrisani, Paul J.), points out\nthat veterans' earnings dropped significantly below their\ncivilian counterparts upon leaving the military. This study\nalso refers to disproportionately higher rates of unemployment\nfor recently discharged veterans and points to an unexplained\nanomaly that, \" on the average, young Army veterans earn\nbetween $1,700 and $3,500 less than veterans from the other\narmed services at the same point in their life cycle.\" Marine\nveterans earned even less, on the average, than did Army\nveterans. \"[T]he basic pattern of these branches effects on\ncivilian earnings may persist for several years into their\ncareers.\"\nA more recent publication, Military Occupational and\nTraining Data (MOTD), Volume II (Department of Defense; Defense\nManpower Data Center; 1988), indicates that about 30 percent of\nthe enlisted and 25 percent of the officer military occupations\ncould not be assigned corresponding civilian Dictionary of\nOccupational Titles (DOT). (The DOT code system assigns a\nnumerical reference to virtually all civilian job titles.)\nThe MOTD indicated, \"First, there was the obvious situation\nof infantry men, tank crew members, and other purely combat\nspecialities for which no civilian counterpart would be\nexpected.\" The MOTD fails to note that military personnel will\nbe assigned and serve in disproportionate numbers in the\nmilitary occupations for which there is no civilian\ncounterpart. Also, the report does not point out that many men\nand women who are trained in transferable military occupations\nare frequently assigned to work in occupations which are not\ntransferable.\nPapers prepared for the National Bureau of Economic\nResearch by Joshua D. Angrist compare the income levels of World\nWar II and Vietnam era veterans to nonveterans. The studies are\nunique in that they compare veterans with their similarly\nsituated nonveteran counterparts based on Social Security\nrecords. Most comparisons of incomes between veterans and\n(10)\nnonveterans refer to census data that does not control for\nphysical and mental health, educational levels and aptitude and\nIQ requirements for entry into the military.\nWorking paper No. 2991, Why Do World War II Veterans Earn\nMore Than Non-Veterans? dated May 1989 contradicted its own\nquestion by finding that World War II veterans earnings are 6-12\npercent less than comparable nonveterans. The study, Lifetime\nEarnings in The Vietnam-era Draft Lottery: Evidence from Social\nSecurity Administration Records, found that the Vietnam-era\nveterans' earnings were approximately 15 percent less than the\nearnings of comparable nonveterans.\nCurrent Employment and Training Initiatives\nThe Clinton Administration has initiated a number of\nprograms for which veterans' priority of service is not\nrequired. For example, Unemployment Insurance (UI) profiling,\nwhich is described as an effort to identify UI applicants by\ntheir personal characteristics who are unlikely to find\nemployment before exhausting UI. They would be placed in a pool\nfrom which a number would be referred for comprehensive and\nintensive employment services. While this appears to be a\ndesirable initiative, the lack of veterans' priority referral\nfor employment services appears to violate Title 38 USC Chapter\n41. In addition, this Administration has proposed the creation\nof One-Stop Career Centers which would provide for common intake\nand eligibility determination for a number of existing\nemployment and training programs. This initiative meets the\ndesirable goal of increasing access to programs and services\nwhile at the same time potentially reducing administrative and\npersonnel costs. However, these initiatives do not provide for\npriority intake or referral for services to veterans who have\nbeen identified as eligible applicants for these programs. It\nshould be noted that administration proposed bills (H.R. 4040,\nRemployment Act of 1994; S. 1964, Reemployment and Retraining\nAct of 1994), which died in the last Congress, would have\nprovided for the waiver of Title 38 USC Chapter 41, thus,\neliminating the need to provide veterans' priority of service in\nWagner-Peyser funded activities.\nLegislation currently pending before Congress provides for\nthe repeal of employment and training programs which have\nhistorically provided special or priority services for veterans\nand in some cases may provide for waiver of 38 USC Chapter 41\nveterans service requirements. These bills would consolidate\nemployment and training programs, provide for One-Stop Career\nCenters and except for S. 180, block grants to states:\nO H.R. 511, the \"Workforce Preparation Development Act,\"\n(Representative McKeon (CA))\n(11)\nH.R. 1120, the \"Employment Enhancement Reform\nAct,\" (Representative Zeliff (NH) )\nO S. 143, \"Job Training Consolidation Act of 1995,\"\n(Senator Kassenbaum (KS))\nO S. 180, the \"Workforce Development Act,\"\n(Senator Kennedy (MA) )\nH.R. 511 goes further than any of the other initiatives by\nrepealing veteran employment and training programs administered\nby the VA, including VA training programs authorized under\nChapter 106 Title 10 USC and Chapter 30, 31, 32, 35, and 41 of\nTitle 38 USC.\nWe seek amendments to proposed employment and training\nlegislation which would provide for veterans' priority intake,\n) Status?\nstatus?\neligibility determination, referral for and entry into\nemployment and training programs and job referral. Priority\nreferral to an employment and training program would occur if\nthe veteran was found eligible for the program.\nWe strongly object to including VA administered education\nand training programs in these consolidation initiatives.\nDAV Proposed Veterans' Employment and Training Programs\nCompatible With Current Initiatives\nFraming veterans services in the context of current\ninitiatives, we would like to see the following:\n1) The continuation of Assistant Secretary, U.S.\nDepartment of Labor for Veterans' Employment and\nTraining Services.\n2)\nContinuation of Regional Administrators and State\nDirectors for Veterans' Employment and Training\nService with appropriate staff.\n3)\nThe creation of a veterans' employment representative\nin the One-Stop Career Center system to report\ndirectly to the One-Stop Career Center director\nregarding the following:\nA)\nInitiatives and service models that will\nhelp to ensure compliance with veterans'\npriority of service obligations under the\nlaw.\nB)\nAssist in the development of reporting\nsystems and standards that will indicate the\nservice providers compliance with veterans'\npriority of service as required by law.\n(12)\nC)\nProvide direct supervision to personnel\nassigned to implement special veteran\nservices.\nD)\nProvide reports to State Director for\nVeterans' Employment and Training, U.S.\nDepartment of Labor.\nE)\nAdvise the One-Stop Career Center manager\nregarding veterans services.\nF)\nThe One-Stop Career Center manager as the\nagency director, would be responsible for\nassuring veterans' priority services.\n4)\nProvision for certain staff whose exclusive\nresponsibility is to provide direct services to\ndisabled veterans and support for the TAP/DTAP. After\nthe disabled veteran's service needs are met, these\npersonnel may service other veterans. Services\nprovided by these personnel would include:\nA) Job placement.\nB)\nJob development.\nC) Referral for employment and training programs\nand services.\nD) Other employment and training services.\nE)\nOutstationing at VA Vocational Rehabilitation\noffices to provide employment and training\nservices to veterans who are in or recent\ngraduates of 38 USC Chapter 31 programs.\nF)\nProviding case management to disabled\nveterans with barriers to employment.\nG)\nProviding referrals for supportive services\nthat will assist in stabilizing veterans to\nenhance their ability to obtain employment\nincluding:\ni) Job counseling and testing;\nii) Job search seminars; and\niii) Referral for food, clothing, housing,\nmental health counseling, and drug\nand alcohol rehabilitation.\nH)\nProviding job search seminars to separating\nmilitary personnel in cooperation with the\nTAP/DTAP programs.\n(13)\n5)\nProvision of priority of service for all programs for\nwhich the veteran is found qualified.\n6)\nMaintenance of Chapter 43 Title 38 USC and\ncontinuation of its implementation through the\nVeterans' Employment and Training Service.\n7)\nMaintenance of the TAP/DTAP program and provide for\nthe use of special disabled veteran service providers\nto continue their presentation of the job search\nseminars on military installations.\n8)\nMaintenance of the NVTI.\n9)\nGrandfathering of LVER and DVOP personnel into the\npositions created to ensure veterans services in\nOne-Stop Career Centers.\n10)\nContinuation of the provision of special veterans\nhiring considerations when filling the One-Stop Career\nCenter veterans' representative and disabled veteran\nservice provider positions, State Directors and\nRegional Administrators for Veterans' Employment and\nTraining Service.\n1/9\"\nTHE MILITARY COALITION\n201 North Washington Street\nAlexandria, Virginia 22314\nEND UNFAIR DISPARITIES IN RETIRED PAY\nCOST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENT (COLA) DELAYS\nThe Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 imposed severe multi-year\nCOLA delays on military retirees - far exceeding the sacrifices asked of other\nCOLA recipients. While the FY1995 DoD Authorization Act equalized the 1995\nmilitary and Federal civilian COLA dates, severe FY1996-98 disparities remain.\nThere are 50 million Federal COLA recipients. Of these, more than 46 million\n(92 percent of the total) incur no COLA sacrifices at all. Two million Federal\ncivilian retirees will see only three more months of COLA delays in 1996 before\nreturning to January COLAs in 1997. In stark contrast, 1.4 million nondisabled\nmilitary retirees face delays totaling 27 more months (nine months each for\n1996 through 1998) nine times the remaining Federal civilian sacrifice.\nFor the average retired officer, the cumulative five-year COLA forfeiture will be\n$2,301. A Federal civilian retiree with the same retired pay will give up about\none-quarter of that amount - $603. The average enlisted retiree will lose\n$1,228; the equivalent Federal civilian retiree, only $322.\nMilitary retirees expect to assume their fair share of sacrifice, but this is a\ngrossly disproportionate $2 billion surtax imposed on military retirees in spite\nof and in fact because of their extended sacrifices in uniformed service. It\nimposes 88 percent of the financial sacrifice on military retirees, even though\nthey comprise only 3 percent of the COLA-eligible population.