Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
55280621
label
Interagency Veterans Policy Group Meeting with VSOs [Veterans Service Organizations] 5/24-25 [1995]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
55280621
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Interagency Veterans Policy Group Meeting with VSOs [Veterans Service Organizations] 5/24-25 [1995]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Domestic Policy Council (Clinton Administration)
Molly Brostrom's Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
55280621
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-7763280-20120326S-013-005-2017
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
f500c294b9fb47a6
ocrText
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
SUBJECT/TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
AND TYPE
001. list
Interagency Veterans Policy Group meeting attendees (partial) (2
05/24/1995
P6/b(6)
pages)
002. list
Interagency Veterans Policy Group meeting attendees (partial) (2
05/24/1995
P6/b(6)
pages)
003. list
Interagency Veterans Policy Group meeting attendees (partial) (2
05/25/1995
P6/b(6)
pages)
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
Domestic Policy Council
Molly Brostrom
OA/Box Number: 8398
FOLDER TITLE:
Interagency Veterans Policy Group Meeting with VSOs [Veterans Service
Organizations] 5/24-25 [1995]
2012-0326-S
kc785
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - |44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - 15 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
b(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
an agency |(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA|
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRAJ
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy |(a)(6) of the PRA]
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes |(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
of gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
2201(3).
concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]
RR. Document will be reviewed upon request.
05/12/95 12:29
202 273 4876
VA OFC OF SECTY
001
UT
DATED VETERARS THE
THE SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
WASHINGTON
STATES OF
Facsimile Cover Sheet
To: Molly B.
Company:
Phone: (202) 456-7028
Fax:
From:
Company: Office of the Secretary
Phone:
Fax:
Date:
Pages including this
cover page:
Comments:
Putting Veterans First
05/12/95
12:30
202 273 4876
VA OFC OF SECTY
002
ETY
VITERANS AMERICA
THE SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
WASHINGTON
OF
MAY 4 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO: Executive Directors:
American Legion
AMVETS
Blinded Veterans Association
Disabled American Veterans
Military Order of the Purple Heart
National Association of State Directors
for Veterans Affairs
Paralyzed Veterans of America
FROM: Robert L. Jones, Office of Boston
Veterans of Foreign Wars
Vietnam Veterans of America
and Veterans Affairs
SUBJ: White House Interagency Veterans Policy Group
(Time Change)
The White House Interagency Veterans Policy Group meeting on
May 21, 1995, originally scheduled for 2:00 p.m. to 3:30
p.m. is now scheduled for 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. So sorry
2:30
for the inconvenience.
Putting Veterans First
05/12/95
12:30
202 273 4876
VA OFC OF SECTY
003
OF
UNITED CREATMENT
THE SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
WASHINGTON
STATEM UP
CITY
APR 26 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO: Executive Directors:
American GI Forum of the U.S.
Catholic War Veterans
Jewish War Veterans
Military Coalition
National Association of Black Veterans
National Association for Uniformed Services
National Guard Association
Non Commissioned Officers Association
Reserve Officers Association
The Retired Officers Association
The Retired Enlisted Association
FROM: Robert L. Jones, Office of Public Liaison
and Veteran Affairs
SUBJ: White House Interagency Veterans Policy Group
We cordially invite you to attend a meeting of the White
House Interagency Veterans Policy Group. The meeting will
be held on Thursday, May 25, 1995 from 11:00 a.m. to 12:30
p.m. in Room 180, Old Executive Office Building.
The White House Domestic Policy Council, Office of Public
Liaison, and Office of Cabinet Affairs recently created an
Interagency Veterans Policy Group consisting of
representatives from federal agencies who are responsible
for veterans policy in order to provide a forum to discuss
veterans policy issues that cross agency boundaries. This
group allows the representatives from federal agencies
representing the needs of veterans to coordinate their
efforts, to foster communication, and to better meet the
needs of the veteran community.
The Policy Group will also provide members of the Veteran
Service Organizations and the military coalition an
opportunity T.O provide input into emerging policy issues
Putting Veterans First
05/12/95
12:30
202 273 4876
VA OFC OF SECTY
004
affecting their membership. We are holding this meeting to
provide organizations an opportunity to highlight issues
that they would like the Policy Group to address. You are
invited to make a five minute presentation to Domestic
Policy. Cabinet Affairs, and Office of Public Liaison staff
on issues concerning your interests. Please submit written
issue papers to Bob Jones, Office of Public Liaison, three
days prior to the meeting.
Due to the space and time limitations we ask that you send
only one representative to the meeting. Please RSVP by
faxing or calling the date of birth and social security
number for your representative to Virginia Copeland at (202)
273-4836 or fax (202) 273-4876.
-2-
Meeting with Veteran Service Organizations
May 24, 1995
Summary
VSO Representatives: Attached
White House Representatives: Kitty Higgins, Carol Rasco opened
meeting; Jeremy Ben-Ami, Lee-Ann Inadomi, Steve Hilton, Molly
Brostrom, Bob Jones
General suggestion: Request for meeting between agency members
of the IVPG and VSOs. WH said would consider for early fall.
American Legion
Support for Constitutional amendment prohibiting flag
burning
Normalization with Vietnam--no movement until significant
cooperation and full accounting of POW/MIAs has been
accomplished
Blinded Veterans Association
Continued advocacy for health reform and disability policy
Paralyzed Veterans of America
Praise for WHCoA and generally for IVPG--pressure from White
House is helpful
Legislative hopes: health reform; and eligibility reform
Disability policy review very important, particularly in
context of budget and philosophical attacks on programs.
Disabled American Veterans
Employment agenda: transition assistance--the current
downsizing/relocation in the private sector has resulted in
significant focus on impact on civilians. Why is there not
a commensurate concern for veterans and military in military
downsizing/base closures?
Employment and Training system/vouchers--why not use GI Bill
of Rights system for preventing fraud? no need to reinvent
the wheel.
DVA and PVA are looking at legislation for 8A-like program
to assist people with disabilities, including veterans
Homeless veterans not given attention or preference at HUD;
need for more coordination and outreach during application
process for HUD grants (HUD promised guidelines?)
Supportive of Administration's Civil Service Reform
proposal--better than Congressional; King has been very
accessible
Native Americans and claims process/denial of benefits--
Advisory Committee needs to look into.
Veterans of Foreign Wars
Strong support for VA health care eligibility reforms;
oppose Republican budget proposals
Vietnam Veterans of America
Homelessness among veterans--continues to need greater
attention, in particular at HUD. Veteran-specific programs
are most effective. HUD doesn't recognize veterans as
special needs population. Suggestion: Recognize veterans
as special needs population and explore pass-through
-
arrangement ordgetary temcessily send some $ directly to VAd,
?
DOL
funding for HVRP (srcassful, relatively charp)
Employment--concern about beginning of Vietnam Veterans
employment crisis; Vietnam Veterans are being hurt in
disproportionate numbers by recent downsizing and
dislocation.
Suggestion: Don't include veterans employment programs in
consolidation/block granting.
Problem: VOC rehab doesn't do enough on the employment
?
side. (New issue: VA Voc Rehab/DOL Veterans interaction
Civil Service Reform--important that OPM retains ability to
monitor agency compliance with federal personnel policies.
National Association of State Directors for Veterans Affairs
Budget is top concern
Meetings with VSOs and Military Coalition Groups (5/24-25/95)
Date
Minutes
Attendees:
VSOs 5/24
commuts//ssues Raised:
DVA/PVA--looking at legislation for 8A-like program to assist
people with disabilities including veterans
HUD grants: Do they go proportionately to veterans?
American Legion--New issues: 1) support for Constitutional
amendment prohibiting flag burning; 2) Normalization with
Vietnam--no movement until significant cooperation and full
accounting of POW/MIAs
Blinded Veterans Association--continued advocacy for health
reform and disability policy
Paralyzed Veterans of America--Kudos for WHCoA and generally for
IVPG--pressure from White House helpful. Legislative hopes:
health reform; eligibility reform (sees $2 billion savings);
Disability policy review very important, particularly in context
of budget and philosophical attacks on programs.
Disabled American Veterans--Employment agenda: transition
assistance program; Supportive of Civil Service Reform proposal
(better than Congressional; King very accessible); E & T
system/vouchers--why not use GI Bill of Rights system for
preventing fraud? no need to reinvent the wheel. Native
Americans and claims process/denial of benefits--Advisory
Committee needs to look into.
VFW--presented paper opposing Republican budget proposals and
promoting eligibility reforms.
vet specific
paper
Vietnam Veterans of America: 1) Homelessness among veterans--
progs not
continues to need greater attention, in particular at HUD. 2)
Aust
Employment--concern about beginning of Vietnam Veterans
effective
employment crisis, given downsizing, dislocation. Problem: VOC
rehab doesn't do enough on the employment side. (New issue: VA
Supput
Voc Rehab/DOL Veterans interaction 3) Civil Service Reform #0f
for cant
important that OPM retains ability to monitor compliance.
vviswor
Sugg:
agrees
ulfed'l
of cove
SDVA: Budget is top concern.
sermind
policies
HVD beart
OPM: check
registerts
VV disprip by affected by empl did
as Sp needs
Sugg: Don't include vets progs in ansol
Suggestion:
Have DOL agencies check on status
recognized
reads pup
4) Gulf Wa
word
5) Presil Poulumit corn
by explure
minur Pers Gulf
pass then
argut
update
Meeting with Military Coalition Groups
May 25, 1995
Military Coalition Representatives: Attached
White House Representatives: Jeremy Ben-Ami, Lee-Ann Inadomi,
Steve Hilton, Molly Brostrom, Bob Jones
WHCoA--suberb, but 3 veterans resolutions not passed (abstentions
counted as no's)
National Association for Uniformed Services
Would like axth to
Medicare subvention at military hospitals
test in pilot prof
Retired Enlisted Association
(budget media brfy; rondtash
Medicare reimbursement/subvention
Ask day Aftairs ifin
Deferer Arth Hct
Under 65 military retiree and DOD Tri-Care Prime Program (AI M / dor)
(going into Medicare HMOs negative for under 65. will have
to pay Tricare premium); and U.S. Treatment Facilities; has
been committed by gov't but military personnel are losing
centrul Bob
Kundred
Nat'll
Assoctor Unitimed Service to for
VP closing the Uniformed Services Medical School, based on
flawed data; Congressional committees rejected--won't
succeed in future; affects quality of care.
+ Jewish Wa Vets
Bob
Who?
Flect Reserve
Active Duty Desert Storm people still being told there in
?
nothing wrong with them. but farced out
RIF- Reduction Force
?
RIFs give preference to VA, not military. (?)
Vets Pref. Petivee Law_
American GI Forum
Individual Vita Mil Retiree is
Preston
love,
not given vets
HVRP is on rescision list; it is a priority.
pref in red of
Non-Commissioned Officers Association
Mil. firee +> 50% of salary as retivent
concurrent receipt--going nowhere. must howeril
1
face (waddreys
beliab -D and drin both
Bob
C In TVin regs
retired pay & tidley
@ OPM)
2) RIF--special separation bonuses--pay 40% back to suecure VA
entitlement. Taxes are included in amount to be repaid
(Treasury issue--IRS 3-year statute of limitation coming up)
(SSB?) When dec. made for red force, established on Can Z progs
National Guard
special Sip.B
House mark up cuts funding for youth-at-risk programs in
National Guard (House believes shouldn't be funded out of
DOD; DOD supports the programs).
being
DOD needs to address
DNPR
REGO and National Guard Positions-- the bulk of REGO
reductions happening at DOD; at the same time that Perry
says he wants to put greater emphasis on Guard/Reserve--
threatens the readiness of troops.
Reserve Officers
Erosion of earned benefits not discretionary entitlements--
can't just change them: e.g. health care, changing
retimrement for people in system; survivors benefits
programs, COLAs.
Seconded concern about troop readiness and REGO reductions.
Retired Officer Association
Medicare subvention- why is OMB blocking; HHS lobbying
against.
TriCare will lock many of DOD retirees out of DOD's health
care system--will cost HCFA at least ?$4800/person?.
COLA equity
Jewish War Veterans
Subvention; Lock out from Military HEalth Care system.
National Association of Black Veterans
Role of veterans in dealing with social problems, youth here
in this country.
Mil. technician / civimilitary - one of most proveful Cobbay,
gp
- doesn't want to take their fair share
- prob'ly get 65c
1) e-mail
sched' request will convene after
2) JB rise @ 8.5.
5/24/95 MEETING WITH USO',
POSTAL SERVICE /SSUES
DVA / /PAV - (ating C legislation For 8A-like program
to Assist people ~/ distilities incl. veterans.
HUD granh: d then So proportionately jets?
Am. LEGION: I VA Bjdger 2 ELIG REF IN VA med. care.
CONSTIT Anone on Flag burning.
VIETNAM Normalization AL way no rosests norm
util signif inc in coop in Accounts, For POU/MIA.
AMVETS:
BLINDED JETS : OHEALTH important 2 Dislosue encouraging.
3
Initiations this A.M. were encouraging.
GORDON MANIFIELD - PSA: i 1 HJD issue c LEGISLATIVE people:
HC, clig reform: $2B SAVINGS. 3 WHICH was geod.
4
DISAS POL ROUTEW -ver important.
D.A.V. - Ros DRACH : , Briefing this Am was good.
2"
=
Transition Assistance Program:
,
JET, Prof.
*
f
E+T system Voccurs. why not Use
GI B.11 at Rights system?
NOTE: N.A.'s concerned re' denial for benefits.
VFW: I Budger 2 ELIG REFORM
VIET VETS Am: I HOMELESS VETS 2 Employment: SALSAGER
can
no
wer Emp system! -very concerned ast dislocation,
Expiore
THESE
(SSUES of
retraining AreA Prois: use RETAL doesn't do ast
more
on the employment side.
JETS PREF: imp- that OPM have abil +
monitor compliance
NEW ISSUE: UA Joe REWAR / DOL UETS intraction.
SDVA:
1
Budgen
5/24 IVPG Mtg
waves
6-6742
kitty - Reactions to VE Emits
273-5615 273 5615
503:
Possibility of joint onty w/ IVPG stuff
- puhaps once/yr (fall)
Ron Drach : h'less nets
Katz: hiless vets
vit,
93-94
lazy where on applications
A
get statution lung b quotes from HUD
HUD
promised gilines an vets' applicatinsfor
grants
Am Legin - VA budget
(JohnSommos) - elig reform
drafting leg.
New: Constil around - agst Plag burning
-H Judician Subcom hy today
2) Numalization wl V'nam
no ment whil
sigit coop t full accty of BulMits
(-Pres met w/ Kerry /Mclain yesterdey)
AmVETS
- Junes Kenney
REGO reactions, perhaps
Blinded Vetsl- Tom Miller
-dirlogue encourapy
- hrefam idisabs
-DOD rep tomorrow?
Paralyzed Vets / Garden Mastield
1.
Interingency
pressure by WH impt
- Message to leg.
hreform elig. reform ($2B)
WHEAT excellent Medicare
- -Disability review very shipt
dattacks from budget D
philosophical
(Ron Drach
- -employment agenda: transition assistace
- civil serice return - like much bthr then Cong'l
- kilyvey accessible
HR 1617 - Goodling - fraud & abuse
?
