NDAA compromise on BAH---1% decrease in 2015...and then reassess next year

Negotiators Reach Compromise on Defense Authorization Bill

By Megan Scully, CQ Roll Call

 

House and Senate Armed Services committee leaders have signed off on a compromise version of the fiscal 2015 defense authorization bill that would grant the Pentagon some – but far from all – of its cost-saving proposals to rein in costs on weapons systems and scale back military benefits to pay for higher-priority items in an austere budget environment.

 

The House expects to vote on the bill later this week, and the Senate will likely follow suit next week, sending it to the president’s desk for signature before the clock on this session of Congress winds down. The negotiated bill is not a formal conference report, but committee leaders hope to shepherd it through both chambers without amendment.

 

The final bill, which will be filed in the House late Tuesday, would continue existing provisions blocking the closure of the military’s controversial detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a move that could ultimately provoke a veto by President Barack Obama.

 

As expected, the measure, which sets Pentagon policy and prescribes military spending levels, would grant the administration its requested authority to train and equip Syrian rebels, a mission first authorized in the continuing resolution that expires Dec. 11.

 

Leaders of the two committees had hoped to complete work on the bill before Thanksgiving, but negotiations stalled amid disagreement over the Defense Department proposals to increase over time some TRICARE pharmacy co-pays and reduce the basic housing allowance for military personnel. That could ultimately mean troops pay 5 percent of housing costs out of pocket.

 

The House-passed bill (HR 4435) would deny the Pentagon those requests, while the Senate Armed Services Committee reluctantly accepted the proposals because of the promised cost savings in their version of the measure (S 2410). The final bill would split the difference, including a "one-time modest increase" of $3 for pharmacy co-pays for retail prescriptions and mail-order non-generic prescriptions, according to a summary of the bill prepared by House Armed Services Committee Democrats and obtained by CQ Roll call.

 

The bill also would require that all non-generic prescription maintenance medications be filled through military treatment facility pharmacies or the national mail-order pharmacy program beginning next October.

 

In addition, the bill includes a 1 percent decrease to the basic housing allowance in 2015, but would not adjust the allowance in later years.

 

The goal, a senior House Armed Services Committee aide said, was to save some money upfront while not committing to a long-term personnel cost-saving plan until the much-anticipated commission on military compensation and benefits reports back to Congress early next year.

 

"We all recognize we have to provide some savings, but we wanted to make sure we weren't getting so far out in front," the aide said.

 

Arizona Republican John McCain, who will take the gavel of the Senate Armed Services Committee in the next Congress, said the compromise language would give lawmakers a chance to analyze the commission’s report before deciding any long-term cuts to military benefits.

 

"The key here is to make sure we keep our promises that have been made to people who have served our country, and secondly that we continue to have incentives for others to want to serve by having a good set of robust benefits," he said.

Weapons Systems

 

The Air Force won a modest victory in its ongoing campaign to retire its fleet of A-10 Warthog close-air support aircraft over heavy congressional resistance.

 

The bill would prohibit any A-10 retirements in fiscal 2015 while allowing the Defense Department to place up to 36 aircraft into "backup inventory status," which is a reduced operating posture but not an outright retirement, according to the summary.

 

To take advantage of that exception, the Defense secretary must complete a study to determine whether the Air Force has enough personnel to maintain the A-10s and its other aircraft.

 

In their bills, both chambers rejected the Air Force’s proposal, which started with standing down an initial tranche of 110 or the aircraft in fiscal 2015. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have argued that the aircraft are critical to protecting combat troops on the ground.

 

In recent briefings on Capitol Hill, Air Force officials have warned lawmakers and staff that they must retire at least 72 of the airframes this year to prevent reverberating effects on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program.

 

The Air Force says it needs to reassign maintenance teams from A-10 squadrons to the F-35 in order to keep the Air Force’s version of the stealth fighter on track for "initial operational capability," a key milestone set for fiscal 2016.

 

If they can’t get those maintenance personnel trained on the F-35 in the coming months, service officials have warned that the stealth fighters will essentially be parked on the runway, going unused.

 

"The Air Force came in and expressed real concerns about their ability to maintain other aircraft in the fleet if we did that whole package, and so we preserved the option of some relief," a senior Senate Armed Services Committee aide said.

 

To keep the A-10s flying, the bill would authorize $334 million in the base budget for the fleet.

 

The final bill, meanwhile, would let the Navy modernize two cruisers starting in fiscal 2015 and allow them to reduce the crew size while they’re being modernized.

 

The Navy had proposed taking 11 cruisers — half the fleet — out of service for modernization. The House bill denied the Navy’s proposal, but Senate Armed Services agreed to the plan, which Navy officials have said would extend the lives of the modernized ships into the 2040s.

 

The updated cruisers would ultimately replace the ships that do not go through modernization. But the proposal has raised concerns on Capitol Hill, just months after lawmakers rejected for the second time a Navy proposal to decommission seven of the service’s cruisers years before they were expected to leave service.

 

The Navy has taken an aggressive stance on the issue, circulating a paper this spring that slammed the House Armed Services' position and argued it would cost the service billions of dollars and ultimately damage the fleet’s readiness and modernization plans.

 

"Unfortunately, Congress failed to take advantage of the full savings and extension of service life that would have resulted from the Navy’s phased modernization plan" for the cruisers, according to the House Democratic summary of the bill.

 

In other weapons programs, the bill would authorize an additional $450 million for five additional EA-18G Growlers and provide $800 million for incremental funding for the LPD-28 amphibious ship that was not requested by the Pentagon.

 

Meanwhile, the bill would deny the Pentagon's request to stand down seven E-3 Airborne Warning and Control System aircraft. The bill also would preemptively block any moves by the Air Force to retire its U-2 spy planes and the MQ-1 Predator drones by prohibiting their retirement.

Army Guard

 

One of the most contentious proposals in the Pentagon's fiscal 2015 budget request was the Army’s plans to move the Army Guard's 192 AH-64 Apache attack helicopters to the active component.

 

The final bill would bar any transfer of Apache aircraft in fiscal 2015 but allow the Army to begin preparing for the moves. The bill also includes Senate language that would allow the Army to transfer up to 48 of the aircraft in fiscal 2016.

 

"In effect, the language allows the Army to begin its Aviation Restructuring Initiative in [fiscal 2016], but leaves a decision on its completion to the next Congress," according to the summary.

 

The bill also would create a commission to study the Army's future. The commission, which will have four members appointed by the president and four appointed by Congress, would report back to lawmakers by Feb. 1, 2016, in time to inform negotiations on the fiscal 2017 budget request.

 

The Army’s proposal has drawn a backlash from governors and National Guard officials across the country who have argued it would take the combat aviation mission away from the Army Guard.

Guantánamo

 

Committee aides said the bill would maintain the "status quo" on Guantánamo , a major blow to the White House's years-long efforts to shutter the facility.

 

The Senate Armed Services included compromise language in its legislation that would have opened the door slightly to the possibility of eventually closing the Guantánamo prison, but that was scuttled during the negotiations amid resistance from House lawmakers.

 

As they have done in the past, White House officials have said Obama would veto the bill if it includes language blocking  closure of the detention center.

 

"Operating the detention facility at Guantánamo weakens our national security by draining resources, damaging our relationships with key allies and partners and emboldening violent extremists," the White House said in a statement of administration policy on the House’s version of the defense bill.

 

But the White House has never followed through on its veto threats and McKeon and other committee Republicans have indicated they are unwilling to budge much on the issue.