\nSince 1969, military and Federal civilian retirees have received the same COLAs\non the same dates. With recruiting in decline, career stability undermined by\nthe force drawdown, and ever more intense operational requirements on the\nremaining forces, Congress should not be relegating military retirees to \"second-\nclass\" treatment.\nThe President's Budget (PB) for FY1996 provides $385 million in offsets to\nequalize the COLA dates for 1996. The PB does not address FY1997-98, but\nAdministration sources indicate similar offsets are available for those years.\nThe Military Coalition urges the Congress to fix this serious\ninequity once and for all and end this highly divisive annual\ndebate by equalizing the military and Federal civilian COLA dates\nin this year's Budget Resolution, not only for FY1996, but for\nFY1997-98 as well.\nApril 25, 1995\nSHARED SACRIFICE??\n1993 OBRA IMPACT\nFEDERAL\nMILITARY\nOTHER COLA\nFEDERAL\nCIVILIANS\nRETIREES\nRECIPIENTS\nCIVILIANS\n(5%)\n(3%)\n(0%)\n(12%)\nOTHER\nMILITARY\nCOLA\nRETIREES\nRECIPIENTS\n(92%)\n(88%)\nCOLA POPULATION\nCOLA SACRIFICE\n(52 Million Total)\n($2.4 Billion Total)\nNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR UNIFORMED SERVICES\nNATIONAL ASSOCIATION\n5535 HEMPSTEAD WAY\nSPRINGFIELD. VA 22151-4094\n*\n(703) 750-1342\n108\nFax (703) 354-4380\nUNITE\nSERVICES\n\"The Servicemember's Voice in Government\"\nUNIFORMED\nEstablished 1968\nSOCIETY OF MILITARY WIDOWS\n(Affiliated 1984)\nFACT SHEET\nMilitary Medical Care\nMilitary retirees are trapped between the policies of the Department of Defense (DoD) and the\nHealth Care Financing Administration (HCFA). The two departments will not cooperate in\nchanging the current law to achieve taxpayer savings and provide a promised health care\nbenefit.\nThroughout their career, military personnel and their families are told that while current\ncompensation is low, part of their compensation package is lifetime medical care. earned by\nservice in the military (enclosure 1). These patriots also paid for Medicare through mandatory\npayroll deductions as is the case of all other working citizens. However, upon becoming\neligible for Medicare, military retirees. unlike other Federal employees of the Executive,\n? tre?\nLegislative and Judicial branches, are dropped from their military health care system. The\nonly exception is if space and expertise are available in a military hospital. the hospital\ncommander may choose to treat the retiree. Retirees and their families are the lowest priority\npatients in the Military Health Services System: therefore. they are the last to be accepted for\ntreatment.\nFurther. with the large number of base and military hospital closures, the cutback in uniformed\nmedical personnel and severe reductions in Federal civilian medical personnel. care in the\nmilitary hospitals is increasingly not available. Military retirees are being notified in ever\nincreasing numbers that they are \"disengaged\" from the Military Health Services System.\nThey rightly feel abandoned by their employer, DoD. Because of budgetary constraints and\nmilitary end-strength reductions, it is clear that DoD is committed to a further shifting of\nresponsibility for the health care of older retirees to Medicare only. This is unconscionable. A\nmilitary retiree is a military retiree regardless of age, physical condition or geographical\nlocation. DoD must not be allowed to abandon its lifelong employees at age 65.\nThe following three point proposal is a cost-effective solution that will make more efficient use\nof military medical treatment facilities (MTFs) while generating savings for the Medicare Trust\nFund and honor the commitment made to military personnel:\nAuthorize Medicare reimbursement (subvention) to MTFs. Allow military retirees to\npresent their Medicare benefit at military medical treatment facilities and for the facility to bill\nHCFA. The reimbursement rate could be set below that now being paid to private sector\nmedical providers. This would ensure savings to the Medicare Trust Fund, while covering the\ncost of treatment in the MTFs, some 25 - 40 percent below what the same treatment would\ncost in the private sector;\nSince many military retirees do not live near military facilities, enact legislation to\nprovide TRICARE/CHAMPUS beyond age 65 as 2nd payer to Medicare which is now done for\nFederal civilian employees under the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan (FEHBP). In\naddition,\nAuthorize FEHBP as an option for military beneficiaries. The incentive for military\nbeneficiaries to enroll and pay the premium would be freedom of choice and a defined\nbenefit. The Federal government would realize savings, FEHBP would relieve pressure on the\nover burdened MTFs. So long as enrollment in FEHBP is an option and not mandatory,\nbeneficiaries could not complain.\nThese solutions do not completely replace loss of access to MTFs. but would recognize that\nmilitary personnel were promised lifetime medical coverage in exchange for military service of\n20 or more years. These solutions should go a long way toward ensuring that military\nmedical beneficiaries are no longer the only Federal employees who lose their employer\nprovided health coverage at age 65. Further, it would help restore confidence by those who\nhave served that the current leadership intends to see that promises made and relied upon\nare honored.\n2\nARMY\nARMY BENEFITS:\nHEALTH CARE, HOUSING, SHOPPING\nAND SCHOOLING\nSuperb Health Care. Health\nBENEFITS\ncare is provided to you and your\nfamily members while you are in\nthe Army, and for the rest of\nyour life if you serve a minimum\nof 20 years of active Federal\nservice to earn your retirement.\nHousing, shopping, schooling and recreational\nfacilities. The Army provides them all-plus\nexcellent pay-to give you a high standard\nof living in an attractive and wholesome\nenvironment.\nAsk your Army Recruiter for more details on\nall these benefits and how they can benefit you.\nMaybe the most personally rewarding Army feature\nARMY. BE ALL YOU CAN BE.\nof all is the special pride you'll feel performing\nNote Information in this publication is subject in change\nSee your local Army Recreater for the latest information\na valuable service for your country.\nRPI 909 NOVEMBER 1991\nUSG PO. 1992 643-711\nNATIONAL ASSOCIATION\nNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR UNIFORMED SERVICES\n5535 HEMPSTEAD WAY\nSPRINGFIELD. VA 22151-4094\n(703) 750-1342\nFax (703) 354-4380\n1H75\n\"The Servicemember's Voice in Government\"\nSOCIETY OF MILITARY WIDOWS\nEstablished 1968\n(Affiliated 1984)\nLIFETIME MEDICAL CARE PROMISE\nThe promise of lifetime medical care is contained in law and tradition that date\nback more than 100 years. All current military retirees thought they had earned\nlifetime military health care for themselves. their spouses. and survivors by their\nmilitary service because it was emphasized as a recruitment and retention\nincentive in all of the services from the recruiting office to every level of\ncommand.\nFor indisputable evidence that the free lifetime medical promise is still being\nmade. see Army Recruiting brochure [RPI 909. November 1991 - USGPO\n1992 643-711]. from which we quote:\n\"Superb Health Care. Health care is promised to you and your family members while you are\nin the Army. and for the rest of your life if you serve a minimum of 20 years of active\nFederal service to earn your retirement.\"\nFurther evidence of the promise is contained on page 36 of the recruiting\nbrochure. Marines, Life in the Marine Corps. from which we quote:\nBENEFITS These are only a few of the great extras you'll find when you join the Marine\nCorps. And the nice part is. should you decide to make a career of the Corps. the benefits\ndon't stop when you retire. In addition to medical and commissary privileges. you'll receive\nexcellent retirement pay...\"\nAir Force Pre-reenlistment Counseling Guide. Chapter 5 Medical Care.\nSection 5-2.f.. dated 1 April 1986-\n\"One very important point. you never lose your eligibility for treatment in military hospitals\nand clinics\"\nAir Force Guide for Retirement. Chapter 1. 1 April 1962-\n\"Treatment Authorized. Eligible retired members will he furnished required medical and\ndental care.\"\nmore\nThe following is extracted from page 94 of the UNITED STATES COAST GUARD\nCAREER INFORMATION GUIDE. USGPO 1991. We quote--\n\"Retirement\nMost career Coast Guardsmen retire after serving between twenty and\nthirty years of service. Current retirement programs allow you to collect about\nhalf of your base pay at twenty years and up to three-fourths base pay at\nthirty years.\nRetirement benefits mean more than pay too. You continue to receive\nfree medical and dental treatment for yourself plus medical care for\ndependents. You also remain welcome at military commissaries. clubs and\nexchanges. Free space-available travel on some military flights allows retirees\nto travel to exotic foreign lands...\"\nNow. after the fact. retirees are being told that such care is only space available:\nthat it was never promised, and even if it was it is not. in fact, an \"enforceable\ncontract\" based on a specific code of law.\nAnother reason retirees believe that they have access to military health care is\nthat they have paid for medical care again through mandatory Medicare pay roll\nand Part B deductions.\nAs shown. lifetime medical care has been expressly promised in military\nrecruitment and retention literature over the years since World War II. DoD must\nbe required to accept full responsibility for providing lifetime medical care for its\nretirees, regardless of age or physical condition. including those who retired after\nlong years of service or because of medical disability.\nENLISTED\nRETIRED THE ARMED DATE PORCES\nThe Retired Enlisted Association\nGOVERNMENT AFFAIRS OFFICE\n909 N. Washington St., Suite 301\nFOUNDED 1963\nAlexandria, Virginia 22314\nTelephone 703-684-1981 Fax 548-4876 1-800-554-TREA\nCHARTERED BY\nCONGRESS\nWhite House Interagency Veterans Policy Group\n1. Last year TREA expressed its displeasure that the President's Budget did not offer COLA\nequity between federal civilian retirees and military retirees. This year, the President's\nBudget does include COLA equity and for that we would like to thank you publicly.\n2. Military Health Care\nSubverhor\nWe are seeing the over-65 year old DoD beneficiary being disenfranchised\nfrom the Military Health Services System.\nTo date, HCFA has shown no interest in\nreimbursing DoD Medicare dollars when\nDoD treats a Medicare eligible military\nretiree.\nNOTE: DoD is willing to treat\nMedicare eligibles at a negotiated\n93% of the capitated cost.\nIn the long term, we believe the American\ntaxpayer will spend more dollars as the\nover-65 military retiree turns to the\nprivate sector for health care.\nThe under-65 military retiree is the only class of citizen in the DoD community\nthat is required to pay an enrollment fee ($230/$460), Tricare Prime.