-Gornn needs to look @ GI Bill's pross for
prev's fraud
- VETS transfer Congil hz
-Ind. Budget
$2B
DOL
[ Claims process + Native this
Adv Comm needs to look cho
simplification
outreach/set
VFW - paper
Vietnam
-hikesness : needs 8Pm attn i not beingiven @ HUD
-enplymt: Comena abt beginning of VV enplaisis
wks together well
domnsizey Cpub opur)
Bub Jones
Preston Taylor
-partly for disas vets
Cany evoc Rehab head)
-VocRehab doesn't do good Gob on empl side
Vockshab: - Civil Service: impt that OPM retains desight dil
outs fating
SDVA - biggest concern is budget
3- 3 - vetums specific resuls
all failed
Withdrawal/Redaction Marker
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
SUBJECT/TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
AND TYPE
001. list
Interagency Veterans Policy Group meeting attendees (partial) (2
05/24/1995
P6/b(6)
pages)
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
Domestic Policy Council
Molly Brostrom
OA/Box Number: 8398
FOLDER TITLE:
Interagency Veterans Policy Group Meeting with VSOs [Veterans Service
Organizations] 5/24-25 [1995]
2012-0326-S
kc785
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - 15 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRAJ
b(1) National security classified information |(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRAJ
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors |a)(5) of the PRA]
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy |(a)(6) of the PRAJ
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes |(b)(7) of the FOIA|
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
of gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
2201(3).
concerning wells |(b)(9) of the FOIA|
RR. Document will be reviewed upon request.
[001]
05/22/95 13:11
6'202 273 4876
VA OFC OF SECTY
002
WHITE HOUSE INTERAGENCY VETERANS POLICY GROUP
OLD EXECUTIVE OFFICE BUILDING
MAY 24, 1995
1:00 PM - 2:00 PM
Room 180
American Legion
-
E.O.
John Sommer
SSN:
P6/(b)(6)
DOB:
AMVETS
James Kenney 2 E.D.
SSN:
DOB:
P6/(b)(6)
Blinded Veterans Association
Tom Miller 3 E.D.
SSN:
DOB:
P6/(b)(6)
Disabled American Veterans
Ron Drach 4 N.E.D.
SSN:
P6/(b)(6)
DOB:
Military Order of Purple Heart
Greg Bresser
SSN:
P6/(b)(6)
DOB:
National Association of State Directors
for Veterans Affairs
7
Col. Joseph R. Clelan, Deputy Adjutant
General for Veterans Affairs
SSN:
P6/(b)(6)
DOB:
05/22/95 13:11
202 273 4876
VA 0FC OF SECTY
003
Paralyzed Veterans of America
Gordon Mansfield
4.5
SSN:
DOB:
P6/(b)(6)
Veterans of Foreign Wars
Frederico Juarbe, Jr.
?
SSN:
DOB:
P6/(b)(6)
Vietnam Veterans of America
William F. Crandell
I
SSN:
DOB:
P6/(b)(6)
Withdrawal/Redaction Marker
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
SUBJECT/TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
AND TYPE
002. list
Interagency Veterans Policy Group meeting attendees (partial) (2
05/24/1995
P6/b(6)
pages)
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
Domestic Policy Council
Molly Brostrom
OA/Box Number: 8398
FOLDER TITLE:
Interagency Veterans Policy Group Meeting with VSOs [Veterans Service
Organizations] 5/24-25 [1995]
2012-0326-S
kc785
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - |44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)|
P1 National Security Classified Information |(a)(1) of the PRA]
b(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office |(a)(2) of the PRA]
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRAJ
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information |(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy |(a)(6) of the PRAJ
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
of gift.
financial institutions |(b)(8) of the FOIA]
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
2201(3).
concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA|
RR. Document will be reviewed upon request.
[002]
05/22/95 13:11
202 273 4876
VA OFC OF SECTY
002
WHITE HOUSE INTERAGENCY VETERANS POLICY GROUP
OLD EXECUTIVE OFFICE BUILDING
MAY 24, 1995
1:00 PM - 2:00 PM
Room 180
American Legion
John Sommer
SSN:
DOB:
P6/(b)(6)
AMVETS
James Kenney
SSN:
DOB:
P6/(b)(6)
Blinded Veterans Association
Tom Miller
SSN:
DOB:
P6/(b)(6)
Disabled American Veterans
Ron Drach
SSN:
DOB:
P6/(b)(6)
Military Order of Purple Heart
Greg Bresser
SSN:
DOB:
P6/(b)(6)
National Association of State Directors
for Veterans Affairs
Col. Joseph R. Clelan, Deputy Adjutant
General for Veterans Affairs
SSN:
DOB:
P6/(b)(6)
C002]
05/22/95 13:11
202 273 4876
VA 0FC OF SECTY
003
Paralyzed Veterans of America
Gordon Mansfield
SSN:
DOB:
P6/(b)(6)
Veterans of Foreign Wars
Frederico Juarbe, Jr. Horold Seven
SSN:
DOB:
P6/(b)(6)
Vietnam Veterans of America
William F. Crandell
SSN:
DOB:
P6/(b)(6)
Withdrawal/Redaction Marker
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
SUBJECT/TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
AND TYPE
003. list
Interagency Veterans Policy Group meeting attendees (partial) (2
05/25/1995
P6/b(6)
pages)
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
Domestic Policy Council
Molly Brostrom
OA/Box Number: 8398
FOLDER TITLE:
Interagency Veterans Policy Group Meeting with VSOs [Veterans Service
Organizations] 5/24-25 [1995]
2012-0326-S
kc785
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - |44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - 15 U.S.C. 552(b)|
P1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
b(1) National security classified information |(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
an agency |(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRAJ
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information |(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA|
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy |(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRAJ
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes |(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
of gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
2201(3).
concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]
RR. Document will be reviewed upon request.
[003]
05/22/95 13:11
202 273 4876
VA OFC OF SECTY
004
White House Interagency Veterans Policy
Thursday, May 25, 1995
11:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
OEOB - Room 180
American GI Forum
Gretchen Navas Carlos Martinez
SSN:
DOB:
P6/(b)(6)
Catholic War Veterans
Ray Williams
SSN:
DOB:
P6/(b)(6)
Jewish War Veterans
Col. Herb Rosenbleeth
SSN:
DOB:
P6/(b)(6)
Military Coalition
Wilford G. Butler
SSN:
DOB:
P6/(b)(6)
National Association of Black Veterans
Thomas H. Wynn, Sr.
SSN:
P6/(b)(6)
DOB:
National Association for Uniformed Services X
Charles C. Partridge
SSN:
DOB:
P6/(b)(6)
National Guard Association
General MG Robert F. Ensslin
SSN:
DOB:
P6/(b)(6)
05/22/95 13:12
202 273 4876
VA 0FC OF SECTY
4
005
[003]
Non Commissioned Officers Association
Richard Johnson
SSN:
P6/(b)(6)
DOB:
Reserve Officers Association
Gen. Roger Sandler
SSN:
P6/(b)(6)
DOB:
The Retired Officers Association
Col. Paul Arcari
SSN:
P6/(b)(6)
DOB:
The Retired Enlisted Association
Mike Zabko
SSN:
P6/(b)(6)
DOB:
FLEER.
5/25/95
NA Unif Serv Choch MIL COALITION
RET Ene
FLOTT
BLACK VETS
G Form
NCO Dich S
NATE G. Bob Ew
Res off Rgv
RET
Herb Resenslity
I
WHCOA - issue of 3 (esos was caised.
Abstentions were caused by "no's."
COMMITMENT TO GET BACK ON CONCERN alon JOTING
2
Chuck PARTRIDGE : MEDICARE REIMBURSEMENT * SA hospitals.
+ MILITARY hospitals
3
Mike ZABRO
REIMBRSOMENT ssses
Under 65 mil setires - AND instruct in
TRICARE proj.
US TREATMENT Fixes - JSTFS. into snation
ink TRICASE - going into Tricare will
be negative fos under
K
will have & PAY TRICARE premium
-hat been committed by Gou't: bet mil
personal are losing.
-
UP closing the Xsa.Medical 2 School
- Flared data - possibly false
- Affects quality of care.
- would welcome opportunity to
- wait SICCECE in Hill Anywar.
3
Active Date DESART from people still being
told type is noting wrong with then.
RIFS? non Jets have pref in RIFS?
4
GIFOROM - Carlos MARTINEZ
- -HURP is in rescission - is it Apriority.
5
NCOA - -Dice Johnson
- Concurrent receipt?
RIF- special SRP bondsses - PAY back to secure
JA entitlement.
Taxe pd Are included :- ant & be sepaid.
Treasure issue.
6
NATL GUARD -
-House mark up who york X
DOD has been supportive - incls high-screal
droposh.
test in tn shates.
NAR Go. positions:
Bolton line: too web of LEGO ceduction out
of millitions - partic concerned T redetion
of GUAR positions.
7
RES. Off. ASSN
Roger Sandles.
Treamph ilsr of technicians in the RESERVED.
- readiness issue.
- Air NATL Guard AI well AT NATL GUARD.
ERGIN of earned benefits.
- not discretanary - can't
just change benefits, health pselage;
COLAS.
8
RETIRED off ASSN
- when is OMB placking the doins. sebsention?
-HHS lobbying A3Airsh.
- OMB Against.
waking for support on the subsention inc.
ALSO: COLA equit.
a
Jewish war VETERANS (Hesb)
-ech deph of feeling on he benefits
10
BLACK JETS
Nice shatmal on role of KY in desling
in Social problems, your hase in this
Country.
5/25 IVPG Mtg w/ Military Coalition Groups
WHCOA - superb - but 3 resolutions
-600+signatues on each
not passed
- brewing
-voting
900 /100 - 900 ab sterting
counted as no
Natil Assoc for Unifaned Services
-Allow use of Medicane at Militry hosps
Subventia
Retived Enlisted Assoc
- 265 mil retiree
DOD Tri-Cave Prime progm
HMO Medican
very Upse
Herb
VP Closing of Mit. Medical School
Uniformed Services
any / Duns, Comittees
\
(bedect)
- flawed data
rejected
N
- Soldies Navy
?
- RIF's give preference to VA, not military
if
Am. GI Form
-HVRP progr
NCOA
- -concument receipt Egory nouture
?
- Drawdown? / SSB - regulatory issue
*
- Treasury - IRS 3-yr state
Natil Grad
hs disport, enhance thing science's muth
- -H cut youth at - risk progs in nat'l and -
H belief that shouldn't by fuiled at of DoD -
P.D supports pugs
- ReinvGa - bulk of dran dounce DOD (20% add'l
to already I'd 1060% Govd) -at Same fine as Perry
says he wants to put 8th enphasis on Gred/Res
-threaters readiress of mits
Reserve seconded Offices
-Erosion of earned benefits : Heave, A'gRehnet
for pple in syst; suriva benefitsprogs; couts
-Mediceve Subrention: Shall Cobby.s
patile
- but Tri-Cere will lock my of DOD retivees oct of
DOD's he system - will cost HCFA@6ast
$7:00
Jewish Veterms
as Subrention / Lockat (afor Mil. Hear
Bl Veteras
Mil. Coalition mtys
Ad Hoc Mtrs
wkg draft
INTERAGENCY VETERANS POLICY GROUP
WORKING AGENDA
June 28, 1995
Short term Issues
1. Budget
The budget continues to be of primary interest to the veteran service organizations (VSOs)
and military coalition groups. The groups reiterated their support for the President's 1996
budget and opposition to Republican proposals.
They also expressed concern about provisions in the Republican Rescission package,
including a $50 million cut in VA medical care and a $5 million cut/elimination of DOL's
Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program.
OMB will report on status of Rescission package and these specific provisions.
2. White House Conference on Aging
Representatives of veterans service organizations had high praise overall for the the 1995
White House Conference on Aging, held on May 2-5. The Conference included 20
delegates appointed by Secretary Brown and 40 appointed by veterans' organizations.
VSOs and the military coalition groups expressed concern, however, about the resolutions
voting process and outcome. The WHCoA staff, working with Veterans Affairs, are in the
process of scheduling a meeting for early to mid-July to discuss these concerns.
3. Uniformed Services Medical School
Several of the military coalition groups are concerned about an Administration proposal to
close the Uniformed Services Medical School. The proposal has been a part of the Vice
President's National Performance Review, the President's budget. and the Pentagon's
Bottom Up Review. The groups have concerns about the data used in making the decision
to close the school, and claim that the proposal has no chance in Congress given past
opposition. GAO is in the process of conducting a review of this issue.
NPR, OMB, and DOD will give background and any update on the issue.
4. Constitutional Amendment to Ban Flag Burning
At a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Commitee. Walter Dellinger presented the
Administration position that, while the President has a long and vocal record in support of
protecting the Flag from desecration and worked to craft legislation to outlaw such
desecration, he does not support a Constitutional amendment to ban Flag burning.
OPL will report on White House discussions with the American Legion on this
issue.
5. Department of Labor Advisory Committee on Veterans Employment and Training
The Department of Labor's Advisory Committee on Veterans Employment and Training is
expected to present a report of its findings to the Secretary by July 1.
DOL will present a preliminary report on the Committee's findings,
highlighting any areas where the IVPG may be helpful in addressing
recommendations.
of Vets Prets
Longer Term Issues
1. Eligibility Reform
Eligibility reform continued to be of primary importance to the VSOs. The second phase of
the Department of Veterans Affairs' National Performance Review (REGO II) which VSOs
and Military Coalition groups were briefed on prior to the May 25th Vice Presidential
announcement takes important steps toward addressing this concern. The initiatives
included under this effort are designed to improve services to veterans, revamp VA's
complex medical care eligibility rules, determine pilots to test the use of Medicare benefits
at VA hospitals, and save money by streamlining. privatizing, or consolidating unnecessary
or activities.
Mil duplicative Hospes are also very , trasted S.S. Bused The test pilot VA fuels
OMB will report on any reactions to and on the status of the will REGO II to help OMB/ICA
proposals 7 in particular the apilot
assess feasil,
Medical subv
Medicare Subvention in Military Hospitals??
(DOL
Disnb Dets Otreach Prog Specialists (DVOPS)
2. Employment Issues
Local Vet Emplynt Reps (LVERS)
Employment issues were high on the VSOs agendas. Several organizations raised the
peciulists who help nets gain employment (not traching p-ojs
concern that insufficient attention is being paid to the employment impact on veterans and
vets
the military of recent military downsizing and base closures. The Vietnam Veterans of
America in particular are concerned, fearing that an employment crisis is beginning among
Vietnam Veterans. They presented statistics stating that veterans are being hurt in
Is
disproportionate numbers because of recent downsizing and dislocation in the private
1-
Career
sector as well as military Iseuhve in govt.
stop
Ctrs
proposed in Admin Card Hill?) - don't give vets privity
Druch? seeks amend prov's for
Specifically. the groups cited the following issues:
vets priority intain
elig det referral fut
a) Employment and Training Consolidation proposals
critzy into EST pwgs
There are several proposals on the Hill that would cosolidate and/or block grant
Also y cont of DOL's
A
VETS
employment and training programs, including the Veterans Employment Training System.
VSOs are concerned that, in moves toward streamlining and state/local control, veterans
continue to be recognized as a federal responsibility. VSOs are pleased with language
that has been included in House E&T consolidation legislation requiring veterans
HR
1617
represnetation on local and state boards.
b) Voc Rehab effort to present renew or memorander fundeshing
vets' emplynt
rep in Astop
Career ctr syst
DOL to present any updates on these issues. to discuss how
b
VA
staff Nets spily for disa
coup an better beach'd.
3. Homelessness
Muintof 7AP/DTAP
program
VSOs continued to name homelessness among veterans as a top issue of concern. The
concern is multiple: One, the size of the problem among veterans (20% of the homeless) job seace
and the need to expand efforts to end it. Two, the perceived reluctance of HUD to fund
trunning
to sep'g
As refs progs folded in, must maintmin structure
personal
military
Maint of Natlvets Thereing
veteran-specific programs and generally to reach out to veterans. Three. the need for
greater interagency coordination in addressing homelessness among veterans.
