MOAA's Legislative Update for Friday, July 11, 2003.

Issue 1: Rumsfeld Raises Veto Threat. The Secretary of Defense told Congress this week that he'll fight any effort to enact concurrent receipt or extend health coverage options to the Guard and Reserve.

Issue 2: Discharge Petition Update. Disabled retirees are putting the heat on Congress over the concurrent receipt discharge petition. Please add your voice.

Issue 3: MOAA Testifies in Support of Pre-Tax Health Premiums. At a Tuesday hearing, Deputy Director for Government Relations Dr. Sue Schwartz made the case for allowing servicemembers and retirees the same options already allowed for currently-serving federal employees.

Issue 4: House Passes Defense Appropriations Bill. The annual spending bill's progress may encourage rapid action on the Defense Authorization bill.

Issue 1: Rumsfeld Raises Veto Threat

The Secretary of Defense sent another emphatic message this week that he opposes spending any more money on health care or disabled retirees.

His July 8 "heartburn letter" to House and Senate Armed Services Committee leaders said he would "join other senior advisors to the President in recommending that he veto the FY2004 Defense Authorization Bill if it includes Senate-passed provisions authorizing concurrent receipt of military retirement pay and veterans' disability compensation benefits, or expands TRICARE." It said he'd also recommend a veto if the defense bill includes any change that would hamper a new round of base closures in 2005.

The Administration's opposition to concurrent receipt is nothing new. It's what made Congress backpedal last year after both chambers passed substantive concurrent receipt plans. The pressure is on again this year, as the Senate-passed bill would authorize full concurrent receipt, and 201 representatives have signed a discharge petition that would force a vote on the issue in the House (see article below).

This year, Secretary Rumsfeld has stooped further to oppose much-needed health coverage continuity for drilling members of the National Guard and Reserve. Tens of thousands of these families have experienced significant health insurance problems in recent years because of the change in their coverage status when mobilized to and demobilized from active duty. Many had to try to find new doctors who would take TRICARE when they were mobilized, and then switch providers again when reverting to their private health plan. Members called to war had to worry whether their families would get information about TRICARE, find a participating doctor, or encounter billing hassles. Too often, their worries proved well-founded.

The Senate responded by passing a plan to let drilling Guard and Reserve members enroll in TRICARE coverage year-round (for a fee) or elect to have the government pay part of their civilian insurance premium while mobilized. MOAA and virtually all other military and veterans' associations think such health coverage continuity is essential to protect Guard and Reserve families hurt by multiple mobilizations to fight our country's battles around the world.

If our national policy requires frequent mobilizations of the Guard and Reserve, we can't keep disrupting their families' health care. We can either build a retention tool or ignore a problem that causes many servicemembers to think twice about reenlisting. The Secretary is making the wrong choice here.

Issue 2: Discharge Petition Update

The signature total for Rep. Jim Marshall's (D-GA) concurrent receipt discharge petition remains at 201, but that doesn't mean the issue is going away-quite the opposite.

Legislators are being deluged by messages in support of the petition. Those co-sponsors of H.R. 303 who have not signed on are finding it harder and harder to explain their paradoxical behavior to their constituents. Many who haven't yet signed are putting pressure on the House leadership to work out a substantive concurrent receipt deal.

Now is no time to let up. If we want to see movement on concurrent receipt this year, we have to convince legislators that inaction is not an option. Non-signers are faced with a choice between deferring to their leadership or deferring to their constituents, and a flurry of messages is the best way to remind them which side is more important.