\nAfter paying Tricare Prime's fee, Military\nretirees remain under the space-available\naccess to care at a Military Treatment\nFacility (MTF) they currently \"enjoy.\"\nCo-payments at Tricare Prime HMOs are\nhigher for the retired community than\nactive duty despite having enrolled at\nat $230-individual/$460-family.\nUNITED WE STAND\nUniformed Services Treatment Facilities (USTFs)\n(formerly known as Public Health Service)\nWill be integrated into the Tricare Prime\nHMO network. This will disenfranchise the\nover 65 military retiree as they are not\nallowed to enroll into Tricare Prime.\nUSTFs currently guarantee access to\nenrollees regardless of age.\nUSTFs currently do not charges enrollees\nan enrollment fee and their co-payments\nare considerably less than Tricare Prime\nHMO co-payments. This advantage would\ndisappear upon integration into the\nTricare Prime HMO network.\nROA\nEROSION OF EARNED BENEFITS FOR MILITARY RETIREES\nOf late there has been a somewhat alarming increase in the volume of letters and\ntelephone calls that this association has received that deal with the perception on the\npart of our members that their earned retirement benefits are under serious attack and\nare likely targets for those seeking to balance the budget and reduce the deficit. Indeed,\nour members, who have generally disdained what they call \"gimme organizations,\" whose\nsole focus is perceived to be the preservation (frequently in the face of reason) of a\nplethora of perquisites, benefits, and entitlements, are growing ever more concerned that\nthe promises made to them by their government, promises that formed the very corner\nstone of the financial security they counted and planned on in their old age, may not be\nhonored. Moreover, they are particularly concerned that those who appear most anxious\nto breach these long-standing commitments, have themselves, no military background\nupon which to judge the value of the service they would so facilely denigrate in the\nname of domestic economy.\nThese concerns indicate that the level of special faith and confidence that our\nmembers, all of whom are active or retired commissioned officers, have reposed in their\ngovernment, is being significantly eroded. While no one is suggesting that this erosion\nmay lead to any kind of serious disaffection, it is reasonable to assume that it could well\nengender some degree of skepticism, if not actual cynicism, about the willingness and\nreliability of the government to honor its commitments to those who have and will serve\nthe nation honorably. Earned benefits should not be considered discretionary\nentitlements.\nThe areas of concern most frequently cited by our members (health care and\nretirement annuities) are noted below. Taken singly, they form a litany of the major\nelements that most prudent persons would consider essential to meaningful financial\nplanning; together, they constitute the very underpinning of retirement security for those\nwho given a significant portion of their lives to the service of our nation in its uniformed\nservices. If we are to maintain the readiness of all of our forces, Active and Reserve, our\nservice members must, from the outset, have confidence in the commitment of the\ngovernment to keep faith with those who have served as well as those who will serve.\nHEALTH CARE. The current state of military health care is a major\nfocus of concern for many active and retired members of this association, who see a\npattern of disenfranchisement and broken promises in the developing health care system\nthat is less and less able to meet their medical needs despite long-standing promise that\nhaving served honorably, they would have life-long medical care at no cost to themselves\nonce they reached retirement age. DoD's much-touted Tricare system, even before it is\nfully implemented, is a source of controversy and discontent with its high enrollment\nfees and cost-share schedules. (The same is true of the recently implemented Uniformed\nServices Family Health Plan.) As more and more military installations are closed or\ntargeted for closure, military treatment facilities are closing, pharmacy services are\nbecoming less and less available, threats of nuisance fees are becoming increasingly\nfrequent, and costly CHAMPUS, soon to be Tricare supplements, are becoming a\nnecessity. Current plans call for military retirees and their dependents over 64 to lose\n2\ntheir CHAMPUS eligibility, be denied enrollment in Tricare, and be shuffled to the\nnone-too-steady Medicare system.\nPROTECTING RETIREMENT PAY. Recent actions by the Congress\n(the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, subsequent related committee actions,\nthe options developed by Senator Gregg's Budget Committee entitlement panel, as well\nas options developed by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), and older decisions\nsuch as the Social Security Offset to the Defense Survivor Benefit Plan) have had the\neffect of placing the earned retirement annuities of service members in jeopardy, leading\nto considerable distress among retired military personnel.\nThe ongoing issue of equity in the start date of annual cost of living adjustments\n(COLAs) for federal military and civilian retirees, and the apparent willingness of some\nmembers of Congress to sacrifice military retirees' financial interests and security to\nreduce the deficit has not gone unnoticed. Neither have the several COLA options\nconsidered by the Senate Budget Committee that would have reduced the buying power\nof many military retirees's annuities by as much as 40 percent over their lifetimes. (The\nreally distressing aspect of these options is that they were to apply to both current and\nfuture retirees, unlike the retirement reforms implemented in 1986 that were strictly\nprospective and protected those already in uniform or retired.) It should also be\nremembered that in the 1970s the Congress directed the military to include a guarantee\nof lifetime COLAs in service members' annual compensation comparability statements.\nThe annual appearance of CBO's list of options for reducing the budget and the\ndeficit has done little to allay the fears of Reservists as CBO questions the need for any\nretirement for Reservists at all, or recommends that the traditional linkage between\nactive duty and Reserve longevity pay be severed as a cost cutting measure. While these\nrecommendations have appeared before with little comment or credence, it is the\nmeasure of the lack of trust in the government's commitment to the members of the\nArmed Forces that this association received numerous inquiries on the subject after it\nwas reported in the Army Times and Washington Post.\nRetired Reservists who elect to protect surviving spouses' financial security by\nparticipating in the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP), which provides a percentage of their\nmilitary retirement annuities to their spouses after their deaths, have long seen offsets to\ntheir survivors' annuities as inequitable because they were based upon the Social\nSecurity payment the Service member would have received had he survived.\nFurthermore, under the more recent two-tiered SBP system, the SBP annuity is offset if\neither the service member or his surviving spouse qualified for the Social Security\nbenefit. The courts have upheld these offsets as legitimate \"cost-saving measures.\" Again,\nthe message appears to suggest that in the quest for a balanced budget, military retirees\nand their surviving spouses are a soft target.\nCONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION.\nThere is a strong\nand a growing suspicion among service members, Active, Reserve, and Retired, that such\nportions of their present and future financial resources and planning as are associated\n3\nwith their service in the military are no longer secure (if they really ever were). This\nconcern is not without basis as we attempt to balance the budget and reduce the deficit.\nThe larger, and more significant implication of this perception is the effect it must have\nupon military readiness. Potential recruits have long identified financial security upon\nretirement as one of their major reasons for choosing a military career. The basis for\nthis expectation is the government's saying it will be so. If that credibility is destroyed or\neroded, recruiting, retention, and readiness will suffer. Worse, the faith of the electorate\nin its elected officials will also decline.\nThis is a political issue that offers great opportunities for the party or national\nfigure willing to champion the cause of military retirees' rights and to keep faith with\nthose who have served so well. As we approach 1996, someone will in all likelihood\nrecognize this as a prime issue and embrace it. The question is who.\nTherefore, the Reserve Officers Association recommends that the White House\nsupport the following:\nProvision for continued military health care for retirees and their\ndependents beyond age 64\nEnsure that Reservists continue to qualify for retired pay\nProvide for equal COLAs for both military and civilian federal retirees\nReject any suggestion that erodes benefits earned and promised as a result\nof military service\nHold the line on Survivor Benefit Plan annuity erosion.\nMAY 22 '95 12:45PM SENT BY VFW NVS\nICE\nP.1/5\nFAX COVER SHEET\nNATIONAL VETERANS SERVICE\nVETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED STATES\nDATE:\n5/22/95\nTotal number of pages including cover sheet:\n5\n(please call 202-543-2239, ext. 20, if all pages are not received)\nPLEASE DELIVER TO:\nNAME:\nBOB JONES\nFAX NO:\nFROM:\nFrederico Juarbe Jr., Director, NVS A\nFAX NO:\n202-547-3196\nPHONE NO:\n202-543-2239\nCOMMENTS:\nPer your request, following is the VFW's issue paper for the May 24, White House Interagency\nVeterans Policy Group meeting.\nMAY 22 '95 12:45PM SENT BY VFW NVS\nICE\nP.2/5\nFRED JUARBE\nVFW DIRECTOR, NATIONAL VETERANS SERVICE\nSTATEMENT TO THE WHITE HOUSE\nINTERAGENCY VETERANS POLICY GROUP\nMAY 24, 1995\nObviously, the \"hot button\" across the country right now are the two Republican\nbalanced budget proposals.\nLast week, the Veterans of Foreign Wars was one of the signatories to the ad that\nappeared in The Washington Post which objected to all provisions of the two\nbudget proposals as they affected veterans' entitlements. This forum is an\nopportunity for us to amplify our objections. We are especially concerned about\nthose provisions that impact directly on the Veterans Health Administration and its\nability to provide adequate medical care for our veterans.