To address the need for greater interagency coordination, we are creating an IVPG staff-
level homelessness subgroup. [ICH GROUP??] All agencies with programs affecting
homeless veterans (especially HUD, VA, HHS, DOL, and the Corporation for National
Service) should bring the name of your designee to the subgroup to the June 28 meeting.
In addition. a meeting has been scheduled between the Assistant Secretaries at HUD and
DOL to discuss interagency cooperation.
HUD will present any further updates.
4. National Guard Reductions
The National Guard is concerned that reductions in National Guard Military technicians at
the same time that DOD is placing greater emphasis on the National Guard/Reserve will
threaten troop readiness.
DOD to discuss.
5. Disability Policy
VSOs continued to highlight the importance of disability policy to many members of the
veterans community. The Administration's review and commitment to disability policy was
seen as even of greater importance in the context of budget and philosophical attacks on
the programs.
The Administration's National Disability Policy Review (NDPR) team includes Dennis Duffy
from the Department of Veterans Affairs. and the team has included the Paralyzed
Veterans and the Disabled Veterans of America on its outreach list. NDPR will continue to
keep these groups informed of progress and solicit reactions to proposals.
A specific concern was raised about how Native Americans are affected in disability claims
processing and denial of benefits. [WHO WOULD ADDRESS? ARE THESE VA BENEFITS
OR SSA?NEED TO TALK TO RON DRACH. ]
6. Backlog at Board of Veterans Appeals
The Department of Veterans Affairs has been working to address the backlog of claims at
the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) and the Board of Veterans Appeals (BVA)
through internal administrative initiatives, legislation. and the creation of panels of experts
to review and improve procedures.
In addition, the President's FY 96 budget included almost $30 million for information
technology improvements to assist in claims processing.
VA will continue to update the IVPG on progress being made.
7. Persian Gulf Veterans
On May 26, the President signed an Executive Order creating and naming the members
and chair of the Presidential Advisory Committee to review and make recommendations
aimed at finding the causes of this illness and improving the care available to Persian Gulf
veterans.
Other Administration initiatives support the Presidential Advisory Commitee. For example,
veterans who have disabling illnesses that have defied diagnosis are, for the first time,
eligible for veterans' compensation benefits. In addition, DOD will, for the first time.
provide research grants to university faculty and other non-Federal scientists to study the
causes, treatment, and possible transmission of Gulf War illnesses. The Administration
will spend $8-13 million on new research -- epidemiological research, research on the
interactions between anti-nerve gas pills and insecticides and other chemicals, and a wide
range of other research.
NSC will provide any update on update on the announcement of members of
the Advisory Committee.
8. Veterans Preference
+context of
There is general support for the Administration's proposals for civil service reform,
vis budget
including praise for the degreee of access OPM Director King has given the groups. The
concern was raised that in these proposals/: OPM should still retain the ability to monitor
agency compliance with federal personnel policies.
have
OPM and NPR will update on the status of civil service reform proposals and
address the concern about OPM oversight.
W -Retention issue as much as
employment.
9. SBA 8A Program
The Small Business Administration's 8A Program provides assistance in obtaining
government contracts for economically and socially disadvantaged individuals. The IVPG
continues to work with the SBA in exploring greater access for both veterans and for the
disabled to 8A preferences in contracting.
The President's National Disability Policy Review team has agreed to consider this issue in
their review of federal programs. The IVPG will follow and report on these discussions.
CHECK WITH DIANA--UPDATE?
10. National Guard/Reserve Job Security
During Desert Storm, an unprecedented number of Ready Reserve of the Armed Forces
were called to active duty, causing disruption in their lives in many ways, including
economically. As a result. proposals have been raised to provide economic assistance or
assurance for members of the Ready Reserve to alleviate the economic effects of activation
for service in support of urgent operational missions or in times of national crisis.
The Department of Defense is developing a proposed insurance program to be offered to
reservists to protect them against financial disaster if mobilized for a long period of time.
The IVPG will continue to monitor the status of this proposal.
DOD and OMB will present any update.
Normalization with Vietnam?
Issues to Monitor
The IVPG has continued to monitor several issues that were of concern in the past, but
about which the Administration plans no change in policy. If there is any change in the
status of any of these issues, agencies will bring them to the attention of the IVPG.
1. Taxation of Benefits
The Administration is not considering taxation of veterans benefits.
2. Veterans Employment Training Service (VETS) Program
There are no Administration plans to change the structure or management of the VETS
program. either by consolidation with ETA or movement to the VA.
New Issues/Concerns
1. World War II End Commemoration. Commemoration of the end of World War II
continues through November 11, 1995. The President will travel to Honolulu in early
September for VJ Day activities.
2. Korean War Veterans Memorial. On July 27, the new Korean War Veterans memorial
will be dedicated. President Clinton and South Korea President Kim will participate in the
dedication, and it is estimated that close to 100,000 Korean War veterans will participate
in commemoration ceremonies in Washington. An Interagency Coordinating Group under
the National Security Council is working on the event.
DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS
POSITION PAPER
ON
VETERANS' PRIORITY OF SERVICES
IN CURRENT CONGRESSIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE
EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING INITIATIVES
DEPARTMENT AMERICAN
VETERANS
RONALD W. DRACH
National Employment Director
Disabled American Veterans
National Service and Legislative Headquarters
807 Maine Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20024
(202) 554-3501
March 30, 1995
Out of recognition that the existing categorical employment
and training programs do not adequately meet the needs of the
people for which they were designed, the past two decades have
seen numerous administrative and congressional proposals
redefining employment and training initiatives. During the
Clinton Administration and the current Congress a consensus
appears to be building around certain concepts:
1) There is a need to consolidate employment and
training's categorical programs. This would be done
by repealing the legislative authority establishing
many of the categorically funded programs and by
granting authority to waive requirements for other
employment and training programs which are perceived
hurdles to consolidation efforts.
2) The need to create One-Stop Career Centers which
would provide a common intake, eligibility
determination and referral system for applicants for
employment and training services.
3) Many of the Congressional initiatives which appear
to be most favored on Capitol Hill provide for block
grants of federal funds to state governments according
to formula. Under these laws state and local entities
would be created to administer these funds with
minimal federal regulation and oversight.
An apparently unintended result will be the loss of
veterans' priority of services in existing programs which would
be repealed by these laws. The current proposals have no
concomitant provision for such services. Thus, initiatives
which may ultimately result in increased services to applicants,
reduced administrative costs and increased local initiatives,
may have the unintended result of repealing priority employment
and training services for veterans.
Other veterans programs that would be impacted by loss of
personnel and administrative structure include:
1)
Veterans reemployment rights to jobs in the private
sector. Chapter 43 of Title 38 USC provides for
certain military personnel to be able to return to
unifamed Oct 94
their jobs following separation from active duty and
services
prohibits employers from discriminating against
Emplymt
National Guard and Reserve members. As the active
duty military is downsized, adequately trained and
ecemply
staffed Reserve and National Guard units is critical
Rts Act
to national security. However, many National Guard
and Reserve members are forced by their employers to
give up their Reserve or Guard obligation or be
disciplined for missed work due to their participation
in military readiness training and mobilization in
times of national emergency.
(2)
2)
The Transition Assistance and Disabled Transition
Assistance Programs (TAP/DTAP) which provide job
search training to separating military personnel.
These programs have been shown to increase the quality
of jobs obtained and reduce the period of unemployment
following separation by separating military personnel
with subsequent reduced unemployment insurance
payments by the Department of Defense (DoD) to
separating service members.
3)
The National Veterans Training Institute (NVTI) which
provides training to enhance the delivery of veteran
services by training DoD and employment and training
personnel in the following areas:
a)
Case management of veterans with severe barriers
to employment.
b)
Dissemination of information outlining veteran
employment and training programs and support
services.
c)
Identification and dissemination of veteran
service program models which improve veteran
services in employment and training delivery
systems.
d)
Training for new programs such as the recently
developed TAP/DTAP programs, the recently revised
veterans reemployment rights legislation, and
case management of veteran applicants with severe
barriers to employment.
A BRIEF VETERANS EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING HISTORY
Historically, every nation that has intended to establish
safe borders for its citizens has either maintained a military
or purchased the services of mercenaries -- often at its own
peril -- for the common defense. Even at this time, when there
is much debate about the proper role of the federal government,
no rational justification has been provided for establishing a
national defense by allocating these responsibilities to the
fifty states and territories. If there is an area of common
agreement, it is that the safety of the U.S. citizen and the
states and territories is dependent upon the maintenance of a
strong military by the federal government.
Historically, citizens who served in the national defense
have been offered privileges and benefits because of the cost to
the individual which resulted from their service in the
military. In general, the benefits were intended to satisfy
issues arising from low military wages, the effects of
conscription, the loss of civilian wages or produce from
farming, loss of businesses, separation from family, compliance
(3)
with a military structure designed to enforce organization and
discipline with potential concomitant loss of individual rights
enjoyed by virtually every civilian citizen, loss of time in the
civilian labor force and, ultimately, the horror, damage and
pain endured by those who suffered combat. The justification
for veterans' priority of service in existing employment and
training programs and special employment rights grew out of the
recognition that there was a cost to individual citizens who
serve in defense of their country. Also, it was in the national
interest to ameliorate the damage they suffered if the military
was to be able to sustain itself through the conscription and
finally the recruitment of quality men and women to serve in the
military. It was reasonably presumed then, and must be a
considered factor now, that ultimately those who serve will
carry a message to their families and friends regarding the
impact of military service on their lives. It benefits future
recruitment and the general well-being of a nation for the
consensus to be that these men and women were treated fairly by
the government and the nation they served.
As a class, veterans status results from a unique
relationship with the federal government. This unique status
arises out of national security responsibilities of the federal
government. For example, conscription was imposed during
periods of national conflict. Draft evaders could receive
imprisonment and large fines if they refused to serve. Since
1973, the all-volunteer force has replaced conscription but has
been dependent on a rising public reputation which followed
considerable derision in the latter part of and immediately
following the Vietnam War.
The very nature of maintaining a military requires the
flexibility to increase the number of personnel in preparation
for or during conflict. The result is that separating military
personnel will dramatically increase the number of veterans in
the civilian population following periods of conflict or when
the military is being reduced as a result of shifts in
geopolitical threats. During periods of major build ups, the
civilian sector may suffer due to the loss of its civilian
workforce. However, during periods of military downsizing, the
civilian sector generally has difficulty absorbing the rapidly
demobilized or downsized military forces.
The recognition of these burdens on servicemembers has
resulted in laws adopted by first the Colonies which provided
for the maintenance of veterans disabled during war and the
widows and orphans of military personnel. Veterans' preference
in federal civil service employment laws resulted from high
unemployment rates of military personnel following the Civil
War. The GI Bill and other education and training initiatives
passed just prior to the end of World War II, which were
designed to assist separating military personnel who were
expected to overwhelm the civilian labor market. It was feared
that there would be so many unemployed veterans that civil
(4)
unrest could result due to their high unemployment rates and the
concomitant loss of so much of what they had fought for. The
Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was passed by the U.S. Congress on
August 5, 1964. Eight years later the Congress enacted Public
Law 92-540, The Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance
Act. In part, this law recognized the long-standing employment
problems of Vietnam veterans who served during an unpopular war
and were discharged into a recessionary economy. That legacy
still colors the judgement of many as the nation examines the
role of national security in these changing times.
For the military to effectively respond to national
emergencies, the men and women who serve operate under uniform
standards, rules and programs which assure congruence between
military activities. There is a subsequent ability to interact
effectively in communications, command structure and
activities. Without such uniformity, combat effectiveness would
be severely reduced. For men and women who served in national
defense, there is an expectation that programs designed to serve
them would also generally meet such national standards of
uniformity. Thus, as they move from place to place, they expect
a consistency in the level of employment and training services
they qualify for. Why would a veteran from Kansas be treated
more or less favorably than a veteran from New York City in a
federally funded program?
As documented in a Government Printing Office publication,
The Anvil and The Plow, the law creating the federal
Department of Labor was passed on March 4, 1913. Initially the
Department collected and disseminated labor force information,
prevented the exploitation of cheap alien labor to the detriment
of American wage earners, enforced child labor welfare laws,
administered naturalization laws for aliens and created a
conciliation service to act as a mediator in labor disputes.
However, only four years later, when the United States
entered World War I, the federal Department of Labor became the
nation's War Labor Administration. This organization had as one
of its primary purposes the creation of a system of labor
exchanges to ensure an adequate and stable labor force for war
industries. The labor exchange system was an important tool for
resolving the conflict which arose out of competing interests: a
growing military force which was dependent upon civilian
accession and the civilian industry whose labor force needs
exploded to satisfy the military's need for manufactured goods
and armament.
Following the war, several hundred Veteran Employment
Bureaus were established by the Federal Employment Service to
help returning veterans find employment in the civilian labor
force. Ultimately that experience led to the passage of the
Wagner-Peyser Act on June 6, 1933. While veterans were not the
sole recipient of employment services, this law was the
(5)
progenitor of the veterans' priority of services concept in
employment and training programs.
The veteran employment offices dropped from about 1,000 to
60 during the 1920s. In 1928, the Congress established veteran
employment offices in larger metropolitan areas. The
Wagner-Peyser Act provided the authority for the U.S. Department
of Labor to require priority placement services for veterans in
employment service agency activities funded by taxes raised
under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA).
On December 7, 1941, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. As
the nation moved to full scale war production, the War Manpower
Commission was created and the U.S. Employment Service was
transferred to it to ameliorate the competing interests of
civilian and military labor force needs. As a part of its
function, it absorbed the federal/state labor exchange system.
The War Manpower Commission was abolished in 1945, and the
Employment Service was returned to the U.S. Department of
Labor. The labor exchange system which had been federalized to
meet the combined civilian and military labor needs was
defederalized and returned to the federal-state relationship.
The Employment Service at the end of World War II drew up a
six-point program calling for an effective placement service to
aid returning servicemen and women and disabled veterans. It
also provided for special services to veterans, including
employment counseling and preferential placement services with
priority for disabled veterans.
The Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944 (GI Bill of
Rights) provided for the Veterans' Employment Service within the
United States Employment Service and created the position of
Local Veterans' Employment Representatives in each office.
The Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act
(Public Law 92-540) passed on October 24, 1972, more clearly
spelled out priority veterans' employment services in
counseling, job training and placement services. Succeeding
laws created the position of Assistant Secretary for Veterans'
Employment and Training in the U.S. Department of Labor and
provided for Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program personnel.
These laws improved veterans services in existing programs which
often appeared to serve veterans as an afterthought in spite of
the mandated priority of service.
VETERANS DEMOGRAPHICS
As of September 1989, male veterans made up less than 14
percent of the nation's labor force of approximately 126 million
workers. Nonveteran males and females made up approximately 42
percent and 45 percent of the labor force, respectively.
(September 1989, Bureau of Labor Statistics)
(6)
Of the 17.1 million male veterans who make up the civilian
labor force, 6 percent are disabled, 7 percent are over age 65,
9 percent are black, and 3 percent are Hispanic. It is
important to note that 72 percent of these male veterans were
subject to the draft during wartime.
As of December 1989, there were over 1 million female
veterans in the civilian, noninstitutional population of whom
595,000 were in the labor force. Almost 47 percent (509,000)
were over 50 years of age. (BLS unpublished data, December
1989, Veterans Tables, Matrix: b100, p. 41)
Since 1973 when the draft was eliminated, the demographics
of armed services personnel have changed significantly. For
example, before 1973 the minority participation rate in the
armed services was virtually the same as their proportion of the
U.S. population. By 1990 the lack of opportunity in the
civilian labor force and the promise of opportunity in an all
volunteer military encouraged minorities of both sexes to enlist
and reenlist in the military at disproportionately high rates.