\nAmerica's veterans are not asking for special treatment. We certainly believe that\nall citizens should receive fair treatment. We reject any contention that veterans\nare a greedy lot. The recent World War II celebrations provide an effective\ncounter-point to any such argument. We are not talking about some unknown,\nfaceless persons in our populace. Our veterans are your fathers and mothers,\nbrothers and sisters, spouses, even your favorite uncle. The Republican\nentitlement reduction proposals ignore one important fact: equitable cost savings\ncan be achieved by reforming certain aspects of the VA health care system instead\nof targeting specific programs.\nMAY 22 '95 12:46PM SENT BY VFW NVS\nICE\nP.3/5\n2\nThere must be eligibility reform for accessing VA health care for the following\nreasons:\nThe system is now currently held hostage to complex and antiquated\neligibility criteria;\nSome veterans who are not authorized outpatient treatment must be\nhospitalized by VA in order to receive needed care;\nThe administration and congress must address the issue of eligibility\nreform if the VA is to be an efficient provider of health care;\nIf there is to be any kind of health care reform scenario, VA must\ndevelop accessible primary and preventive care sites;\nVA must improve its infrastructure in order to compete: and, most\nimportantly,\nAction must be taken to rectify the years of decremental budgeting.\nThere must be a rational and predictable approach to funding VA's health care\ndelivery system. Discretionary funding for VA health care has failed to keep pace\nwith medical inflation and the changing needs of our aging veteran population.\nEssentially, the VA has been forced to ration care. This means denying services to\nsome eligible veterans, curtailing needed medical treatment, and forgoing the\nmodernization of facilities due to this chronic underfunding. It is our position that\nfederal funding must be guaranteed for the providing of a comprehensive benefit\npackage to all eligible veterans who choose the VA's health care system.\nUnlike other health care providers, VA cannot retain funds recovered from third-\nparty payers. Almost all payments VA receives from private health insurers must\nbe remitted to the Department of the Treasury. Authority must be given to the VA\nMAY 22 '95 12:46PM SENT BY VFW NVS\nICE\nP.4/5\n3\nto collect and retain this funding from external sources. This is particularly\npertinent to MEDICARE funding.\nOnly in this way can the VA \"market\" its services. Only with these monies can\nthe VA assume the care of an expanded universe of aging veterans to whom the\nVA health care system would become an option under appropriate eligibility\nreform legislation. Additionally, it is essential that appropriations must not be\noffset by any of these amounts retained by the VA.\nVeterans accessing the VA health care system should be entitled to a\ncomprehensive package of treatment. Those services should be provided in the\nmost appropriate settings. The VA should serve as \"case manager\" for its veteran\npatients. Each veteran accepted for health care by the VA should have access to\nthe full continuum of that care.\nExpansion of the VA's ambulatory care is crucial. Making health care\ngeographically accessible will be key to VA's success in retaining and recruiting\nnew patients. A recent study indicated that over 40% of the inpatient treatment is\n\"non-acute\". This is care that could be more efficiently and cost-effectively\nprovided in ambulatory care settings. This terrible waste of resources simply\ncompounds over time.\nThe VA has had great success in treating an often older, indigent, or chronically ill\nclientele. The rapid aging of our veteran population merits major expansion of the\nVA's long-term care alternatives. Yet the VA has been unable to convert inpatient\nbeds to nursing home care beds at an appropriate rate.\nMAY 22 '95 12:47PM SENT BY VFW NVS\nICE\nP.5/5\n4\nWithout eligibility reform; without an expanded universe of veterans to care for;\nwithout \"leveling the playing field\" to make up for past budgetary shortfalls;\nwithout the capability to retain third-party monies; the VA may very well\ndisintegrate. A voucher system is then the only recourse. Doing so would actually\ncost more to our taxpayers because the VA provides its services at about 60 to 70\npercent of the commercial health care industry, particularly in such unique care as\nspinal cord injuries and post traumatic stress disorder counseling.\nThis actually means instead of talking reductions, we need to stress reform. As the\nadvertisement stated last week, the reform proposals made by the Veterans Service\nOrganizations will save taxpayers $2 billion a year and still provide veterans with\na viable health care program. The VA health care system is not yet a dinosaur.\nHowever, the continued viability of that program is certainly at stake. It is at its\nmost crucial stage in its history.\nb:\\mcneill\\WHITEH.WPS\n* OFFICERS\nReserve Officers Association of the United States\nThe Professional Association Representing All Officers\nOCIAT\nION\nFAX COVER SHEET\nDATE: 23 may 1995\nSUBJECT: W.H. Interagency Veterans Policy Group\nTO: Robert L. Janes\nFAX NUMBER: (202) 456 - 6218\nFROM: LTC Stephen P. Anderson, USAR (Ret.) PHONE: (202) 646-7715\nFAX NUMBER: (202) 646-7751 OR (202) 479-0416\nNUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER: 4\nLove paper for meeting 7 Veta Policy\nGrougo m 25 may Please pass\nto Bob Janes\nThanks\nR\nArmy\nNavy\nAir Force\n*\nMarine Corps\nCoast Guard\nPublic Health Service\n*\nNOAA\nOne Constitution Avenue, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20002-5655\nTelephone: (202) 479-2200\nP.1\n95:60 S6, 23 AWW\nEROSION OF EARNED BENEFITS FOR MILITARY RETIREES\nOf late there has been a somewhat alarming increase in the volume of letters and\ntelephone calls that this association has received that deal with the perception on the\npart of our members that their earned retirement benefits are under serious attack and\nare likely targets for those seeking to balance the budget and reduce the deficit. Indeed,\nour members, who have generally disdained what they call \"gimme organizations,\" whose\nsole focus is perceived to be the preservation (frequently in the face of reason) of a\nplethora of perquisites, benefits, and entitlements, are growing ever more concerned that\nthe promises made to them by their government, promises that formed the very corner\nstone of the financial security they counted and planned on in their old age, may not be\nhonored. Moreover, they are particularly concerned that those who appear most anxious\nto breach these long-standing commitments, have themselves, no military background\nupon which to judge the value of the service they would so facilely denigrate in the\nname of domestic economy.\nThese concerns indicate that the level of special faith and confidence that our\nmembers, all of whom are active or retired commissioned officers, have reposed in their\ngovernment, is being significantly eroded. While no one is suggesting that this erosion\nmay lead to any kind of serious disaffection, it is reasonable to assume that it could well\nengender some degree of skepticism, if not actual cynicism, about the willingness and\nreliability of the government to honor its commitments to those who have and will serve\nthe nation honorably. Earned benefits should not be considered discretionary\nentitlements.\nThe areas of concern most frequently cited by our members (health care and\nretirement annuities) are noted below. Taken singly, they form a litany of the major\nelements that most prudent persons would consider essential to meaningful financial\nplanning; together, they constitute the very underpinning of retirement security for those\nwho given a significant portion of their lives to the service of our nation in its uniformed\nservices. If we are to maintain the readiness of all of our forces, Active and Reserve, our\nservice members must, from the outset, have confidence in the commitment of the\ngovernment to keep faith with those who have served as well as those who will serve.\nHEALTH CARE. The current state of military health care is a major\nfocus of concern for many active and retired members of this association. who see a\npattern of disenfranchisement and broken promises in the developing health care system\nthat is less and less able to meet their medical needs despite long-standing promise that\nhaving served honorably, they would have life-long medical care at no cost to themselves\nonce they reached retirement age. DoD's much-touted Tricare system, even before it is\nfully implemented, is a source of controversy and discontent with its high enrollment\nfees and cost-share schedules. (The same is true of the recently implemented Uniformed\nServices Family Health Plan.) As more and more military installations are closed or\ntargeted for closure, military treatment facilities are closing, pharmacy services are\nbecoming less and less available, threats of nuisance fees are becoming increasingly\nfrequent, and costly CHAMPUS, soon to be Tricare supplements, are becoming a\nnecessity. Current plans call for military retirees and their dependents over 64 to lose\n2'd\n95:60 S6. 23 YAY\n2\ntheir CHAMPUS eligibility, be denied enrollment in Tricare, and be shuffled to the\nnone-too-steady Medicare system.\nPROTECTING RETIREMENT PAY. Recent actions by the Congress\n(the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, subsequent related committee actions,\nthe options developed by Senator Gregg's Budget Committee entitlement panel, as well\nas options developed by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), and older decisions\nsuch as the Social Security Offset to the Defense Survivor Benefit Plan) have had the\neffect of placing the earned retirement annuities of service members in jeopardy, leading\nto considerable distress among retired military personnel.\nThe ongoing issue of equity in the start date of annual cost of living adjustments\n(COLAs) for federal military and civilian retirees, and the apparent willingness of some\nmembers of Congress to sacrifice military retirees' financial interests and security to\nreduce the deficit has not gone unnoticed. Neither have the several COLA options\nconsidered by the Senate Budget Committee that would have reduced the buying power\nof many military retirees's annuities by as much as 40 percent over their lifetimes. (The\nreally distressing aspect of these options is that they were to apply to both current and\nfuture retirees, unlike the retirement reforms implemented in 1986 that were strictly\nprospective and protected those already in uniform or retired.) It should also be\nremembered that in the 1970s the Congress directed the military to include a guarantee\nof lifetime COLAs in service members' annual compensation comparability statements.