The result was a military whose minority participation rate was
more than double their proportion of the U.S. population.
June 1990 data from the Department of Defense shows that
minorities are disproportionately assigned to combat duties (29
percent.) Personnel assigned to these military occupations
receive training which is least transferable to the civilian
economy and have the greatest number of combat and training
casualties.
An October 1989 Congressional Budget Office study, Social
Representation in the U.S. Military, indicated that in
accession year 1987, blacks made up 27.8 percent of the female
recruits and 18.5 percent of the male recruits. This study also
draws conclusions regarding the family incomes of accessions
compared to the general population by correlating the addresses
of the new recruits to family income data available by zip code
area and found: "About 55 percent of the male active-duty
recruits in 1987 came from areas with family-income levels
placing them in the bottom half of the (income) distribution
across all zip code areas."
The combination of draft exemptions, programs like Project
100,000, Department of Defense marketing strategies, threats of
judicial action for draft evasion, public relations programs
touting the value of military training, and limited
opportunities in the private sector encouraged a
disproportionate number of enlistments and reenlistments of the
socioeconomically disadvantaged. For example, during the
Vietnam era, the draft deferment system was a major factor in 1)
increased student enrollment in college (student deferments) by
those who could afford to attend an institution of higher
learning; 2) an extremely low representation of minorities in
the National Guard and Reserves (deferments from active duty)
(7)
and 3) a military force that was approximately race proportional
(U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstracts of the United
States 1977, 98th ed., p. 368, table 587.) but disproportionate
in combat casualties suffered by minorities. (Department of
Defense, U.S. Casualties in Southeast Asia bv grade and
military service, Unpublished, December 31, 1978).
The military draft, which has had a tremendous impact on
who serves and who does not, was first implemented during the
Civil War and was reimplemented during conflicts until 1973,
when the all volunteer military force concept was initiated.
The draft was necessary because the government could not depend
on enough volunteers, even when the nation was at greatest
risk. During the Civil War, for example, the first draft was
initiated because the Union could not obtain enough volunteers
to continue the War. Accordingly, without a draft, the United
States as we know it today, would not exist.
Efforts to reduce political fallout from the draft during
the Vietnam era led to programs like Project 100,000 which
modified draft standards to conscript young males who were
otherwise not draft eligible because of low IQ levels and
educational attainment. The impact was felt predominantly by
the disadvantaged -- and disproportionately by minorities. The
"100,000" refers to the number of conscripts who met the revised
draft standards in training at any one time.
The study by the Human Resources Research Organization,
Effects of Military Experience on the Post Service Lives of Low
Aptitude Recruits: Project 100,000 and the ASVAB Misnorming,
December 1989, 14 years after the Vietnam war was declared over,
indicated the following for Project 100,000 conscriptees:
*
Fifty-six percent served in Vietnam (compared to 34.8
percent for all veterans).
*
"
A higher proportion of Project 100,000 veterans
were unemployed as compared to nonveterans with
similar characteristics." (emphasis added)
*
"Three income measures were examined (hourly pay,
total household income, and yearly earnings), and in
each case, the nonveterans were found to be making
significantly more than their veteran counterparts. "
(emphasis added)
"Significant differences were found in regard to
education and training, with those who never served in
the military somewhat better educated and more likely
to have participated in a training program of some
kind. "
Bureau of Labor Statistics data which compares the
unemployment rate of veterans to nonveterans of the same age
(8)
groups show that veterans unemployment rates will exceed the
nonveteran counterpart unemployment rates for about ten years
following separation from the military. For example, in 1970,
1,043,000 Vietnam veterans were released from active duty at the
average age of 23 years. When they reached the 30-35 age group,
about 10 years later, their unemployment rate finally dropped to
comparable unemployment rates of similarly aged nonveterans.
However, Bureau of Labor Statistics and Employment data
("The Employment Situation: February 1991") showed that the
unemployment rate for Vietnam era veterans in the 35-39 age
group exceeded their nonveteran counterparts by 4.7 percentage
points (10.7 percent versus 6.0 percent) 15 years after the
Vietnam conflict. During each recession following the Vietnam
conflict the lower labor market penetration of the more recently
separated veteran has reflected a disproportionately higher
unemployment rate than nonveterans of the same age group.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics article in Monthly Labor
Review, "Employment Status of Vietnam Era Veterans," published
in April 1990, reported on a 1987 survey. That article
indicated that 14 years after ground troops were removed from
Vietnam in 1973, those who actually served in the Southeast
Asian Theater, especially those with service-connected
disabilities, continue to experience greater employment related
difficulties than their peers. The report also revealed
disproportionately high unemployment rates for female veterans.
An October 21, 1994 Bureau of Labor Statistics news
release, "Employment Situation of Vietnam Era Veterans,'
indicated that only 20 percent of the disabled veterans rated 60
percent or more by the Department of Veterans Affairs were in
the labor force. This compared to a 91 percent participation
rate for nondisabled veterans.
The popular myth is that the training veterans receive in
the military gives them an advantage in the civilian labor
market. A June 1969 study, Labor Market Activity of Veterans:
Some Aspects of Military Spillover, conducted by Paul A.
Wienstein, Director of the University of Maryland, Department of
Economics, concluded:
15.9 percent of Army veterans use their military
training while 28 percent of the Navy veterans did.
Not only was there a relatively low rate of
utilization of the (military) skills, but we found
that the market did not work effectively in aiding
those veterans who were interested in using their
service experience. For veterans who did look and
find jobs related to the military experience, we
inquired about the benefits received and whether, in
fact, these were attributable to the military
experience. We found half of the Army veterans
(9)
received no benefit at all as a result of the military
experience. (emphasis added)
A Department of Veterans Affairs study, Readjustment
Profile for Recently Separated Vietnam Veterans, (June 1973)
indicated:
Only about 49.3 percent (of the veterans polled)
received some academic or technical training in the
armed forces. Of these veterans, only 29.6 percent
(about 15 percent of the total) indicated that their
training was helpful in obtaining a job when they
returned to civilian life. (emphasis added)
A November 1986 Department of Defense study of the all
volunteer armed forces, The Economic Return to Military
Service (Daymont, Thomas N. and Andrisani, Paul J.), points out
that veterans' earnings dropped significantly below their
civilian counterparts upon leaving the military. This study
also refers to disproportionately higher rates of unemployment
for recently discharged veterans and points to an unexplained
anomaly that, " on the average, young Army veterans earn
between $1,700 and $3,500 less than veterans from the other
armed services at the same point in their life cycle." Marine
veterans earned even less, on the average, than did Army
veterans. "[T]he basic pattern of these branches effects on
civilian earnings may persist for several years into their
careers."
A more recent publication, Military Occupational and
Training Data (MOTD), Volume II (Department of Defense; Defense
Manpower Data Center; 1988), indicates that about 30 percent of
the enlisted and 25 percent of the officer military occupations
could not be assigned corresponding civilian Dictionary of
Occupational Titles (DOT). (The DOT code system assigns a
numerical reference to virtually all civilian job titles.)
The MOTD indicated, "First, there was the obvious situation
of infantry men, tank crew members, and other purely combat
specialities for which no civilian counterpart would be
expected." The MOTD fails to note that military personnel will
be assigned and serve in disproportionate numbers in the
military occupations for which there is no civilian
counterpart. Also, the report does not point out that many men
and women who are trained in transferable military occupations
are frequently assigned to work in occupations which are not
transferable.
Papers prepared for the National Bureau of Economic
Research by Joshua D. Angrist compare the income levels of World
War II and Vietnam era veterans to nonveterans. The studies are
unique in that they compare veterans with their similarly
situated nonveteran counterparts based on Social Security
records. Most comparisons of incomes between veterans and
(10)
nonveterans refer to census data that does not control for
physical and mental health, educational levels and aptitude and
IQ requirements for entry into the military.
Working paper No. 2991, Why Do World War II Veterans Earn
More Than Non-Veterans? dated May 1989 contradicted its own
question by finding that World War II veterans earnings are 6-12
percent less than comparable nonveterans. The study, Lifetime
Earnings in The Vietnam-era Draft Lottery: Evidence from Social
Security Administration Records, found that the Vietnam-era
veterans' earnings were approximately 15 percent less than the
earnings of comparable nonveterans.
Current Employment and Training Initiatives
The Clinton Administration has initiated a number of
programs for which veterans' priority of service is not
required. For example, Unemployment Insurance (UI) profiling,
which is described as an effort to identify UI applicants by
their personal characteristics who are unlikely to find
employment before exhausting UI. They would be placed in a pool
from which a number would be referred for comprehensive and
intensive employment services. While this appears to be a
desirable initiative, the lack of veterans' priority referral
for employment services appears to violate Title 38 USC Chapter
41. In addition, this Administration has proposed the creation
of One-Stop Career Centers which would provide for common intake
and eligibility determination for a number of existing
employment and training programs. This initiative meets the
desirable goal of increasing access to programs and services
while at the same time potentially reducing administrative and
personnel costs. However, these initiatives do not provide for
priority intake or referral for services to veterans who have
been identified as eligible applicants for these programs. It
should be noted that administration proposed bills (H.R. 4040,
Remployment Act of 1994; S. 1964, Reemployment and Retraining
Act of 1994), which died in the last Congress, would have
provided for the waiver of Title 38 USC Chapter 41, thus,
eliminating the need to provide veterans' priority of service in
Wagner-Peyser funded activities.
Legislation currently pending before Congress provides for
the repeal of employment and training programs which have
historically provided special or priority services for veterans
and in some cases may provide for waiver of 38 USC Chapter 41
veterans service requirements. These bills would consolidate
employment and training programs, provide for One-Stop Career
Centers and except for S. 180, block grants to states:
O H.R. 511, the "Workforce Preparation Development Act,"
(Representative McKeon (CA))
(11)
H.R. 1120, the "Employment Enhancement Reform
Act," (Representative Zeliff (NH) )
O S. 143, "Job Training Consolidation Act of 1995,"
(Senator Kassenbaum (KS))
O S. 180, the "Workforce Development Act,"
(Senator Kennedy (MA) )
H.R. 511 goes further than any of the other initiatives by
repealing veteran employment and training programs administered
by the VA, including VA training programs authorized under
Chapter 106 Title 10 USC and Chapter 30, 31, 32, 35, and 41 of
Title 38 USC.
We seek amendments to proposed employment and training
legislation which would provide for veterans' priority intake,
) Status?
status?
eligibility determination, referral for and entry into
employment and training programs and job referral. Priority
referral to an employment and training program would occur if
the veteran was found eligible for the program.
We strongly object to including VA administered education
and training programs in these consolidation initiatives.
DAV Proposed Veterans' Employment and Training Programs
Compatible With Current Initiatives
Framing veterans services in the context of current
initiatives, we would like to see the following:
1) The continuation of Assistant Secretary, U.S.
Department of Labor for Veterans' Employment and
Training Services.
2)
Continuation of Regional Administrators and State
Directors for Veterans' Employment and Training
Service with appropriate staff.
3)
The creation of a veterans' employment representative
in the One-Stop Career Center system to report
directly to the One-Stop Career Center director
regarding the following:
A)
Initiatives and service models that will
help to ensure compliance with veterans'
priority of service obligations under the
law.
B)
Assist in the development of reporting
systems and standards that will indicate the
service providers compliance with veterans'
priority of service as required by law.
(12)
C)
Provide direct supervision to personnel
assigned to implement special veteran
services.
D)
Provide reports to State Director for
Veterans' Employment and Training, U.S.
Department of Labor.
E)
Advise the One-Stop Career Center manager
regarding veterans services.
F)
The One-Stop Career Center manager as the
agency director, would be responsible for
assuring veterans' priority services.
4)
Provision for certain staff whose exclusive
responsibility is to provide direct services to
disabled veterans and support for the TAP/DTAP. After
the disabled veteran's service needs are met, these
personnel may service other veterans. Services
provided by these personnel would include:
A) Job placement.
B)
Job development.
C) Referral for employment and training programs
and services.
D) Other employment and training services.
E)
Outstationing at VA Vocational Rehabilitation
offices to provide employment and training
services to veterans who are in or recent
graduates of 38 USC Chapter 31 programs.
F)
Providing case management to disabled
veterans with barriers to employment.
G)
Providing referrals for supportive services
that will assist in stabilizing veterans to
enhance their ability to obtain employment
including:
i) Job counseling and testing;
ii) Job search seminars; and
iii) Referral for food, clothing, housing,
mental health counseling, and drug
and alcohol rehabilitation.
H)
Providing job search seminars to separating
military personnel in cooperation with the
TAP/DTAP programs.
(13)
5)
Provision of priority of service for all programs for
which the veteran is found qualified.
6)
Maintenance of Chapter 43 Title 38 USC and
continuation of its implementation through the
Veterans' Employment and Training Service.
7)
Maintenance of the TAP/DTAP program and provide for
the use of special disabled veteran service providers
to continue their presentation of the job search
seminars on military installations.
8)
Maintenance of the NVTI.
9)
Grandfathering of LVER and DVOP personnel into the
positions created to ensure veterans services in
One-Stop Career Centers.
10)
Continuation of the provision of special veterans
hiring considerations when filling the One-Stop Career
Center veterans' representative and disabled veteran
service provider positions, State Directors and
Regional Administrators for Veterans' Employment and
Training Service.
1/9"
THE MILITARY COALITION
201 North Washington Street
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
END UNFAIR DISPARITIES IN RETIRED PAY
COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENT (COLA) DELAYS
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 imposed severe multi-year
COLA delays on military retirees - far exceeding the sacrifices asked of other
COLA recipients. While the FY1995 DoD Authorization Act equalized the 1995
military and Federal civilian COLA dates, severe FY1996-98 disparities remain.
There are 50 million Federal COLA recipients. Of these, more than 46 million
(92 percent of the total) incur no COLA sacrifices at all. Two million Federal
civilian retirees will see only three more months of COLA delays in 1996 before
returning to January COLAs in 1997. In stark contrast, 1.4 million nondisabled
military retirees face delays totaling 27 more months (nine months each for
1996 through 1998) nine times the remaining Federal civilian sacrifice.
For the average retired officer, the cumulative five-year COLA forfeiture will be
$2,301. A Federal civilian retiree with the same retired pay will give up about
one-quarter of that amount - $603. The average enlisted retiree will lose
$1,228; the equivalent Federal civilian retiree, only $322.
Military retirees expect to assume their fair share of sacrifice, but this is a
grossly disproportionate $2 billion surtax imposed on military retirees in spite
of and in fact because of their extended sacrifices in uniformed service. It
imposes 88 percent of the financial sacrifice on military retirees, even though
they comprise only 3 percent of the COLA-eligible population.
Since 1969, military and Federal civilian retirees have received the same COLAs
on the same dates. With recruiting in decline, career stability undermined by
the force drawdown, and ever more intense operational requirements on the
remaining forces, Congress should not be relegating military retirees to "second-
class" treatment.
The President's Budget (PB) for FY1996 provides $385 million in offsets to
equalize the COLA dates for 1996. The PB does not address FY1997-98, but
Administration sources indicate similar offsets are available for those years.
The Military Coalition urges the Congress to fix this serious
inequity once and for all and end this highly divisive annual
debate by equalizing the military and Federal civilian COLA dates
in this year's Budget Resolution, not only for FY1996, but for
FY1997-98 as well.