\nThe annual appearance of CBO's list of options for reducing the budget and the\ndeficit has done little to allay the fears of Reservists as CBO questions the need for any\nretirement for Reservists at all, or recommends that the traditional linkage between\nactive duty and Reserve longevity pay be severed as a cost cutting measure. While these\nrecommendations have appeared before with little comment or credence, it is the\nmeasure of the lack of trust in the government's commitment to the members of the\nArmed Forces that this association received numerous inquiries on the subject after it\nwas reported in the Army Times and Washington Post.\nRetired Reservists who elect to protect surviving spouses' financial security by\nparticipating in the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP), which provides a percentage of their\nmilitary retirement annuities to their spouses after their deaths, have long seen offsets to\ntheir survivors' annuities as inequitable because they were based upon the Social\nSecurity payment the Service member would have received had he survived.\nFurthermore, under the more recent two-tiered SBP system, the SBP annuity is offset if\neither the service member or his surviving spouse qualified for the Social Security\nbenefit. The courts have upheld these offsets as legitimate \"cost-saving measures.\" Again,\nthe message appears to suggest that in the quest for a balanced budget, military retirees\nand their surviving spouses are a soft target.\nCONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION.\nThere is a strong\nand a growing suspicion among service members, Active, Reserve, and Retired, that such\nportions of their present and future financial resources and planning as are associated\nE'd\n3\nwith their service in the military are no longer secure (if they really ever were). This\nconcern is not without basis as we attempt to balance the budget and reduce the deficit.\nThe larger, and more significant implication of this perception is the effect it must have\nupon military readiness. Potential recruits have long identified financial sccurity upon\nretirement as one of their major reasons for choosing a military career. The basis for\nthis expectation is the government's saying it will be so. If that credibility is destroyed or\neroded, recruiting, retention, and readiness will suffer. Worse, the faith of the electorate\nin its elected officials will also decline.\nThis is a political issue that offers great opportunities for the party or national\nfigure willing to champion the cause of military retirees' rights and to keep faith with\nthose who have served so well. As we approach 1996, someone will in all likelihood\nrecognize this as a prime issue and embrace it. The question is who.\nTherefore, the Reserve Officers Association recommends that the White House\nsupport the following:\nProvision for continued military health care for retirees and their\ndependents beyond age 64\nEnsure that Reservists continue to qualify for retired pay\nProvide for equal COLAs for both military and civilian federal retirees\nReject any suggestion that erodes benefits earned and promised as a result\nof military service\nHold the line on Survivor Benefit Plan annuity erosion.\nD\nSENT BY:\n6-26-95 : 3:30PM\n:\nONDCP/OSR-\n67028:# 1/4\nOFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY\nEXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT\nWashington. D.C. 20500\nIIIIIIIIIII\nFACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET\nNumber of pages including cover: 4\nDate: 6-26-95\nTo: Molly BROSTROM\nFax Number: 6-7028\nOffice Number:\nComments:\nAs discussed\nP.\nFrom: John Gregrich\nFax Number:\n202/395-6744\nOffice 202/395-6749\nSENT BY:\n6-26-95 : 3:30PM\n;\nONDCP/OSR-\n67028:# 2/ 4\nFailure of some welfare reform measures to maintain the requirment\nfor indigent addicts to enter substance abuse treatment.\nUnlike Administration and Congressional reforms enacted last\nyear, dropping disability due to alcoholism or drug addiction\nfrom SSI eligibility will not reduce dependency and will not\nsignificantly reduce the Federal roles. The majority of these\nindigent addicts (estimated between 60 and 80 percent) will\nremain eligible due to other disabilities. But we will no\nlonger be able to condition their receipt of benefits on\ncompliance with drug treatment rules nor will we be able to\nrequire that their benefits go through a responsible payee.\nIn other words, they are more likely to spend the benefits on\ndrugs or alcohol.\nFurthermore, the other 20 to 40 percent will simply become the\nresponsibility of state and local assistance.\nSENT BY:\n6-26-95 : 3:30PM :\nONDCP/OSR-\n67028:# 3/ 4\nSUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME\nQUESTION\nwhat will be the impact of eliminating drug addicts and alcohols\nfrom the Supplemental Security Income program?\nANSWER\nEliminating alcoholism and drug addiction as eligible\ndisabilities will not reduce dependence on public support, will\nnot reduce the SSI addict population significantly, and could\nresult in a marked increase in the use of SSI funds for alcohol\nand drugs.\nBACKGROUND\nBefore additional actions are taken, remedial actions taken by\nthe Administration and the Congress, in 1993 and 1994, should be\ngiven the chance to work.\nThe potential for abuse became apparent when this program\nbegan to grow rapidly in 1991. This Administration took\nsteps, shortly after taking office in 1993, to correct\nmanagement shortfalls and ensure accountability in this\nprogram. Even before these steps were fully implemented,\nthe Congress acted in 1994 to limit the benefit period of\nthe program and to increase compliance monitoring.\nImplementing regulations for the Congressional action were\npublished in February 1995.\nEliminating alcoholism and drug addiction as eligible\ndisabilities is not the answer. It will not reduce dependence on\npublic support, will only reduce the SSI addict population by 20\npercent, and could result in a marked increase in the use of SSI\nfunds for alcohol and drugs.\nThose alcoholics and addicts who are dropped from the SSI\nrolls will burden state and local general assistance\nprograms.\nThe 80 percent who remain on the SSI rolls, due to other\ndisabilities, will not be required to enter and comply with\ntreatment.\nIn the final analysis, SSI is an important program and the\nAmerican people have the right to expect that we manage it well.\nThe Administration is prepared to work with the Congress to\nimprove it and to move drug- and alcohol-addicted Americans\ntoward self-sufficiency.\n12\nSENT BY:\n6-26-95 : 3:30PM :\nONDCP/OSR-\n67028:# 4/ 4\nHowever, recently enacted changes should be allowed to work,\nbefore additional and potentially damaging steps are taken.\nODR:4/5/95\n13\nEXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT\n21-Jun-1995 04:22pm\nTO:\nMolly Brostrom\nFROM:\nNancy-Ann E. Min\nOffice of Mgmt and Budget, HP\nCC:\nToni S. Hustead\nSUBJECT:\nRE: Medicare Subvention\nyou're right--it's nopt that simple, it isn't clear if it saves\nmoney, it also makes dod mad-- for all these reasons, and because\nyou haven't got the right people in the room to really discuss\nthis issue (e.g., Bruce Vladeck), i'd recommend you not get into\nit now. remember that the VA's rego proposal is to allow them to\ntest medicare subvention--we are working with them and hCFA to\ndesign a demonstration. the whole reason we need to test this\nfirst is there is some evidence it could result in increased\nbillions of costs to Medicare-- which would not be good.\n.06-22-1995 17:17\nP.01\nOFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE\nLEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS\nPENTAGON. ROOM 3E966. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20301-1300\nTo Verify Transmission, Contact the Sender at Number Listed Below\nPlease deliver to:\nMour BROSTROM\nLocation:\nWH Domestic Policy\nFax Number:\n202 456-7028\nWe are sending\n2\npages, including this cover.\nSender/(Action Officer):\nTelephone:\nCOMMENTS:\nOffice of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs\nTelefax Number: (703) 693-5530\nP.02\nH DoD Auth Report\n240\nSECTION 747-REPORT ON IMPROVED ACCESS TO MILITARY HEALTH\nCARE FOR COVERED BENEFICIARIES ENTITLED TO MEDICARE\nThis section would require the Secretary of Defense to report on\npossible alternatives to improving access to the military health care\nsystem for those beneficiaries who are Medicare eligible and ineli-\ngible for the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uni-\nformed Services (CHAMPUS).\nThe committee remains concerned about the growing population\nof military retirees who are unable to access the military health\ncare system largely as a result of the drawdown of the military and\nthe closure of military medical treatment facilities. These retirees\nare feeling increasingly disenfranchised from a government they\nserved and defended devotedly. Without Medicare reimbursement,\nthe Department will be forced to provide less and less care to this\npopulation.\nThe committee remains committed to identifying cost-effective al-\nternatives for providing medical care to all military medical bene-\nflciaries.\nITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST\nMEDICARE REIMBURSEMENT TO THE DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM FOR\nCARE PROVIDED TO MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE BENEFICIARIES\nThe committee believes that Medicare reimbursement to Depart-\nment of Defense medical facilities for care provided to Medicare-eli-\ngible beneficiaries can produce savings to both the Department of\nDefense and the Department of Health and Human Services be-\ncause military hospital care is generally less expensive than health\ncare services purchased in the private sector.\nThe Department's implementation of the TRICARE managed\nhealth care program nationwide over the next several years will\noffer a propitious opportunity to achieve government-wide savings\nthrough Medicare reimbursement. Unfortunately, the Congres-\nsional Budget Office scoring of this initiative as a $2.7 billion direct\nspending cost by the year 2000 limits the committee's ability to act\non this important initiative. This direct spending impact is largely\ndue to the fact that the Health Care Financing Agency does not\nbudget for military Medicare-eligible beneficiaries. Further limiting\nthe committee's ability to act on this issue is the fact that the\nPresident's budget does not propose Medicare reimbursement to the\nDepartment.\nThe committee remains convinced that Medicare reimbursement\nis in the best interest of the military health care system and that\nsuch reimbursement will result in overall savings to the Federal\nGovernment. The committee remains committed to working with\nother committees and the President to achieve this worthwhile and\nnecessary objective.