April 25, 1995
SHARED SACRIFICE??
1993 OBRA IMPACT
FEDERAL
MILITARY
OTHER COLA
FEDERAL
CIVILIANS
RETIREES
RECIPIENTS
CIVILIANS
(5%)
(3%)
(0%)
(12%)
OTHER
MILITARY
COLA
RETIREES
RECIPIENTS
(92%)
(88%)
COLA POPULATION
COLA SACRIFICE
(52 Million Total)
($2.4 Billion Total)
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR UNIFORMED SERVICES
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
5535 HEMPSTEAD WAY
SPRINGFIELD. VA 22151-4094
*
(703) 750-1342
108
Fax (703) 354-4380
UNITE
SERVICES
"The Servicemember's Voice in Government"
UNIFORMED
Established 1968
SOCIETY OF MILITARY WIDOWS
(Affiliated 1984)
FACT SHEET
Military Medical Care
Military retirees are trapped between the policies of the Department of Defense (DoD) and the
Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA). The two departments will not cooperate in
changing the current law to achieve taxpayer savings and provide a promised health care
benefit.
Throughout their career, military personnel and their families are told that while current
compensation is low, part of their compensation package is lifetime medical care. earned by
service in the military (enclosure 1). These patriots also paid for Medicare through mandatory
payroll deductions as is the case of all other working citizens. However, upon becoming
eligible for Medicare, military retirees. unlike other Federal employees of the Executive,
? tre?
Legislative and Judicial branches, are dropped from their military health care system. The
only exception is if space and expertise are available in a military hospital. the hospital
commander may choose to treat the retiree. Retirees and their families are the lowest priority
patients in the Military Health Services System: therefore. they are the last to be accepted for
treatment.
Further. with the large number of base and military hospital closures, the cutback in uniformed
medical personnel and severe reductions in Federal civilian medical personnel. care in the
military hospitals is increasingly not available. Military retirees are being notified in ever
increasing numbers that they are "disengaged" from the Military Health Services System.
They rightly feel abandoned by their employer, DoD. Because of budgetary constraints and
military end-strength reductions, it is clear that DoD is committed to a further shifting of
responsibility for the health care of older retirees to Medicare only. This is unconscionable. A
military retiree is a military retiree regardless of age, physical condition or geographical
location. DoD must not be allowed to abandon its lifelong employees at age 65.
The following three point proposal is a cost-effective solution that will make more efficient use
of military medical treatment facilities (MTFs) while generating savings for the Medicare Trust
Fund and honor the commitment made to military personnel:
Authorize Medicare reimbursement (subvention) to MTFs. Allow military retirees to
present their Medicare benefit at military medical treatment facilities and for the facility to bill
HCFA. The reimbursement rate could be set below that now being paid to private sector
medical providers. This would ensure savings to the Medicare Trust Fund, while covering the
cost of treatment in the MTFs, some 25 - 40 percent below what the same treatment would
cost in the private sector;
Since many military retirees do not live near military facilities, enact legislation to
provide TRICARE/CHAMPUS beyond age 65 as 2nd payer to Medicare which is now done for
Federal civilian employees under the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan (FEHBP). In
addition,
Authorize FEHBP as an option for military beneficiaries. The incentive for military
beneficiaries to enroll and pay the premium would be freedom of choice and a defined
benefit. The Federal government would realize savings, FEHBP would relieve pressure on the
over burdened MTFs. So long as enrollment in FEHBP is an option and not mandatory,
beneficiaries could not complain.
These solutions do not completely replace loss of access to MTFs. but would recognize that
military personnel were promised lifetime medical coverage in exchange for military service of
20 or more years. These solutions should go a long way toward ensuring that military
medical beneficiaries are no longer the only Federal employees who lose their employer
provided health coverage at age 65. Further, it would help restore confidence by those who
have served that the current leadership intends to see that promises made and relied upon
are honored.
2
ARMY
ARMY BENEFITS:
HEALTH CARE, HOUSING, SHOPPING
AND SCHOOLING
Superb Health Care. Health
BENEFITS
care is provided to you and your
family members while you are in
the Army, and for the rest of
your life if you serve a minimum
of 20 years of active Federal
service to earn your retirement.
Housing, shopping, schooling and recreational
facilities. The Army provides them all-plus
excellent pay-to give you a high standard
of living in an attractive and wholesome
environment.
Ask your Army Recruiter for more details on
all these benefits and how they can benefit you.
Maybe the most personally rewarding Army feature
ARMY. BE ALL YOU CAN BE.
of all is the special pride you'll feel performing
Note Information in this publication is subject in change
See your local Army Recreater for the latest information
a valuable service for your country.
RPI 909 NOVEMBER 1991
USG PO. 1992 643-711
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR UNIFORMED SERVICES
5535 HEMPSTEAD WAY
SPRINGFIELD. VA 22151-4094
(703) 750-1342
Fax (703) 354-4380
1H75
"The Servicemember's Voice in Government"
SOCIETY OF MILITARY WIDOWS
Established 1968
(Affiliated 1984)
LIFETIME MEDICAL CARE PROMISE
The promise of lifetime medical care is contained in law and tradition that date
back more than 100 years. All current military retirees thought they had earned
lifetime military health care for themselves. their spouses. and survivors by their
military service because it was emphasized as a recruitment and retention
incentive in all of the services from the recruiting office to every level of
command.
For indisputable evidence that the free lifetime medical promise is still being
made. see Army Recruiting brochure [RPI 909. November 1991 - USGPO
1992 643-711]. from which we quote:
"Superb Health Care. Health care is promised to you and your family members while you are
in the Army. and for the rest of your life if you serve a minimum of 20 years of active
Federal service to earn your retirement."
Further evidence of the promise is contained on page 36 of the recruiting
brochure. Marines, Life in the Marine Corps. from which we quote:
BENEFITS These are only a few of the great extras you'll find when you join the Marine
Corps. And the nice part is. should you decide to make a career of the Corps. the benefits
don't stop when you retire. In addition to medical and commissary privileges. you'll receive
excellent retirement pay..."
Air Force Pre-reenlistment Counseling Guide. Chapter 5 Medical Care.
Section 5-2.f.. dated 1 April 1986-
"One very important point. you never lose your eligibility for treatment in military hospitals
and clinics"
Air Force Guide for Retirement. Chapter 1. 1 April 1962-
"Treatment Authorized. Eligible retired members will he furnished required medical and
dental care."
more
The following is extracted from page 94 of the UNITED STATES COAST GUARD
CAREER INFORMATION GUIDE. USGPO 1991. We quote--
"Retirement
Most career Coast Guardsmen retire after serving between twenty and
thirty years of service. Current retirement programs allow you to collect about
half of your base pay at twenty years and up to three-fourths base pay at
thirty years.
Retirement benefits mean more than pay too. You continue to receive
free medical and dental treatment for yourself plus medical care for
dependents. You also remain welcome at military commissaries. clubs and
exchanges. Free space-available travel on some military flights allows retirees
to travel to exotic foreign lands..."
Now. after the fact. retirees are being told that such care is only space available:
that it was never promised, and even if it was it is not. in fact, an "enforceable
contract" based on a specific code of law.
Another reason retirees believe that they have access to military health care is
that they have paid for medical care again through mandatory Medicare pay roll
and Part B deductions.
As shown. lifetime medical care has been expressly promised in military
recruitment and retention literature over the years since World War II. DoD must
be required to accept full responsibility for providing lifetime medical care for its
retirees, regardless of age or physical condition. including those who retired after
long years of service or because of medical disability.
ENLISTED
RETIRED THE ARMED DATE PORCES
The Retired Enlisted Association
GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS OFFICE
909 N. Washington St., Suite 301
FOUNDED 1963
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
Telephone 703-684-1981 Fax 548-4876 1-800-554-TREA
CHARTERED BY
CONGRESS
White House Interagency Veterans Policy Group
1. Last year TREA expressed its displeasure that the President's Budget did not offer COLA
equity between federal civilian retirees and military retirees. This year, the President's
Budget does include COLA equity and for that we would like to thank you publicly.
2. Military Health Care
Subverhor
We are seeing the over-65 year old DoD beneficiary being disenfranchised
from the Military Health Services System.
To date, HCFA has shown no interest in
reimbursing DoD Medicare dollars when
DoD treats a Medicare eligible military
retiree.
NOTE: DoD is willing to treat
Medicare eligibles at a negotiated
93% of the capitated cost.
In the long term, we believe the American
taxpayer will spend more dollars as the
over-65 military retiree turns to the
private sector for health care.
The under-65 military retiree is the only class of citizen in the DoD community
that is required to pay an enrollment fee ($230/$460), Tricare Prime.
After paying Tricare Prime's fee, Military
retirees remain under the space-available
access to care at a Military Treatment
Facility (MTF) they currently "enjoy."
Co-payments at Tricare Prime HMOs are
higher for the retired community than
active duty despite having enrolled at
at $230-individual/$460-family.
UNITED WE STAND
Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities (USTFs)
(formerly known as Public Health Service)
Will be integrated into the Tricare Prime
HMO network. This will disenfranchise the
over 65 military retiree as they are not
allowed to enroll into Tricare Prime.
USTFs currently guarantee access to
enrollees regardless of age.
USTFs currently do not charges enrollees
an enrollment fee and their co-payments
are considerably less than Tricare Prime
HMO co-payments. This advantage would
disappear upon integration into the
Tricare Prime HMO network.
ROA
EROSION OF EARNED BENEFITS FOR MILITARY RETIREES
Of late there has been a somewhat alarming increase in the volume of letters and
telephone calls that this association has received that deal with the perception on the
part of our members that their earned retirement benefits are under serious attack and
are likely targets for those seeking to balance the budget and reduce the deficit. Indeed,
our members, who have generally disdained what they call "gimme organizations," whose
sole focus is perceived to be the preservation (frequently in the face of reason) of a
plethora of perquisites, benefits, and entitlements, are growing ever more concerned that
the promises made to them by their government, promises that formed the very corner
stone of the financial security they counted and planned on in their old age, may not be
honored. Moreover, they are particularly concerned that those who appear most anxious
to breach these long-standing commitments, have themselves, no military background
upon which to judge the value of the service they would so facilely denigrate in the
name of domestic economy.
These concerns indicate that the level of special faith and confidence that our
members, all of whom are active or retired commissioned officers, have reposed in their
government, is being significantly eroded. While no one is suggesting that this erosion
may lead to any kind of serious disaffection, it is reasonable to assume that it could well
engender some degree of skepticism, if not actual cynicism, about the willingness and
reliability of the government to honor its commitments to those who have and will serve
the nation honorably. Earned benefits should not be considered discretionary
entitlements.
The areas of concern most frequently cited by our members (health care and
retirement annuities) are noted below. Taken singly, they form a litany of the major
elements that most prudent persons would consider essential to meaningful financial
planning; together, they constitute the very underpinning of retirement security for those
who given a significant portion of their lives to the service of our nation in its uniformed
services. If we are to maintain the readiness of all of our forces, Active and Reserve, our
service members must, from the outset, have confidence in the commitment of the
government to keep faith with those who have served as well as those who will serve.
HEALTH CARE. The current state of military health care is a major
focus of concern for many active and retired members of this association, who see a
pattern of disenfranchisement and broken promises in the developing health care system
that is less and less able to meet their medical needs despite long-standing promise that
having served honorably, they would have life-long medical care at no cost to themselves
once they reached retirement age. DoD's much-touted Tricare system, even before it is
fully implemented, is a source of controversy and discontent with its high enrollment
fees and cost-share schedules. (The same is true of the recently implemented Uniformed
Services Family Health Plan.) As more and more military installations are closed or
targeted for closure, military treatment facilities are closing, pharmacy services are
becoming less and less available, threats of nuisance fees are becoming increasingly
frequent, and costly CHAMPUS, soon to be Tricare supplements, are becoming a
necessity. Current plans call for military retirees and their dependents over 64 to lose
2
their CHAMPUS eligibility, be denied enrollment in Tricare, and be shuffled to the
none-too-steady Medicare system.
PROTECTING RETIREMENT PAY. Recent actions by the Congress
(the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, subsequent related committee actions,
the options developed by Senator Gregg's Budget Committee entitlement panel, as well
as options developed by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), and older decisions
such as the Social Security Offset to the Defense Survivor Benefit Plan) have had the
effect of placing the earned retirement annuities of service members in jeopardy, leading
to considerable distress among retired military personnel.
The ongoing issue of equity in the start date of annual cost of living adjustments
(COLAs) for federal military and civilian retirees, and the apparent willingness of some
members of Congress to sacrifice military retirees' financial interests and security to
reduce the deficit has not gone unnoticed. Neither have the several COLA options
considered by the Senate Budget Committee that would have reduced the buying power
of many military retirees's annuities by as much as 40 percent over their lifetimes. (The
really distressing aspect of these options is that they were to apply to both current and
future retirees, unlike the retirement reforms implemented in 1986 that were strictly
prospective and protected those already in uniform or retired.) It should also be
remembered that in the 1970s the Congress directed the military to include a guarantee
of lifetime COLAs in service members' annual compensation comparability statements.
The annual appearance of CBO's list of options for reducing the budget and the
deficit has done little to allay the fears of Reservists as CBO questions the need for any
retirement for Reservists at all, or recommends that the traditional linkage between
active duty and Reserve longevity pay be severed as a cost cutting measure. While these
recommendations have appeared before with little comment or credence, it is the
measure of the lack of trust in the government's commitment to the members of the
Armed Forces that this association received numerous inquiries on the subject after it
was reported in the Army Times and Washington Post.
Retired Reservists who elect to protect surviving spouses' financial security by
participating in the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP), which provides a percentage of their
military retirement annuities to their spouses after their deaths, have long seen offsets to
their survivors' annuities as inequitable because they were based upon the Social
Security payment the Service member would have received had he survived.
Furthermore, under the more recent two-tiered SBP system, the SBP annuity is offset if
either the service member or his surviving spouse qualified for the Social Security
benefit. The courts have upheld these offsets as legitimate "cost-saving measures." Again,
the message appears to suggest that in the quest for a balanced budget, military retirees
and their surviving spouses are a soft target.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION.
There is a strong
and a growing suspicion among service members, Active, Reserve, and Retired, that such
portions of their present and future financial resources and planning as are associated
3
with their service in the military are no longer secure (if they really ever were). This
concern is not without basis as we attempt to balance the budget and reduce the deficit.
The larger, and more significant implication of this perception is the effect it must have
upon military readiness. Potential recruits have long identified financial security upon
retirement as one of their major reasons for choosing a military career. The basis for
this expectation is the government's saying it will be so. If that credibility is destroyed or
eroded, recruiting, retention, and readiness will suffer. Worse, the faith of the electorate
in its elected officials will also decline.
This is a political issue that offers great opportunities for the party or national
figure willing to champion the cause of military retirees' rights and to keep faith with
those who have served so well. As we approach 1996, someone will in all likelihood
recognize this as a prime issue and embrace it. The question is who.
Therefore, the Reserve Officers Association recommends that the White House
support the following:
Provision for continued military health care for retirees and their
dependents beyond age 64
Ensure that Reservists continue to qualify for retired pay
Provide for equal COLAs for both military and civilian federal retirees
Reject any suggestion that erodes benefits earned and promised as a result
of military service
Hold the line on Survivor Benefit Plan annuity erosion.