\nFORMATION OF VETERAN'S WING WITHIN NAVAL HOSPITAL GUAM\nThe committee is concerned about the need to continue providing\nquality health care services to thousands of beneficiaries as the\nNavy closes and realigns its facilities on Guam. The establishment\nof a veterans' wing within the Naval Hospital, Guam, could provide\nEXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT\n21-Jun-1995 07:06pm\nTO:\nBROSTROM_M\nFROM:\nElaine C. Kamarck\nSUBJECT: Re: Uniformed Services Med Sch\nI am aware of this topic. We could discuss it but you should know that\nthis recommendation was part of the original NPR, it was part of the\nPentagon's Bottom Up Review and it has been part of the President's\nbudget. We do not believe the data is flawed and last year in Congress\nthis was settled by having GAO do a review of this. I really don't think\nthere's much to discuss until the GAO review comes out. I would also not\nbring this to discussion without reopening it with the Pentagon and OMB.\nOF\nTHE SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS\nWASHINGTON\nSTATES\nMATERIA\nFacsimile Cover Sheet\nTo: Molly B.\nCompany:\nPhone: (202) 456-7028\nFax:\nFrom: Robert L. Jones\nCompany: Office of the Secretary\nPhone: (202) 273-4836\nFax:\nDate:\nPages including this\ncover page:\nComments:\n(Domestic Policy)\nIssue raised by National Guard Association at the 1AUWPG meeting.\n06/01/95\n19:04\n202 273 4876\nVA OFC OF SECTY\n002\nSENT BY:\n5-31-95 : 11:04 ;\nNGAUS-\n202 273 4876:# # 1/11\nNational Guard Association of the United States\nFax Memorandum\nWITH GUARD\nFrom: Chuck Schreiber\n#\nLOYS\n#\nOF THE UNITED STATES\nDirector, Legislative Activities\nTo:\nRobert L. Jones\nFax No. 273-4876\n31 May 1995\nNGAUS Fact sheets\nDate:\nSubject:\nComments:\nBob: Bob Ensslin asked that the attached papers\nbe sent to you as requested during the 25 May Interagency\nVeterans Policy Group meeting.\nThe NGAUS Fact Sheets on the Military Technician Program\nwere prepared for our members. They address the issue of\nacross-the-board cuts against the military technician force\nunder the \"reinvent government\" program, which we continue\nto oppose.\nThe papers on the civil/military program were developed\nby DoD.\nPlease give me a call if I can be of further assistance.\nNumber of Pages\nIncluding Cover.\nOne Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001; (202) 408-5884\nFax No. (202) 682-9358\n06/01/95\n19:04\n202 273 4876\nVA 0FC OF SECTY\n5\n003\nSENT BY:\n5-31-95 : 11:04\nNGAUS-\n202 273 4876:# 2/11\nN\nU S\nLegislative\nFact Sheet\nNATIONAL GUARD MILITARY TECHNICIAN PROGRAM\nDISCUSSION\nThe Department of Defense is proposing to continue to apply\nthe across-the-hoard reduction in federal civilian personnel, as\npart of the administration's National Performance Review, against\nthe military technician program of the National Guard. Despite a\nprohibition on such cuts by Congress in FY 1995 and a statement\nby the Secretary of Defense to the Adjutants General, in early\nFebruary, that it was not his intention to apply both force\nstructure reductions and across-the-board cuts to the technician\n?\nforce, such cuts are again included in the FY 1996 Defense\nbudget. cuts are also programmed through FY 2001, although OSD\nis reportedly conducting a review of the size and scope of the\ncuts at.\nThe attached 24 August, 1994 NGAUS Legislative Fact Sheet and\n24 June, 1994 ASD-RA Memorandum to the Under Secretary of Defense\nfor Personnel and Readiness provide background on the history and\nrationale for exempting the military technician program from any\nadministratively imposed civilian personnel reduction. Military\ntechnician positions are based on military requirements and are\nsubject to reduction as part of the continuing force structure\ndrawdown, just as other military positions. To impose an\nadditional across-the-board cut would have a severe impact on\nNational Guard readiness.\nThe National Guard military technician is in a unique status.\nAlthough pay and benefits are based on the federal civilian\npersonnel program, Congress was very clear when establishing the\nprogram that it intended to provided a formal retirement and\nbenefits package, without changing the military nature or the\nstate command and control relationship of the program. The\nNational Guard military technician force should not have been\nincluded in the baseline against which the across-the-board\nfederal civilian cuts are computed, That decision appears to be\nunder review within DoD at this time, but too late to effect the\nFY 1996 cuts.\nIf the total programmed 15 to 20 percent reductions continue\nthrough FY 2001, the Air Guard will lose approximately 3,600\ntechnicians and the Army Guard approximately 5,500 technicians.\nCuts of that size would have B devastating impact on National\nGuard readiness. The Air Cuard has estimated that all flying\nunits would be down to readiness rating C-3 by FY 1998 and C-4 by\nFY 1999-2000. For the Army Guard. such cuts would directly\nimpact readiness programs. particularly maintenance of surface\nand air equipment.\n06/01/95\n19:05\n202 273 4876\nVA OFC OF SECTY\n004\nSENT BY:\n5-31-95 : 11:05 :\nNGAUS-\n202 273 4876:# 3/11\n-2-\nRECOMMENDATION\nThe National Guard Association urges the Congress to:\n-- Make permanent the provision in the FY 1995 Dafense\nAppropriations Act which prohibited applying any\nadministratively imposed ceiling, freeze, or reduction\non military technicians unless reductions are the result\nof a reduction in military force structure.\n-- Reverse the FY 1996 cut in National Guard military\ntechnician manning by restoring 1,636 end strength and\n$12.5 million net operations and maintenance funding for\nthe Army National Guard and 605 end strength and $0.4\nmillion net operations and maintenance funding for the\nAir National Guard.\n23 February 1995\nAttachments:\n1. NGAUS Legislative Fact Sheet. 26 August 1994\n2. ASD-RA Memorandum, 24 June 1994\n06/01/95\n19:05\n202 273 4876\nVA OFC OF SECTY\n$\n005\nSENT BY:\n5-31-95 : 11:05 :\nNGAUS-\n202 273 4876: # 4/11\nLegislative\nFact Sheet\nNATIONAL GUARD MILITARY TECHNICIAN PROGRAM\nPROBLEM\n-\nThere are indications that the administration will apply the across-the-board reductions\nin federal civilian personnel to the military technician programs of the National Guard and\nReserves.\nBACKGROUND\n-\nThe National Guard military technician and Active Guard and Reserves (AGR) full-\ntime support programs have evolved to what they are today through at least three distinct\nphases. The first was what was called the \"caretaker\" phase. A caretaker was a member\nof 2 Guard unit in a local armory. The caretaker tended to such routine administrative and\nlogistical concerns as were required berween training assemblies, which were then held one\nevening a week.\n- By the 1960's program has evolved to the administrative-supply technician (AST) phase.\nOne AST was provided for the first 100 personnel in a unit and one additional for each\nadditional 50 members. ASTs could be any enlisted rank; frequently the senior person was\nthe first sergeant (E-8). Prior to the National Guard Technicians Act of 1968, all were\nfederally reimbursed state employees. Most entered excepted federal civil service in 1968,\nalthough some remained in 2 state status because of retirement benefits. In a two-AST\narmory. the senior individual was GS-7, the junior a GS-5.\nBy the 1970's, when the administration was reducing the number of federal civilian\nemployers. Congress took action to prevent similar across-the-board reductions in the\nGuard's full-time force. As a result. the Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) program was created\nto provide a military full-time support force who were members of the unit and not subject\nto civilian reductions in force. It was subsequently decided that the successful military\ntechnician force should not be converted to AGR members, so Congress established a floor\neach year on the authorized level of technicians. Since that time, most of the full-time\ngrowth has been the AGR program. with the result that both AGR and military technicians\noften work side-by-side in Guard units.\nCURRENT SITUATION\nBy the 1980's. the National Guard Bureau has created manpower models for each type\nof Army and Air Guard unit containing all of the validated full-time manning spaces.\nBecause of funding constraints. most Army Guard units are resourced at 70 percent or less\nof their validated requirements. High priority units in the contingency force pool are fully\nmanned. A typical company-sized unit will have either four or five full-time personnel.\n06/01/95\n19:05\n202 273 4876\nVA OFC OF SECTY\n006\nSENT BY\n5-31-95 : 11:06 :\nNGAUS-\n202 273 4876:# 5/11\n-2-\nThey usually include a readiness NCO (E-7), & supply sergeant (E-6), a unit clerk (E-5)\nand training NCO (E-5). Some units will also have an armorer (E-4). A battalion\nheadquarters will have an administrative officer (0-3/4), a training officer (0-3), a property\nbook/logistics officer(WO), 3 personnel NCO (E-7), an operations sergeant (E-8) and\nseveral clerks (E-4).\n- Air National technician requirements are based on the type of aircraft, equipment and\nmissions assigned. They are the unit members who fly and maintain aircraft and keep the\nunits operational 50 they can perform day-to-day missions and prepare for their wartime\ntasking. More than one-half of the Air Nation National Guard full-time force are members\nwho directly support aircraft maintenance requirements. Many are involved with munitions\nand armament, avionics, engine maintenance and cargo handling skills. Others are involved\nin such areas as security, personnel, finance and administrative requirements. Grades are\ntied to the type aircraft/unit model and are critical for combat readiness.\nIn deployable units in both the Army and Air Guard. full-time personnel maybe a mix\nof AGR and military technician. Reduction of technician resourcing as a result of a\ndownsizing of federal \"civilian\" employees would leave vacancies in any military position\ncurrently staffed with a technician. Because the mix in any unit is based on a local hiring\nand promotion situation, it is difficult to predict precise impact of a reduction other that a\ncertainty of an adverse impact on readiness. In many units. it will be a question of doing\nwithout one of several one-of-a-kind unique specialities: a readiness NCO, a supply sergeant;\na training NCO. or an aircraft maintenance specialist. In some small units it may be a\nquestion of which single specialty to retain.\n- Today, the majority of technicians in both Army and Air Guard are found in various\nmaintenance shops. In the Air Guard it would he the flying unit maintenance organizations.\nIn the Army Guard. technicians are used in organizational maintenance shops at battalion\nlevel. combined support maintenance shops at state level. mobilization and training\nequipment site on major federal installations. and unit training equipment sites at local\ntraining sites. All such maintenance technicians are military members of the units they\nsupport. The equipment they maintain is used for daily missions. weekend training\nexercises and annual field or deployed training Reduced manning in this area will obviously\nimpact on operational tempo and unit readiness.\nCONCLUSION\n- National Guard military technicians fill validated full-time support positions on the\nmilitary manning documents. They are military members of the unit they support and are\nresponsible for the day-to-day operations and readiness of the Guard unit. Reductions in\nthe military technician force should be directly related to force structure reductions in\nGuard units. Applying across-the-board federal civilian reduction to the technician force has\nbeen opposed by Congress in the past and should be today. Reductions in other competitive\ncivil service employees of the Guard and Reserve are comparable 10 those being imposed\non other federal agencies and would have the same impact as a reduction in the military\ntechnician program.\n24 August 1994\n06/01/95\n19:06\n202 273 4876\nVA OFC OF SECTY\n007\nSENT BY\n5-31-95 : 11:06\nNGAUS-\n202 273 4876: 6/11\nASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE\nWASHINGTON, DC 20301-1500\nAFFACES\nJN 24 1994\nMEMORANDUM FOR UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, PERSONNEL & READINESS\nSUBJECT: DOD Civilian Resource Guidance\nYour June 2 memoranding a this subject which directs an accelerated civilian\ndrawdown. has raised some concerns regarding the application of these increased reductions\nwithin the Departments of the Amay and the Air Force There are indications of increasing\npressure a exced reductions a areas previously exempt from administratively imposed civilian\npersonnel reductions. Specifically, I am concerned about the approximately 70,000 military\ntechnicians who support the Reserve components of the Army and the Air Force\nMilitary technicians are 1 critical element of the full-time support provided to Reserve\ncomponent units a facilitate peacetime training, to enhance operational readiness and to provide a\nsmooth transition during mobilization They are Federal civilian employees who are required to\nmaintain military membership and comparibility requirements as a condition of Federal\nemployment and also perform military-essential duties in their stams as Federal employees. The\nrules and procedures under which military technicians serve is = distinctive employment\narrangement that is based on satisfying & military need, thus the military aspect of the technician\nposition is personount\nThe Congress has included a recurring provision in the National Defense Appropriations\nAdt which imposes s floor B the ml number of positions occupied by (civilian) military\ntechnicians below which reductions have net been permitted. In what appeared B be a direct\nresponse B 1 September 30, 1991. Depoty Secretary of Defense memorandum excending the\ncivilian hiring freeze, the Congress enacted a Dew provision of law to casue that military\ntechnicians WGC excluded from the hiring freez Section 8015(a) of the National Defense\nAppropriations Ass for Fiscal Year 1992 states in part that \"mone of the funds appropriated by the\nAct may be used to include (civillan) military techniciary B computing civilim personnel cellings.\"\nand Section 8015(b) states that \"None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall be used to\ninclude (civilian) military techniciens in any administratively imposed freeze 8 civilism positions.\"\n9015(b). These provisions were also included in the FY 1993 Appropriations Act as sections 9015(a) and\nIn the National Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1994. the Committee of\nConference agreed to delere these recurring provisions in order not a prejudice the President's\nReport of the National Performance Review. However. in taking this action the conferees urged\n06/01/95\n19:06\n202 273 4876\nVA OFC OF SECTY\n008\nSENT. BY:\n5-31-95 ; 11:07 :\nNGAUS-\n202 273 4876:# 7/11\n2\nthe Reserve components to adhere to the intent of the provision In addition the Conference\nReport specified that \"The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs shall moniter the\nreserve components a make sure that they do not convent technician positions to AGRs, and that\ntechnician personnel are not included in any administratively imposed freeze 8 divilian positions\"\nThe conferees also directed that the Department begin submitting a monthly strength report 8\ntechnician personnel to the defense committees. This language makes # clear that the Congress\nintends to closely monitor technician strengths to CHANGE there ut B substantial reductions to the\nprogram.\nA June 10 Secretary of the Air Force incrnorandum for the Secretary and Deputy\nSecretary of Defense which introduces the FY 1996-01 Air Force POM. states that civilian\nreductions must be spread to every mission area chargeable against end strength including the Air\nReserve components in order to \"minimize the impact on readiness.\" The memorandum requests\nthe Secretary's support \"In breaking down the feners in these areas.\" My concern is that\nreductions in military technicians, an area that has previously been fenoud from civilian personal\nreductions, will significantly impact the readiness of Reserve component units.\nMilitary technician positions me based - military requirements and are subject to\nreduction as part of the drawdown of the Selected Reserve. In general. military technicians who\nlose their posidos in the Sclected Reserve III also subject B losing their civilian technician\nposition. Military technician cad strength is being reduced by nearly 3,000 between FY 1991 and\nFY 1995, and is projected to decline by another 8,000 by the cod of the POM based a military\nrequirements. Requirements for military technicians are based DD National Guard and Reserve\nforce structure. To associate military technicians with mandated civilian personnel reductions in\naddition to Selected Reserve force reducaons could result in military technician strength being\nreduced by & further 8,000. Since nearly all technicians serve and provide full-time support at unit\nlevel the effect on readiness would be direct and very serious This, at a time when the\nDepartment is committed to increasing is reliance 8 the National Guard and Reserve a\ncompensate for a smaller active force.\nI strongly urge you to continue the exemption 8 including military technicians IS part of\nany administratively imposed civilian personnel reductions within the Department.\nDilbine Deborah R Lee\n06/01/95\n19:07\n202 273 4876\nVA OFC OF SECTY\n009\nSENT BY:\n5-31-95 : 11:07 :\nNGAUS-\n202 273 4876; # 8/11\nExtnact FROM FY 1994 REPORT OF THE RESERVE poreus POLICY BOARD\nPersonnel\nTable 3-6\nFULL-TIME SUPPORT PERSONNEL STRENGTHS\nArmy\nMarine\nAir\nAir\nCoast\nNational\nArmy\nNaval\nCorps\nNational\nForce\nDOD\nGuard\nGuard\nReserve\nReserve\nReceive\nQuard\nBeserve\nTotal\nReserve\nTotal\nAGR/TAR Personnel\nRequired\n40,376\n18,725\n23,423\n2,524\n9.639\n787\n95,374\nN/A\n95,374\nAuthorized\n24,180\n12,542\n19.718\n2,285\n9,389\n648\n68,762\nN/A\n68,762\nAssigned\n23,708\n12,542\n19,139\n2,273\n9,312\n648\n67,620\nN/A\n67,820\nMilitary Technicians\"\nRequired\n37,317\n12,051\nN/A\nN/A\n28,500\n10,901\n88,769\nN/A\n88,769\nAuthorized\n27,259\n7,159\nN/A\nN/A\n24,267\n10,541\n69,226\nN/A\n69.226\nAssigned\n23,141\n5.638\n0\n0\n23,304\n9,520\n61.503\nN/A\n61,503\nActive Component\nRequired\n0\n1,258\n2,270\n4,352\n1,014\n785\n9.679\n482\n10,761\nAuthorized\n0\n1.182\n1,313\n4,234\n1,014\n785\n8.525\n482\n9,010\nAssigned\n174\n851\n1,477\n4,234\n1,012\n851\n8,398\n482\n8,881\nCivil Service\nRequired\n629\n1,500\n2.320\n154\n1,801\n8,218\n12,623\n104\n12.727\nAuthorized\n468\n1.500\n2,320\n154\n1,739\n5,659\n11.840\n104\n11.944\nAssigned\n486\n1,451\n2,302\n164\n1,726\n5,387\n11,508\n98\n11.804\nTotals\nRequired\n78.322\n33.534\n28,013\n7.030\n40,854\n18,692\n208,445\n588\n207,031\nAuthorized\n51,907\n22,383\n23,002\n6,673\n36,409\n17.633\n168.007\n588\n158,593\nShortfall\n26,415\n11,151\n5,011\n357\n4.445\n1,059\n47,379\n0\n47.379\nPersent Authorized of\n88%\n87%\n82%\n95%\n89%\n90%\n77%\n100%\n77%\nRequired\nAssigned\n47.507\n20,382\n22,918\n6,661\n35,354\n18,208\n149,026\n580\n149.608\nFTS Authorizations\n13%\n8%\n20%\n18%\n31%\n22%\n15%\n6%\n15%\nas a Parcent of\nAuthorized End Strength\nNotes:\n1. Includes AGR in the Army, officers and enlisted on Statutory Tours in the Air Force Reserve. TAR in the\nNaval Reserve, and Reserve military FTS in the Marine Corps Reserve.\n2. Air National Guard AGR and MT positions can be filled by either status personnel. All ANG requirements are\nshown as Military Technicians. USAR Includes SOF technicians.\n3. Includes Active component assigned or attached to Reserve component organizations who provided support exclusively to the\nReserve components.\nSources: The DoD Comptroller. Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs, and the Reserve components.\nData as of September 30. 1994.\n06/01/95\n19:07\n202 273 4876\nVA OFC OF SECTY\n010\nSENT- BY:\n5-31-95 : 11:08 :\nNGAUS-\n202 273 4876 :# 9/11\nTalking Points on Civil/Military Programs\nIt's all about readiness training - giving members of the National Guard and Reserves real\nworld training experience that allows them to apply the same skills that will be required of them\nif they are mobilized for state or federal missions. We'll either get direct training benefit from\nthese programs .. especially through combat support and combat service support type units -- or\nthe programs will be supported with volunteers.\nThe eivil/military program was directed by the Congress. DoD is doing what the Congress\nasked it to do setting up pilot programs to evaluate how effectively military resources --\npeople, facilities, know-how and equipment -- can be applied to critical domestic needs. Pilot\nprograms are now in place in a number of states and DOD is monitoring their effectiveness.\nAccording to ASD/RA Deborah Lee, the early results are encouraging and they will continue to\ncarry out the program as directed by the Congress.\nFunding for the civil military programs has not increased in the President's FY96 budger.\nProposed total FY96 funding for civil-military programs is $69.2 million (compared to $71\nmillion for FY95) - clearly not an amount that would solve the military technician problem.\n06/01/95\n19:08\n202 273 4876\nVA 0FC OF SECTY\n011\nSENT- BY\n5-31-95 : 11:08 :\nNGAUS-\n202 273 4876 #10/11\nCIVIL-MILITARY PROGRAMS\nThe FY93 Defense Authorization Act included TWO new initiatives: (1) Section 1091 -\nNational Guard Civilian Youth Opportunities Pilot Program and (2) Section 410 - Civil-Military\nCooperative Action Program. Dr. Perry, the then Deputy Secretary of Defense delegated to me\nthe responsibility to implement and oversee these two pieces statue.