MAY 22 '95 12:45PM SENT BY VFW NVS
ICE
P.1/5
FAX COVER SHEET
NATIONAL VETERANS SERVICE
VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED STATES
DATE:
5/22/95
Total number of pages including cover sheet:
5
(please call 202-543-2239, ext. 20, if all pages are not received)
PLEASE DELIVER TO:
NAME:
BOB JONES
FAX NO:
FROM:
Frederico Juarbe Jr., Director, NVS A
FAX NO:
202-547-3196
PHONE NO:
202-543-2239
COMMENTS:
Per your request, following is the VFW's issue paper for the May 24, White House Interagency
Veterans Policy Group meeting.
MAY 22 '95 12:45PM SENT BY VFW NVS
ICE
P.2/5
FRED JUARBE
VFW DIRECTOR, NATIONAL VETERANS SERVICE
STATEMENT TO THE WHITE HOUSE
INTERAGENCY VETERANS POLICY GROUP
MAY 24, 1995
Obviously, the "hot button" across the country right now are the two Republican
balanced budget proposals.
Last week, the Veterans of Foreign Wars was one of the signatories to the ad that
appeared in The Washington Post which objected to all provisions of the two
budget proposals as they affected veterans' entitlements. This forum is an
opportunity for us to amplify our objections. We are especially concerned about
those provisions that impact directly on the Veterans Health Administration and its
ability to provide adequate medical care for our veterans.
America's veterans are not asking for special treatment. We certainly believe that
all citizens should receive fair treatment. We reject any contention that veterans
are a greedy lot. The recent World War II celebrations provide an effective
counter-point to any such argument. We are not talking about some unknown,
faceless persons in our populace. Our veterans are your fathers and mothers,
brothers and sisters, spouses, even your favorite uncle. The Republican
entitlement reduction proposals ignore one important fact: equitable cost savings
can be achieved by reforming certain aspects of the VA health care system instead
of targeting specific programs.
MAY 22 '95 12:46PM SENT BY VFW NVS
ICE
P.3/5
2
There must be eligibility reform for accessing VA health care for the following
reasons:
The system is now currently held hostage to complex and antiquated
eligibility criteria;
Some veterans who are not authorized outpatient treatment must be
hospitalized by VA in order to receive needed care;
The administration and congress must address the issue of eligibility
reform if the VA is to be an efficient provider of health care;
If there is to be any kind of health care reform scenario, VA must
develop accessible primary and preventive care sites;
VA must improve its infrastructure in order to compete: and, most
importantly,
Action must be taken to rectify the years of decremental budgeting.
There must be a rational and predictable approach to funding VA's health care
delivery system. Discretionary funding for VA health care has failed to keep pace
with medical inflation and the changing needs of our aging veteran population.
Essentially, the VA has been forced to ration care. This means denying services to
some eligible veterans, curtailing needed medical treatment, and forgoing the
modernization of facilities due to this chronic underfunding. It is our position that
federal funding must be guaranteed for the providing of a comprehensive benefit
package to all eligible veterans who choose the VA's health care system.
Unlike other health care providers, VA cannot retain funds recovered from third-
party payers. Almost all payments VA receives from private health insurers must
be remitted to the Department of the Treasury. Authority must be given to the VA
MAY 22 '95 12:46PM SENT BY VFW NVS
ICE
P.4/5
3
to collect and retain this funding from external sources. This is particularly
pertinent to MEDICARE funding.
Only in this way can the VA "market" its services. Only with these monies can
the VA assume the care of an expanded universe of aging veterans to whom the
VA health care system would become an option under appropriate eligibility
reform legislation. Additionally, it is essential that appropriations must not be
offset by any of these amounts retained by the VA.
Veterans accessing the VA health care system should be entitled to a
comprehensive package of treatment. Those services should be provided in the
most appropriate settings. The VA should serve as "case manager" for its veteran
patients. Each veteran accepted for health care by the VA should have access to
the full continuum of that care.
Expansion of the VA's ambulatory care is crucial. Making health care
geographically accessible will be key to VA's success in retaining and recruiting
new patients. A recent study indicated that over 40% of the inpatient treatment is
"non-acute". This is care that could be more efficiently and cost-effectively
provided in ambulatory care settings. This terrible waste of resources simply
compounds over time.
The VA has had great success in treating an often older, indigent, or chronically ill
clientele. The rapid aging of our veteran population merits major expansion of the
VA's long-term care alternatives. Yet the VA has been unable to convert inpatient
beds to nursing home care beds at an appropriate rate.
MAY 22 '95 12:47PM SENT BY VFW NVS
ICE
P.5/5
4
Without eligibility reform; without an expanded universe of veterans to care for;
without "leveling the playing field" to make up for past budgetary shortfalls;
without the capability to retain third-party monies; the VA may very well
disintegrate. A voucher system is then the only recourse. Doing so would actually
cost more to our taxpayers because the VA provides its services at about 60 to 70
percent of the commercial health care industry, particularly in such unique care as
spinal cord injuries and post traumatic stress disorder counseling.
This actually means instead of talking reductions, we need to stress reform. As the
advertisement stated last week, the reform proposals made by the Veterans Service
Organizations will save taxpayers $2 billion a year and still provide veterans with
a viable health care program. The VA health care system is not yet a dinosaur.
However, the continued viability of that program is certainly at stake. It is at its
most crucial stage in its history.
b:\mcneill\WHITEH.WPS
* OFFICERS
Reserve Officers Association of the United States
The Professional Association Representing All Officers
OCIAT
ION
FAX COVER SHEET
DATE: 23 may 1995
SUBJECT: W.H. Interagency Veterans Policy Group
TO: Robert L. Janes
FAX NUMBER: (202) 456 - 6218
FROM: LTC Stephen P. Anderson, USAR (Ret.) PHONE: (202) 646-7715
FAX NUMBER: (202) 646-7751 OR (202) 479-0416
NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER: 4
Love paper for meeting 7 Veta Policy
Grougo m 25 may Please pass
to Bob Janes
Thanks
R
Army
Navy
Air Force
*
Marine Corps
Coast Guard
Public Health Service
*
NOAA
One Constitution Avenue, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20002-5655
Telephone: (202) 479-2200
P.1
95:60 S6, 23 AWW
EROSION OF EARNED BENEFITS FOR MILITARY RETIREES
Of late there has been a somewhat alarming increase in the volume of letters and
telephone calls that this association has received that deal with the perception on the
part of our members that their earned retirement benefits are under serious attack and
are likely targets for those seeking to balance the budget and reduce the deficit. Indeed,
our members, who have generally disdained what they call "gimme organizations," whose
sole focus is perceived to be the preservation (frequently in the face of reason) of a
plethora of perquisites, benefits, and entitlements, are growing ever more concerned that
the promises made to them by their government, promises that formed the very corner
stone of the financial security they counted and planned on in their old age, may not be
honored. Moreover, they are particularly concerned that those who appear most anxious
to breach these long-standing commitments, have themselves, no military background
upon which to judge the value of the service they would so facilely denigrate in the
name of domestic economy.
These concerns indicate that the level of special faith and confidence that our
members, all of whom are active or retired commissioned officers, have reposed in their
government, is being significantly eroded. While no one is suggesting that this erosion
may lead to any kind of serious disaffection, it is reasonable to assume that it could well
engender some degree of skepticism, if not actual cynicism, about the willingness and
reliability of the government to honor its commitments to those who have and will serve
the nation honorably. Earned benefits should not be considered discretionary
entitlements.
The areas of concern most frequently cited by our members (health care and
retirement annuities) are noted below. Taken singly, they form a litany of the major
elements that most prudent persons would consider essential to meaningful financial
planning; together, they constitute the very underpinning of retirement security for those
who given a significant portion of their lives to the service of our nation in its uniformed
services. If we are to maintain the readiness of all of our forces, Active and Reserve, our
service members must, from the outset, have confidence in the commitment of the
government to keep faith with those who have served as well as those who will serve.
HEALTH CARE. The current state of military health care is a major
focus of concern for many active and retired members of this association. who see a
pattern of disenfranchisement and broken promises in the developing health care system
that is less and less able to meet their medical needs despite long-standing promise that
having served honorably, they would have life-long medical care at no cost to themselves
once they reached retirement age. DoD's much-touted Tricare system, even before it is
fully implemented, is a source of controversy and discontent with its high enrollment
fees and cost-share schedules. (The same is true of the recently implemented Uniformed
Services Family Health Plan.) As more and more military installations are closed or
targeted for closure, military treatment facilities are closing, pharmacy services are
becoming less and less available, threats of nuisance fees are becoming increasingly
frequent, and costly CHAMPUS, soon to be Tricare supplements, are becoming a
necessity. Current plans call for military retirees and their dependents over 64 to lose
2'd
95:60 S6. 23 YAY
2
their CHAMPUS eligibility, be denied enrollment in Tricare, and be shuffled to the
none-too-steady Medicare system.
PROTECTING RETIREMENT PAY. Recent actions by the Congress
(the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, subsequent related committee actions,
the options developed by Senator Gregg's Budget Committee entitlement panel, as well
as options developed by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), and older decisions
such as the Social Security Offset to the Defense Survivor Benefit Plan) have had the
effect of placing the earned retirement annuities of service members in jeopardy, leading
to considerable distress among retired military personnel.
The ongoing issue of equity in the start date of annual cost of living adjustments
(COLAs) for federal military and civilian retirees, and the apparent willingness of some
members of Congress to sacrifice military retirees' financial interests and security to
reduce the deficit has not gone unnoticed. Neither have the several COLA options
considered by the Senate Budget Committee that would have reduced the buying power
of many military retirees's annuities by as much as 40 percent over their lifetimes. (The
really distressing aspect of these options is that they were to apply to both current and
future retirees, unlike the retirement reforms implemented in 1986 that were strictly
prospective and protected those already in uniform or retired.) It should also be
remembered that in the 1970s the Congress directed the military to include a guarantee
of lifetime COLAs in service members' annual compensation comparability statements.
The annual appearance of CBO's list of options for reducing the budget and the
deficit has done little to allay the fears of Reservists as CBO questions the need for any
retirement for Reservists at all, or recommends that the traditional linkage between
active duty and Reserve longevity pay be severed as a cost cutting measure. While these
recommendations have appeared before with little comment or credence, it is the
measure of the lack of trust in the government's commitment to the members of the
Armed Forces that this association received numerous inquiries on the subject after it
was reported in the Army Times and Washington Post.
Retired Reservists who elect to protect surviving spouses' financial security by
participating in the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP), which provides a percentage of their
military retirement annuities to their spouses after their deaths, have long seen offsets to
their survivors' annuities as inequitable because they were based upon the Social
Security payment the Service member would have received had he survived.
Furthermore, under the more recent two-tiered SBP system, the SBP annuity is offset if
either the service member or his surviving spouse qualified for the Social Security
benefit. The courts have upheld these offsets as legitimate "cost-saving measures." Again,
the message appears to suggest that in the quest for a balanced budget, military retirees
and their surviving spouses are a soft target.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION.
There is a strong
and a growing suspicion among service members, Active, Reserve, and Retired, that such
portions of their present and future financial resources and planning as are associated
E'd
3
with their service in the military are no longer secure (if they really ever were). This
concern is not without basis as we attempt to balance the budget and reduce the deficit.
The larger, and more significant implication of this perception is the effect it must have
upon military readiness. Potential recruits have long identified financial sccurity upon
retirement as one of their major reasons for choosing a military career. The basis for
this expectation is the government's saying it will be so. If that credibility is destroyed or
eroded, recruiting, retention, and readiness will suffer. Worse, the faith of the electorate
in its elected officials will also decline.
This is a political issue that offers great opportunities for the party or national
figure willing to champion the cause of military retirees' rights and to keep faith with
those who have served so well. As we approach 1996, someone will in all likelihood
recognize this as a prime issue and embrace it. The question is who.
Therefore, the Reserve Officers Association recommends that the White House
support the following:
Provision for continued military health care for retirees and their
dependents beyond age 64
Ensure that Reservists continue to qualify for retired pay
Provide for equal COLAs for both military and civilian federal retirees
Reject any suggestion that erodes benefits earned and promised as a result
of military service
Hold the line on Survivor Benefit Plan annuity erosion.
D
SENT BY:
6-26-95 : 3:30PM
:
ONDCP/OSR-
67028:# 1/4
OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
Washington. D.C. 20500
IIIIIIIIIII
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET
Number of pages including cover: 4
Date: 6-26-95
To: Molly BROSTROM
Fax Number: 6-7028
Office Number:
Comments:
As discussed
P.
From: John Gregrich
Fax Number:
202/395-6744
Office 202/395-6749
SENT BY:
6-26-95 : 3:30PM
;
ONDCP/OSR-
67028:# 2/ 4
Failure of some welfare reform measures to maintain the requirment
for indigent addicts to enter substance abuse treatment.
Unlike Administration and Congressional reforms enacted last
year, dropping disability due to alcoholism or drug addiction
from SSI eligibility will not reduce dependency and will not
significantly reduce the Federal roles. The majority of these
indigent addicts (estimated between 60 and 80 percent) will
remain eligible due to other disabilities. But we will no
longer be able to condition their receipt of benefits on
compliance with drug treatment rules nor will we be able to
require that their benefits go through a responsible payee.
In other words, they are more likely to spend the benefits on
drugs or alcohol.
Furthermore, the other 20 to 40 percent will simply become the
responsibility of state and local assistance.
SENT BY:
6-26-95 : 3:30PM :
ONDCP/OSR-
67028:# 3/ 4
SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME
QUESTION
what will be the impact of eliminating drug addicts and alcohols
from the Supplemental Security Income program?
ANSWER
Eliminating alcoholism and drug addiction as eligible
disabilities will not reduce dependence on public support, will
not reduce the SSI addict population significantly, and could
result in a marked increase in the use of SSI funds for alcohol
and drugs.
BACKGROUND
Before additional actions are taken, remedial actions taken by
the Administration and the Congress, in 1993 and 1994, should be
given the chance to work.
The potential for abuse became apparent when this program
began to grow rapidly in 1991. This Administration took
steps, shortly after taking office in 1993, to correct
management shortfalls and ensure accountability in this
program. Even before these steps were fully implemented,
the Congress acted in 1994 to limit the benefit period of
the program and to increase compliance monitoring.
Implementing regulations for the Congressional action were
published in February 1995.
Eliminating alcoholism and drug addiction as eligible
disabilities is not the answer. It will not reduce dependence on
public support, will only reduce the SSI addict population by 20
percent, and could result in a marked increase in the use of SSI
funds for alcohol and drugs.
Those alcoholics and addicts who are dropped from the SSI
rolls will burden state and local general assistance
programs.
The 80 percent who remain on the SSI rolls, due to other
disabilities, will not be required to enter and comply with
treatment.
In the final analysis, SSI is an important program and the
American people have the right to expect that we manage it well.
The Administration is prepared to work with the Congress to
improve it and to move drug- and alcohol-addicted Americans
toward self-sufficiency.
12
SENT BY:
6-26-95 : 3:30PM :
ONDCP/OSR-
67028:# 4/ 4
However, recently enacted changes should be allowed to work,
before additional and potentially damaging steps are taken.
ODR:4/5/95
13
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
21-Jun-1995 04:22pm
TO:
Molly Brostrom
FROM:
Nancy-Ann E. Min
Office of Mgmt and Budget, HP
CC:
Toni S. Hustead
SUBJECT:
RE: Medicare Subvention
you're right--it's nopt that simple, it isn't clear if it saves
money, it also makes dod mad-- for all these reasons, and because
you haven't got the right people in the room to really discuss
this issue (e.g., Bruce Vladeck), i'd recommend you not get into
it now. remember that the VA's rego proposal is to allow them to
test medicare subvention--we are working with them and hCFA to
design a demonstration. the whole reason we need to test this
first is there is some evidence it could result in increased
billions of costs to Medicare-- which would not be good.