\nSubsequently, I have established an office for Civil-Military Programs which combines\nthe National Guard Youth Opportunities Pilot Program and the Civil-Military Cooperative\nAction Program into one office.\nSection 1091 . National Guard Civilian Opportunities Pilot Program (ChalleNGe)\nPILOT DURATION: fiscal years FY93-FY95\nPURPOSE:\nProvide basis for determining\n(a)\nwhether the life skills and employment potential of civilian youth who\ncease to attend secondary school can be significantly improved through\nmilitary based training provided by the National Guard.\n(a)\nwhether it is feasible and cost effective for the National Guard to provide\nmilitary based training to such youth.\nREPORT TO CONGRESS: Section 1091 required DoD to report LO the congressional\ndefense committees on the design. conduct, and effectiveness of the pilot\nprogram. The report is due to Congress in June 1995. The National\nGuard Bureau has contracted for an independent assessment of the\nChalleNGe program for this report. Initial findings are quite optimistic.\nThe GED attainment rate is approximately 20% above any other GED\nprogram for this category of students (ie. drop-outs and expellees).\nFurthermore, all roughly $14.000/student it is one of the most cost-\neffective programs out there and 1/2 the cost of any other federal\nresidential program.\nSTATUS: The Challenge program is a federally funded and regulated, state run\nprogram. We stress partnership and COST sharing with the states and\ncommunities which host the program For example, the state of\nMississippi has matched federal funding at approximately 50%. Other\nstates have provided cost sharing as well to include paying for teachers,\nproviding transportation vehicles, mentors for the students etc. We are\ncontinuing to work with the states to find additional cost sharing\nopportunities.\n06/01/95\n19:08\n202 273 4876\nVA OFC OF SECTY\n012\nSENT BY:\n5-31-95 : 11:09 :\nNGAUS-\n202 273 4876:#11/11\nSection 410 - Civil-Military Cooperation Action Program\nPURPOSE:\nEstablish a program which in accordance with other applicable law, to USE\nthe skills, capabilities, and resources of the anned forces to assist civilian\nefforts to meet the domestic needs of the U.S.\nOBJECTIVES:\n(1)\nEnhance individual and unit training and morale in the\nanned forces.\n(2)\nTo encourage cooperation between civilian and military\nsectors of society in addressing domestic needs.\n(3)\nTo advance equal opportunity\n(4)\nTo enrich the civilian economy of the US through\neducation, training. and transfer of technology.\n(5)\nTo improve the environment and economic and social\nconditions.\n(6)\nTo provide opportunities for disadvantaged citizens of US.\nSTATUS:\nDoD Directive implementing legislation is in final stages of coordination.\nTo date we have 33 programs in more than 35 states. The focus for these\ntype programs is combat support and combat service support units and\nindividuals - especially medical and engineering. These programs\nprovide valuable \"hands on\" readiness training for our military personnel\nwhile simultaneously \"adding value to America\".\nFUNDING OF CIVIL-MILITARY PROGRAMS:\nFY93 \" Congress appropriated $49M (O&M) for Challenge and Starbase\n- Challenge in 10 states\n- Starbase in 5 states (authority for starbase came under 2193 USC10, committee\nreport language on Starbase said it was the intent of Congress that each of the\nprograms be self-sustaining at the end of 3 years of federal funding -- 3 yrs expires\nfor the first 5 states in June 1996)\nFY94 - Congress appropriated S70M (O&M)\n- hallenge in 15 states' Starbase in 14 states - $60M\n-Civil-Military Cooperative Action Programs - $10M\nFY95 - President's budget included $71.4M (O&M)\n- Challenge in 15 states/ Starbase in 14 states - $61.4M\n- Civil-Military Cooperative Action Programs - $10M\n--Congress added $8M (Mil pers)\nFY96 -- President's budget includes $69.2M\n--Challenge in 15 states/ Starbase in 14 states - $61.4M (Zero growth in programs)\n--Civil-Military Cooperative Action Programs - $7.8M\nMAY 25 '95 16:22 FROM NCOA-WASHINGTON\nPAGE. 001\n12/ the\nNCOA\nASSOCIATION\nNon Commissioned Officers Association of the United States of America\n225 N. Washington Street\nAlexandria. Virginia 22314\nTelephone (703) 549-0311\nNATIONAL CAPITAL OFFICE\nTELECOPY\nTRANSMITTAL SHEET\nFAX NUMBER\n(703) 549-0245\nTO:\nMs Molly BROSTROM\nFROM:\nDick Schneider\nDATE:\nTIME:\nNUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET:\nSUBJECT: Letter re WHCOA\nSOURCE:\nCOMMENTS: Would you please\nshare Copies with\nSteve Hilton, Jeelnne\nANY PROBLEMS, CALL (703) 549-0311\nInadomi, and Jeremy Ben Ami\nMAY 25 '95 16:22\nFROM NCOA-WASHINGTON\nPAGE 002\nWHC.A\nVERNE\nNCOA®\nNon Commissioned Officers Association of the United States of America\n225 N. Washington Street\nAlexandria, Virginia 22314\nTelephone (703) 549-0311\nMay 9, 1995\nThe Honorable David Pryor, U.S.S.\nChair. Policy Committee\n1995 White House Conference on Aging\n501 School Street. S.W., 8th Floor\nWashington DC 20025\nDear Mr. Pryor:\nI was a delegate at the 1995 White House Conference on Aging and an active program\nparticipant.\nI deeply regret that the delegate ballot voting on Resolutions introduced during the event was\nnot announced while the conference was in session.\nCountless people worked to introduce Resolutions 132. 133 and 134 that were voted on by the\ndelegate body on Friday, May Sth. 1995. The results of that ballot was not made available until\nMonday. May 8th, 1995. My information reveals the vote on these resolutions was as follows:\n#132 - 916 yes: 145 no: 829 abstained from voting\n-needed 954 to\n#133 - 792 yes: 154 no: 944 abstained from voting\n3\npass\n#134 - 797 yes: 148 no: 945 abstained from voting\nThe ballots presented the delegate with the choice to cast either a \"YES or NO\" vote on the\ndelegate introduced resolutions contained on the second ballot. It appears that the total\npopulation of delegates was the basis from which a majority vote was necessary to secure\nadoption of the resolution. Based on this logic. all three of the above delegate submitted\nresolutions failed. It appears that ten other (10) delegate introduced resolutions were adopted\nat the conference.\nI fail to see how a delegate who abstains from voting should remain a part of the total delegate\nbody upon which a majority is based for passage of a resolution or motion. Clearly, a majority\nof those voting adopted the three resolutions in question.\nMAY 25 '95 16:23\nFROM NCOA-WASHINGTON\nPAGE 003\nMay 9. 1995\nPage 2\nI would have risen to a Point of Order had this process been articulated at the conference. I\nsincerely believe that an injustice has resulted from rule making that was manufactured for this\ndemocratic voting process. Specifically, procedures that were unknown to delegates before the\nvoting process.\nIt should be further noted that at the formal voting session an insufficient number of copies of\nthe Final Resolutions Booklet and lack of ballots for each delegate created confusion in the\nassembly hall.\nThis delegate formally requests that the entire White House Conference on Aging Advisory\nCommittee:\nReview the information provided to delegates on adoption of delegate introduced\nothers indestand the\nresolutions.\ndidn't flow walc\nReview the process unlized at the conference.\nExclude those who \"abstained (or did not vote)\" from the total number of\ndelegates required for determination of the majority necessary to adopt a\nresolution.\nApprove on bchalf of the White House Conference on Aging all resolutions that\nwould have been approved by a simple majority of those voting.\nLet's not end this 1995 White House Conference on Aging embroiled in controversy. Lct us\ntogether resolve these issues. If necessary, let's poll the delegates on this issue to ensure the\naction taken is endorsed by the delegate body. Let us not put a cloud on an otherwise White\nHouse stellar event.\nSincerely\nRichard C. Schneider\nDelegate\nWhite House Conference on Aging\ncc: Policy Committee Members\n** TOTAL PAGE. 003 **\n1741\nTHE MILITARY COALITION\n201 North Washington Street\nAlexandria, Virginia 22314\nEND UNFAIR DISPARITIES IN RETIRED PAY\nCOST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENT (COLA) DELAYS\nThe Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 imposed severe multi-year\nCOLA delays on military retirees - far exceeding the sacrifices asked of other\nCOLA recipients. While the FY1995 DoD Authorization Act equalized the 1995\nmilitary and Federal civilian COLA dates, severe FY1996-98 disparities remain.\nThere are 50 million Federal COLA recipients. Of these, more than 46 million\n(92 percent of the total) incur no COLA sacrifices at all. Two million Federal\ncivilian retirees will see only three more months of COLA delays in 1996 before\nreturning to January COLAs in 1997. In stark contrast, 1.4 million nondisabled\nmilitary retirees face delays totaling 27 more months (nine months each for\n1996 through 1998) nine times the remaining Federal civilian sacrifice.\nFor the average retired officer, the cumulative five-year COLA forfeiture will be\n$2,301. A Federal civilian retiree with the same retired pay will give up about\none-quarter of that amount -- $603. The average enlisted retiree will lose\n$1,228; the equivalent Federal civilian retiree, only $322.\nMilitary retirees expect to assume their fair share of sacrifice, but this is a\ngrossly disproportionate $2 billion surtax imposed on military retirees in spite\nof and in fact because of their extended sacrifices in uniformed service. It\nimposes 88 percent of the financial sacrifice on military retirees, even though\nthey comprise only 3 percent of the COLA-eligible population.\nSince 1969, military and Federal civilian retirees have received the same COLAs\non the same dates. With recruiting in decline, career stability undermined by\nthe force drawdown, and ever more intense operational requirements on the\nremaining forces, Congress should not be relegating military retirees to \"second-\nclass\" treatment.\nThe President's Budget (PB) for FY1996 provides $385 million in offsets to\nequalize the COLA dates for 1996. The PB does not address FY1997-98, but\nAdministration sources indicate similar offsets are available for those years.\nThe Military Coalition urges the Congress to fix this serious\ninequity once and for all and end this highly divisive annual\ndebate by equalizing the military and Federal civilian COLA dates\nin this year's Budget Resolution, not only for FY1996, but for\nFY1997-98 as well.\nApril 25, 1995\nSHARED SACRIFICE??\n1993 OBRA IMPACT\nFEDERAL\nMILITARY\nOTHER COLA\nFEDERAL\nCIVILIANS\nRETIREES\nRECIPIENTS\nCIVILIANS\n(5%)\n(3%)\n(0%)\n(12%)\nOTHER\nMILITARY\nCOLA\nRETIREES\nRECIPIENTS\n(92%)\n(88%)\nCOLA POPULATION\nCOLA SACRIFICE\n(52 Million Total)\n($2.4 Billion Total)"
}