.06-22-1995 17:17
P.01
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
PENTAGON. ROOM 3E966. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20301-1300
To Verify Transmission, Contact the Sender at Number Listed Below
Please deliver to:
Mour BROSTROM
Location:
WH Domestic Policy
Fax Number:
202 456-7028
We are sending
2
pages, including this cover.
Sender/(Action Officer):
Telephone:
COMMENTS:
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs
Telefax Number: (703) 693-5530
P.02
H DoD Auth Report
240
SECTION 747-REPORT ON IMPROVED ACCESS TO MILITARY HEALTH
CARE FOR COVERED BENEFICIARIES ENTITLED TO MEDICARE
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to report on
possible alternatives to improving access to the military health care
system for those beneficiaries who are Medicare eligible and ineli-
gible for the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uni-
formed Services (CHAMPUS).
The committee remains concerned about the growing population
of military retirees who are unable to access the military health
care system largely as a result of the drawdown of the military and
the closure of military medical treatment facilities. These retirees
are feeling increasingly disenfranchised from a government they
served and defended devotedly. Without Medicare reimbursement,
the Department will be forced to provide less and less care to this
population.
The committee remains committed to identifying cost-effective al-
ternatives for providing medical care to all military medical bene-
flciaries.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
MEDICARE REIMBURSEMENT TO THE DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM FOR
CARE PROVIDED TO MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE BENEFICIARIES
The committee believes that Medicare reimbursement to Depart-
ment of Defense medical facilities for care provided to Medicare-eli-
gible beneficiaries can produce savings to both the Department of
Defense and the Department of Health and Human Services be-
cause military hospital care is generally less expensive than health
care services purchased in the private sector.
The Department's implementation of the TRICARE managed
health care program nationwide over the next several years will
offer a propitious opportunity to achieve government-wide savings
through Medicare reimbursement. Unfortunately, the Congres-
sional Budget Office scoring of this initiative as a $2.7 billion direct
spending cost by the year 2000 limits the committee's ability to act
on this important initiative. This direct spending impact is largely
due to the fact that the Health Care Financing Agency does not
budget for military Medicare-eligible beneficiaries. Further limiting
the committee's ability to act on this issue is the fact that the
President's budget does not propose Medicare reimbursement to the
Department.
The committee remains convinced that Medicare reimbursement
is in the best interest of the military health care system and that
such reimbursement will result in overall savings to the Federal
Government. The committee remains committed to working with
other committees and the President to achieve this worthwhile and
necessary objective.
FORMATION OF VETERAN'S WING WITHIN NAVAL HOSPITAL GUAM
The committee is concerned about the need to continue providing
quality health care services to thousands of beneficiaries as the
Navy closes and realigns its facilities on Guam. The establishment
of a veterans' wing within the Naval Hospital, Guam, could provide
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
21-Jun-1995 07:06pm
TO:
BROSTROM_M
FROM:
Elaine C. Kamarck
SUBJECT: Re: Uniformed Services Med Sch
I am aware of this topic. We could discuss it but you should know that
this recommendation was part of the original NPR, it was part of the
Pentagon's Bottom Up Review and it has been part of the President's
budget. We do not believe the data is flawed and last year in Congress
this was settled by having GAO do a review of this. I really don't think
there's much to discuss until the GAO review comes out. I would also not
bring this to discussion without reopening it with the Pentagon and OMB.
OF
THE SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
WASHINGTON
STATES
MATERIA
Facsimile Cover Sheet
To: Molly B.
Company:
Phone: (202) 456-7028
Fax:
From: Robert L. Jones
Company: Office of the Secretary
Phone: (202) 273-4836
Fax:
Date:
Pages including this
cover page:
Comments:
(Domestic Policy)
Issue raised by National Guard Association at the 1AUWPG meeting.
06/01/95
19:04
202 273 4876
VA OFC OF SECTY
002
SENT BY:
5-31-95 : 11:04 ;
NGAUS-
202 273 4876:# # 1/11
National Guard Association of the United States
Fax Memorandum
WITH GUARD
From: Chuck Schreiber
#
LOYS
#
OF THE UNITED STATES
Director, Legislative Activities
To:
Robert L. Jones
Fax No. 273-4876
31 May 1995
NGAUS Fact sheets
Date:
Subject:
Comments:
Bob: Bob Ensslin asked that the attached papers
be sent to you as requested during the 25 May Interagency
Veterans Policy Group meeting.
The NGAUS Fact Sheets on the Military Technician Program
were prepared for our members. They address the issue of
across-the-board cuts against the military technician force
under the "reinvent government" program, which we continue
to oppose.
The papers on the civil/military program were developed
by DoD.
Please give me a call if I can be of further assistance.
Number of Pages
Including Cover.
One Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001; (202) 408-5884
Fax No. (202) 682-9358
06/01/95
19:04
202 273 4876
VA 0FC OF SECTY
5
003
SENT BY:
5-31-95 : 11:04
NGAUS-
202 273 4876:# 2/11
N
U S
Legislative
Fact Sheet
NATIONAL GUARD MILITARY TECHNICIAN PROGRAM
DISCUSSION
The Department of Defense is proposing to continue to apply
the across-the-hoard reduction in federal civilian personnel, as
part of the administration's National Performance Review, against
the military technician program of the National Guard. Despite a
prohibition on such cuts by Congress in FY 1995 and a statement
by the Secretary of Defense to the Adjutants General, in early
February, that it was not his intention to apply both force
structure reductions and across-the-board cuts to the technician
?
force, such cuts are again included in the FY 1996 Defense
budget. cuts are also programmed through FY 2001, although OSD
is reportedly conducting a review of the size and scope of the
cuts at.
The attached 24 August, 1994 NGAUS Legislative Fact Sheet and
24 June, 1994 ASD-RA Memorandum to the Under Secretary of Defense
for Personnel and Readiness provide background on the history and
rationale for exempting the military technician program from any
administratively imposed civilian personnel reduction. Military
technician positions are based on military requirements and are
subject to reduction as part of the continuing force structure
drawdown, just as other military positions. To impose an
additional across-the-board cut would have a severe impact on
National Guard readiness.
The National Guard military technician is in a unique status.
Although pay and benefits are based on the federal civilian
personnel program, Congress was very clear when establishing the
program that it intended to provided a formal retirement and
benefits package, without changing the military nature or the
state command and control relationship of the program. The
National Guard military technician force should not have been
included in the baseline against which the across-the-board
federal civilian cuts are computed, That decision appears to be
under review within DoD at this time, but too late to effect the
FY 1996 cuts.
If the total programmed 15 to 20 percent reductions continue
through FY 2001, the Air Guard will lose approximately 3,600
technicians and the Army Guard approximately 5,500 technicians.
Cuts of that size would have B devastating impact on National
Guard readiness. The Air Cuard has estimated that all flying
units would be down to readiness rating C-3 by FY 1998 and C-4 by
FY 1999-2000. For the Army Guard. such cuts would directly
impact readiness programs. particularly maintenance of surface
and air equipment.
06/01/95
19:05
202 273 4876
VA OFC OF SECTY
004
SENT BY:
5-31-95 : 11:05 :
NGAUS-
202 273 4876:# 3/11
-2-
RECOMMENDATION
The National Guard Association urges the Congress to:
-- Make permanent the provision in the FY 1995 Dafense
Appropriations Act which prohibited applying any
administratively imposed ceiling, freeze, or reduction
on military technicians unless reductions are the result
of a reduction in military force structure.
-- Reverse the FY 1996 cut in National Guard military
technician manning by restoring 1,636 end strength and
$12.5 million net operations and maintenance funding for
the Army National Guard and 605 end strength and $0.4
million net operations and maintenance funding for the
Air National Guard.
23 February 1995
Attachments:
1. NGAUS Legislative Fact Sheet. 26 August 1994
2. ASD-RA Memorandum, 24 June 1994
06/01/95
19:05
202 273 4876
VA OFC OF SECTY
$
005
SENT BY:
5-31-95 : 11:05 :
NGAUS-
202 273 4876: # 4/11
Legislative
Fact Sheet
NATIONAL GUARD MILITARY TECHNICIAN PROGRAM
PROBLEM
-
There are indications that the administration will apply the across-the-board reductions
in federal civilian personnel to the military technician programs of the National Guard and
Reserves.
BACKGROUND
-
The National Guard military technician and Active Guard and Reserves (AGR) full-
time support programs have evolved to what they are today through at least three distinct
phases. The first was what was called the "caretaker" phase. A caretaker was a member
of 2 Guard unit in a local armory. The caretaker tended to such routine administrative and
logistical concerns as were required berween training assemblies, which were then held one
evening a week.
- By the 1960's program has evolved to the administrative-supply technician (AST) phase.
One AST was provided for the first 100 personnel in a unit and one additional for each
additional 50 members. ASTs could be any enlisted rank; frequently the senior person was
the first sergeant (E-8). Prior to the National Guard Technicians Act of 1968, all were
federally reimbursed state employees. Most entered excepted federal civil service in 1968,
although some remained in 2 state status because of retirement benefits. In a two-AST
armory. the senior individual was GS-7, the junior a GS-5.
By the 1970's, when the administration was reducing the number of federal civilian
employers. Congress took action to prevent similar across-the-board reductions in the
Guard's full-time force. As a result. the Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) program was created
to provide a military full-time support force who were members of the unit and not subject
to civilian reductions in force. It was subsequently decided that the successful military
technician force should not be converted to AGR members, so Congress established a floor
each year on the authorized level of technicians. Since that time, most of the full-time
growth has been the AGR program. with the result that both AGR and military technicians
often work side-by-side in Guard units.
CURRENT SITUATION
By the 1980's. the National Guard Bureau has created manpower models for each type
of Army and Air Guard unit containing all of the validated full-time manning spaces.
Because of funding constraints. most Army Guard units are resourced at 70 percent or less
of their validated requirements. High priority units in the contingency force pool are fully
manned. A typical company-sized unit will have either four or five full-time personnel.
06/01/95
19:05
202 273 4876
VA OFC OF SECTY
006
SENT BY
5-31-95 : 11:06 :
NGAUS-
202 273 4876:# 5/11
-2-
They usually include a readiness NCO (E-7), & supply sergeant (E-6), a unit clerk (E-5)
and training NCO (E-5). Some units will also have an armorer (E-4). A battalion
headquarters will have an administrative officer (0-3/4), a training officer (0-3), a property
book/logistics officer(WO), 3 personnel NCO (E-7), an operations sergeant (E-8) and
several clerks (E-4).
- Air National technician requirements are based on the type of aircraft, equipment and
missions assigned. They are the unit members who fly and maintain aircraft and keep the
units operational 50 they can perform day-to-day missions and prepare for their wartime
tasking. More than one-half of the Air Nation National Guard full-time force are members
who directly support aircraft maintenance requirements. Many are involved with munitions
and armament, avionics, engine maintenance and cargo handling skills. Others are involved
in such areas as security, personnel, finance and administrative requirements. Grades are
tied to the type aircraft/unit model and are critical for combat readiness.
In deployable units in both the Army and Air Guard. full-time personnel maybe a mix
of AGR and military technician. Reduction of technician resourcing as a result of a
downsizing of federal "civilian" employees would leave vacancies in any military position
currently staffed with a technician. Because the mix in any unit is based on a local hiring
and promotion situation, it is difficult to predict precise impact of a reduction other that a
certainty of an adverse impact on readiness. In many units. it will be a question of doing
without one of several one-of-a-kind unique specialities: a readiness NCO, a supply sergeant;
a training NCO. or an aircraft maintenance specialist. In some small units it may be a
question of which single specialty to retain.
- Today, the majority of technicians in both Army and Air Guard are found in various
maintenance shops. In the Air Guard it would he the flying unit maintenance organizations.
In the Army Guard. technicians are used in organizational maintenance shops at battalion
level. combined support maintenance shops at state level. mobilization and training
equipment site on major federal installations. and unit training equipment sites at local
training sites. All such maintenance technicians are military members of the units they
support. The equipment they maintain is used for daily missions. weekend training
exercises and annual field or deployed training Reduced manning in this area will obviously
impact on operational tempo and unit readiness.
CONCLUSION
- National Guard military technicians fill validated full-time support positions on the
military manning documents. They are military members of the unit they support and are
responsible for the day-to-day operations and readiness of the Guard unit. Reductions in
the military technician force should be directly related to force structure reductions in
Guard units. Applying across-the-board federal civilian reduction to the technician force has
been opposed by Congress in the past and should be today. Reductions in other competitive
civil service employees of the Guard and Reserve are comparable 10 those being imposed
on other federal agencies and would have the same impact as a reduction in the military
technician program.
24 August 1994
06/01/95
19:06
202 273 4876
VA OFC OF SECTY
007
SENT BY
5-31-95 : 11:06
NGAUS-
202 273 4876: 6/11
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
WASHINGTON, DC 20301-1500
AFFACES
JN 24 1994
MEMORANDUM FOR UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, PERSONNEL & READINESS
SUBJECT: DOD Civilian Resource Guidance
Your June 2 memoranding a this subject which directs an accelerated civilian
drawdown. has raised some concerns regarding the application of these increased reductions
within the Departments of the Amay and the Air Force There are indications of increasing
pressure a exced reductions a areas previously exempt from administratively imposed civilian
personnel reductions. Specifically, I am concerned about the approximately 70,000 military
technicians who support the Reserve components of the Army and the Air Force
Military technicians are 1 critical element of the full-time support provided to Reserve
component units a facilitate peacetime training, to enhance operational readiness and to provide a
smooth transition during mobilization They are Federal civilian employees who are required to
maintain military membership and comparibility requirements as a condition of Federal
employment and also perform military-essential duties in their stams as Federal employees. The
rules and procedures under which military technicians serve is = distinctive employment
arrangement that is based on satisfying & military need, thus the military aspect of the technician
position is personount
The Congress has included a recurring provision in the National Defense Appropriations
Adt which imposes s floor B the ml number of positions occupied by (civilian) military
technicians below which reductions have net been permitted. In what appeared B be a direct
response B 1 September 30, 1991. Depoty Secretary of Defense memorandum excending the
civilian hiring freeze, the Congress enacted a Dew provision of law to casue that military
technicians WGC excluded from the hiring freez Section 8015(a) of the National Defense
Appropriations Ass for Fiscal Year 1992 states in part that "mone of the funds appropriated by the
Act may be used to include (civillan) military techniciary B computing civilim personnel cellings."
and Section 8015(b) states that "None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall be used to
include (civilian) military techniciens in any administratively imposed freeze 8 civilism positions."
9015(b). These provisions were also included in the FY 1993 Appropriations Act as sections 9015(a) and
In the National Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1994. the Committee of
Conference agreed to delere these recurring provisions in order not a prejudice the President's
Report of the National Performance Review. However. in taking this action the conferees urged
06/01/95
19:06
202 273 4876
VA OFC OF SECTY
008
SENT. BY:
5-31-95 ; 11:07 :
NGAUS-
202 273 4876:# 7/11
2
the Reserve components to adhere to the intent of the provision In addition the Conference
Report specified that "The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs shall moniter the
reserve components a make sure that they do not convent technician positions to AGRs, and that
technician personnel are not included in any administratively imposed freeze 8 divilian positions"
The conferees also directed that the Department begin submitting a monthly strength report 8
technician personnel to the defense committees. This language makes # clear that the Congress
intends to closely monitor technician strengths to CHANGE there ut B substantial reductions to the
program.
A June 10 Secretary of the Air Force incrnorandum for the Secretary and Deputy
Secretary of Defense which introduces the FY 1996-01 Air Force POM. states that civilian
reductions must be spread to every mission area chargeable against end strength including the Air
Reserve components in order to "minimize the impact on readiness." The memorandum requests
the Secretary's support "In breaking down the feners in these areas." My concern is that
reductions in military technicians, an area that has previously been fenoud from civilian personal
reductions, will significantly impact the readiness of Reserve component units.
Military technician positions me based - military requirements and are subject to
reduction as part of the drawdown of the Selected Reserve. In general. military technicians who
lose their posidos in the Sclected Reserve III also subject B losing their civilian technician
position. Military technician cad strength is being reduced by nearly 3,000 between FY 1991 and
FY 1995, and is projected to decline by another 8,000 by the cod of the POM based a military
requirements. Requirements for military technicians are based DD National Guard and Reserve
force structure. To associate military technicians with mandated civilian personnel reductions in
addition to Selected Reserve force reducaons could result in military technician strength being
reduced by & further 8,000. Since nearly all technicians serve and provide full-time support at unit
level the effect on readiness would be direct and very serious This, at a time when the
Department is committed to increasing is reliance 8 the National Guard and Reserve a
compensate for a smaller active force.
I strongly urge you to continue the exemption 8 including military technicians IS part of
any administratively imposed civilian personnel reductions within the Department.
Dilbine Deborah R Lee
06/01/95
19:07
202 273 4876
VA OFC OF SECTY
009
SENT BY:
5-31-95 : 11:07 :
NGAUS-
202 273 4876; # 8/11
Extnact FROM FY 1994 REPORT OF THE RESERVE poreus POLICY BOARD
Personnel
Table 3-6
FULL-TIME SUPPORT PERSONNEL STRENGTHS
Army
Marine
Air
Air
Coast
National
Army
Naval
Corps
National
Force
DOD
Guard
Guard
Reserve
Reserve
Receive
Quard
Beserve
Total
Reserve
Total
AGR/TAR Personnel
Required
40,376
18,725
23,423
2,524
9.639
787
95,374
N/A
95,374
Authorized
24,180
12,542
19.718
2,285
9,389
648
68,762
N/A
68,762
Assigned
23,708
12,542
19,139
2,273
9,312
648
67,620
N/A
67,820
Military Technicians"
Required
37,317
12,051
N/A
N/A
28,500
10,901
88,769
N/A
88,769
Authorized
27,259
7,159
N/A
N/A
24,267
10,541
69,226
N/A
69.226
Assigned
23,141
5.638
0
0
23,304
9,520
61.503
N/A
61,503
Active Component
Required
0
1,258
2,270
4,352
1,014
785
9.679
482
10,761
Authorized
0
1.182
1,313
4,234
1,014
785
8.525
482
9,010
Assigned
174
851
1,477
4,234
1,012
851
8,398
482
8,881
Civil Service
Required
629
1,500
2.320
154
1,801
8,218
12,623
104
12.727
Authorized
468
1.500
2,320
154
1,739
5,659
11.840
104
11.944
Assigned
486
1,451
2,302
164
1,726
5,387
11,508
98
11.804
Totals
Required
78.322
33.534
28,013
7.030
40,854
18,692
208,445
588
207,031
Authorized
51,907
22,383
23,002
6,673
36,409
17.633
168.007
588
158,593
Shortfall
26,415
11,151
5,011
357
4.445
1,059
47,379
0
47.379
Persent Authorized of
88%
87%
82%
95%
89%
90%
77%
100%
77%
Required
Assigned
47.507
20,382
22,918
6,661
35,354
18,208
149,026
580
149.608
FTS Authorizations
13%
8%
20%
18%
31%
22%
15%
6%
15%
as a Parcent of
Authorized End Strength
Notes:
1. Includes AGR in the Army, officers and enlisted on Statutory Tours in the Air Force Reserve. TAR in the
Naval Reserve, and Reserve military FTS in the Marine Corps Reserve.
2. Air National Guard AGR and MT positions can be filled by either status personnel. All ANG requirements are
shown as Military Technicians. USAR Includes SOF technicians.
3. Includes Active component assigned or attached to Reserve component organizations who provided support exclusively to the
Reserve components.
Sources: The DoD Comptroller. Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs, and the Reserve components.
Data as of September 30. 1994.
06/01/95
19:07
202 273 4876
VA OFC OF SECTY
010
SENT- BY:
5-31-95 : 11:08 :
NGAUS-
202 273 4876 :# 9/11
Talking Points on Civil/Military Programs
It's all about readiness training - giving members of the National Guard and Reserves real
world training experience that allows them to apply the same skills that will be required of them
if they are mobilized for state or federal missions. We'll either get direct training benefit from
these programs .. especially through combat support and combat service support type units -- or
the programs will be supported with volunteers.
The eivil/military program was directed by the Congress. DoD is doing what the Congress
asked it to do setting up pilot programs to evaluate how effectively military resources --
people, facilities, know-how and equipment -- can be applied to critical domestic needs. Pilot
programs are now in place in a number of states and DOD is monitoring their effectiveness.
According to ASD/RA Deborah Lee, the early results are encouraging and they will continue to
carry out the program as directed by the Congress.
Funding for the civil military programs has not increased in the President's FY96 budger.
Proposed total FY96 funding for civil-military programs is $69.2 million (compared to $71
million for FY95) - clearly not an amount that would solve the military technician problem.
06/01/95
19:08
202 273 4876
VA 0FC OF SECTY
011
SENT- BY
5-31-95 : 11:08 :
NGAUS-
202 273 4876 #10/11
CIVIL-MILITARY PROGRAMS
The FY93 Defense Authorization Act included TWO new initiatives: (1) Section 1091 -
National Guard Civilian Youth Opportunities Pilot Program and (2) Section 410 - Civil-Military
Cooperative Action Program. Dr. Perry, the then Deputy Secretary of Defense delegated to me
the responsibility to implement and oversee these two pieces statue.
Subsequently, I have established an office for Civil-Military Programs which combines
the National Guard Youth Opportunities Pilot Program and the Civil-Military Cooperative
Action Program into one office.
Section 1091 . National Guard Civilian Opportunities Pilot Program (ChalleNGe)
PILOT DURATION: fiscal years FY93-FY95
PURPOSE:
Provide basis for determining
(a)
whether the life skills and employment potential of civilian youth who
cease to attend secondary school can be significantly improved through
military based training provided by the National Guard.
(a)
whether it is feasible and cost effective for the National Guard to provide
military based training to such youth.
REPORT TO CONGRESS: Section 1091 required DoD to report LO the congressional
defense committees on the design. conduct, and effectiveness of the pilot
program. The report is due to Congress in June 1995. The National
Guard Bureau has contracted for an independent assessment of the
ChalleNGe program for this report. Initial findings are quite optimistic.
The GED attainment rate is approximately 20% above any other GED
program for this category of students (ie. drop-outs and expellees).
Furthermore, all roughly $14.000/student it is one of the most cost-
effective programs out there and 1/2 the cost of any other federal
residential program.
STATUS: The Challenge program is a federally funded and regulated, state run
program. We stress partnership and COST sharing with the states and
communities which host the program For example, the state of
Mississippi has matched federal funding at approximately 50%. Other
states have provided cost sharing as well to include paying for teachers,
providing transportation vehicles, mentors for the students etc. We are
continuing to work with the states to find additional cost sharing
opportunities.
06/01/95
19:08
202 273 4876
VA OFC OF SECTY
012
SENT BY:
5-31-95 : 11:09 :
NGAUS-
202 273 4876:#11/11
Section 410 - Civil-Military Cooperation Action Program
PURPOSE:
Establish a program which in accordance with other applicable law, to USE
the skills, capabilities, and resources of the anned forces to assist civilian
efforts to meet the domestic needs of the U.S.
OBJECTIVES:
(1)
Enhance individual and unit training and morale in the
anned forces.
(2)
To encourage cooperation between civilian and military
sectors of society in addressing domestic needs.
(3)
To advance equal opportunity
(4)
To enrich the civilian economy of the US through
education, training. and transfer of technology.
(5)
To improve the environment and economic and social
conditions.
(6)
To provide opportunities for disadvantaged citizens of US.
STATUS:
DoD Directive implementing legislation is in final stages of coordination.
To date we have 33 programs in more than 35 states. The focus for these
type programs is combat support and combat service support units and
individuals - especially medical and engineering. These programs
provide valuable "hands on" readiness training for our military personnel
while simultaneously "adding value to America".
FUNDING OF CIVIL-MILITARY PROGRAMS:
FY93 " Congress appropriated $49M (O&M) for Challenge and Starbase
- Challenge in 10 states
- Starbase in 5 states (authority for starbase came under 2193 USC10, committee
report language on Starbase said it was the intent of Congress that each of the
programs be self-sustaining at the end of 3 years of federal funding -- 3 yrs expires
for the first 5 states in June 1996)
FY94 - Congress appropriated S70M (O&M)
- hallenge in 15 states' Starbase in 14 states - $60M
-Civil-Military Cooperative Action Programs - $10M
FY95 - President's budget included $71.4M (O&M)
- Challenge in 15 states/ Starbase in 14 states - $61.4M
- Civil-Military Cooperative Action Programs - $10M
--Congress added $8M (Mil pers)
FY96 -- President's budget includes $69.2M
--Challenge in 15 states/ Starbase in 14 states - $61.4M (Zero growth in programs)
--Civil-Military Cooperative Action Programs - $7.8M
MAY 25 '95 16:22 FROM NCOA-WASHINGTON
PAGE. 001
12/ the
NCOA
ASSOCIATION
Non Commissioned Officers Association of the United States of America
225 N. Washington Street
Alexandria. Virginia 22314
Telephone (703) 549-0311
NATIONAL CAPITAL OFFICE
TELECOPY
TRANSMITTAL SHEET
FAX NUMBER
(703) 549-0245
TO:
Ms Molly BROSTROM
FROM:
Dick Schneider
DATE:
TIME:
NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET:
SUBJECT: Letter re WHCOA
SOURCE:
COMMENTS: Would you please
share Copies with
Steve Hilton, Jeelnne
ANY PROBLEMS, CALL (703) 549-0311
Inadomi, and Jeremy Ben Ami
MAY 25 '95 16:22
FROM NCOA-WASHINGTON
PAGE 002
WHC.A
VERNE
NCOA®
Non Commissioned Officers Association of the United States of America
225 N. Washington Street
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
Telephone (703) 549-0311
May 9, 1995
The Honorable David Pryor, U.S.S.
Chair. Policy Committee
1995 White House Conference on Aging
501 School Street. S.W., 8th Floor
Washington DC 20025
Dear Mr. Pryor:
I was a delegate at the 1995 White House Conference on Aging and an active program
participant.
I deeply regret that the delegate ballot voting on Resolutions introduced during the event was
not announced while the conference was in session.
Countless people worked to introduce Resolutions 132. 133 and 134 that were voted on by the
delegate body on Friday, May Sth. 1995. The results of that ballot was not made available until
Monday. May 8th, 1995. My information reveals the vote on these resolutions was as follows:
#132 - 916 yes: 145 no: 829 abstained from voting
-needed 954 to
#133 - 792 yes: 154 no: 944 abstained from voting
3
pass
#134 - 797 yes: 148 no: 945 abstained from voting
The ballots presented the delegate with the choice to cast either a "YES or NO" vote on the
delegate introduced resolutions contained on the second ballot. It appears that the total
population of delegates was the basis from which a majority vote was necessary to secure
adoption of the resolution. Based on this logic. all three of the above delegate submitted
resolutions failed. It appears that ten other (10) delegate introduced resolutions were adopted
at the conference.
I fail to see how a delegate who abstains from voting should remain a part of the total delegate
body upon which a majority is based for passage of a resolution or motion. Clearly, a majority
of those voting adopted the three resolutions in question.
MAY 25 '95 16:23
FROM NCOA-WASHINGTON
PAGE 003
May 9. 1995
Page 2
I would have risen to a Point of Order had this process been articulated at the conference. I
sincerely believe that an injustice has resulted from rule making that was manufactured for this
democratic voting process. Specifically, procedures that were unknown to delegates before the
voting process.
It should be further noted that at the formal voting session an insufficient number of copies of
the Final Resolutions Booklet and lack of ballots for each delegate created confusion in the
assembly hall.
This delegate formally requests that the entire White House Conference on Aging Advisory
Committee:
Review the information provided to delegates on adoption of delegate introduced
others indestand the
resolutions.
didn't flow walc
Review the process unlized at the conference.
Exclude those who "abstained (or did not vote)" from the total number of
delegates required for determination of the majority necessary to adopt a
resolution.
Approve on bchalf of the White House Conference on Aging all resolutions that
would have been approved by a simple majority of those voting.
Let's not end this 1995 White House Conference on Aging embroiled in controversy. Lct us
together resolve these issues. If necessary, let's poll the delegates on this issue to ensure the
action taken is endorsed by the delegate body. Let us not put a cloud on an otherwise White
House stellar event.
Sincerely
Richard C. Schneider
Delegate
White House Conference on Aging
cc: Policy Committee Members
** TOTAL PAGE. 003 **
1741
THE MILITARY COALITION
201 North Washington Street
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
END UNFAIR DISPARITIES IN RETIRED PAY
COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENT (COLA) DELAYS
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 imposed severe multi-year
COLA delays on military retirees - far exceeding the sacrifices asked of other
COLA recipients. While the FY1995 DoD Authorization Act equalized the 1995
military and Federal civilian COLA dates, severe FY1996-98 disparities remain.
There are 50 million Federal COLA recipients. Of these, more than 46 million
(92 percent of the total) incur no COLA sacrifices at all. Two million Federal
civilian retirees will see only three more months of COLA delays in 1996 before
returning to January COLAs in 1997. In stark contrast, 1.4 million nondisabled
military retirees face delays totaling 27 more months (nine months each for
1996 through 1998) nine times the remaining Federal civilian sacrifice.
For the average retired officer, the cumulative five-year COLA forfeiture will be
$2,301. A Federal civilian retiree with the same retired pay will give up about
one-quarter of that amount -- $603. The average enlisted retiree will lose
$1,228; the equivalent Federal civilian retiree, only $322.
Military retirees expect to assume their fair share of sacrifice, but this is a
grossly disproportionate $2 billion surtax imposed on military retirees in spite
of and in fact because of their extended sacrifices in uniformed service. It
imposes 88 percent of the financial sacrifice on military retirees, even though
they comprise only 3 percent of the COLA-eligible population.
Since 1969, military and Federal civilian retirees have received the same COLAs
on the same dates. With recruiting in decline, career stability undermined by
the force drawdown, and ever more intense operational requirements on the
remaining forces, Congress should not be relegating military retirees to "second-
class" treatment.
The President's Budget (PB) for FY1996 provides $385 million in offsets to
equalize the COLA dates for 1996. The PB does not address FY1997-98, but
Administration sources indicate similar offsets are available for those years.
The Military Coalition urges the Congress to fix this serious
inequity once and for all and end this highly divisive annual
debate by equalizing the military and Federal civilian COLA dates
in this year's Budget Resolution, not only for FY1996, but for
FY1997-98 as well.
April 25, 1995
SHARED SACRIFICE??
1993 OBRA IMPACT
FEDERAL
MILITARY
OTHER COLA
FEDERAL
CIVILIANS
RETIREES
RECIPIENTS
CIVILIANS
(5%)
(3%)
(0%)
(12%)
OTHER
MILITARY
COLA
RETIREES
RECIPIENTS
(92%)
(88%)
COLA POPULATION
COLA SACRIFICE
(52 Million Total)
($2.4 Billion Total)