thedrifter
10-18-05, 03:15 PM
Pay increase is sure thing, but Senate fight may delay bonuses
By Rick Maze
Marine Corps Times staff writer
As Congress dickers over the 2006 defense authorization bill, one thing is certain: The planned 3.1 percent across-the-board pay raise will appear in January paychecks, regardless of whether lawmakers finish the bill.
Doubts hang over the fate of many other military programs, including proposed increases in a variety of bonuses, special pays and other benefits. But the 2006 increase in basic pay cannot be held as a pawn in the battle over the defense bill because authority for the amount and timing of the raise is part of permanent law, according to defense officials and congressional aides.
The fact that the pay raise is on cruise control is not well-known, and could hurt efforts to complete work on the defense bill because many lawmakers believe troops will not get a pay raise unless the bill is passed - a situation that would allow the raise to become a political football in the squabbling over the bill.
That has happened in the past, but it will not this year because of a congressional order issued five years ago that sets military pay increases through 2006 at half a percentage point above any hike in average private-sector wages. Congress could deviate from that formula only if it approved additional pay increases, which occurred from 2000 through 2004 when the Pentagon sought, and Congress approved, targeted pay hikes for some ranks.
For 2006, the Bush administration is following the exact pay formula in law with the 3.1 percent raise, which is 0.5 percentage points greater than the increase in private-sector wages in 2004. The pending House and Senate versions of the 2006 defense authorization bill - the legislation that increases military pay and benefits along with setting policy for hundreds of other defense-related matters - includes no provisions that would alter the amount or timing of the raise.
"There are lots of things in doubt, but the pay raise is not one of them," said a House aide who works on military pay matters. The aide, who asked not to be identified, said Congress did not realize it was protecting the pay raise when it provided the blanket authorization for the pay formula in 1999.
Instead, the idea was to set a long-range policy for providing pay increases slightly larger than private-sector wage hikes in order to close a perceived gap between military and federal civilian pay.
The pay formula expires with the 2006 raise.
Paying for the raises
While the raise is assured, lawmakers still can argue that troops will be denied other boosts in allowances and benefits unless the authorization bill becomes law. Increases in special pays, enlistment and re-enlistment bonuses, continuation pays for officers, benefits for National Guard and reserve members, survivor and death benefits and pay for disabled retirees all are being discussed as part of the defense authorization bill.
The delay on the bill has led to sharp complaints from military advocates.
"This is very disconcerting," said Joseph Barnes of the Fleet Reserve Association, who also co-chairs the personnel and compensation panel of the Military Coalition, an umbrella group of more than 30 military-related associations.
"This is a major bill for people in the military, and it includes a lot of issues other than the pay raise that are important to pass in time of war," Barnes said.
Retired Army Maj. Gen. William Matz Jr., president of the National Association for Uniformed Services, said he understands the Senate has been busy with other issues but should not neglect the defense bill.
"We are very disappointed," he said. "I think it will be passed, but my concern is when and what will be in it."
"It is unconscionable when the nation is at war not to have a defense authorization bill," said retired Air Force Col. Steve Strobridge, of the Military Officer Association of America.
"There are all kinds of things in the House and Senate versions of the bill - increases in bonuses and special pays and death benefits - that are really worthwhile," said Strobridge, a former director of compensation for the Air Force. "How can this be anything but our No. 1 priority?"
Strobridge's group and other major military associations are urging their members to call and write Senate leaders to try to end a deadlock that began in July, when the bill was pulled after four days of debate because of concerns by Republican leaders and the White House about both the number and subjects of pending amendments.
The associations also are trying to get defense and service leaders to speak out about the importance of passing the defense bill, although military officials so far have been reluctant to complain about what is viewed as an internal congressional matter.
Sen. John Warner, R-Va., who, as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has primary responsibility for shepherding the bill through the Senate, tried but failed to attach it to other legislation Oct. 5, when once again the number and substance of pending amendments caused Republican leaders to oppose him.
Concerns over amendments
A major concern, but not the only one, is a push by Senate Democrats for an amendment that would create an independent commission to review the federal government's response to Hurricane Katrina, similar to the commission that studied the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
The White House opposes the idea, saying the administration can do its own internal reviews, and has pressed Republican leaders to prevent a vote.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., offered a deal that would have allowed the defense bill to be brought up for debate only if Republicans and Democrats were limited to offering 12 amendments each.
Democrats rejected that offer because it would have led to the withdrawal of hundreds of amendments, including some that would increase military and veterans' benefits.
Each side has taken to blaming the other for the impasse.
Strobridge said he understands the time required for the Senate to debate and vote on hundreds of amendments, but noted that this is hardly unusual.
"Every year, there are a couple of hundred amendments to the defense authorization bill in the Senate, and every year but this one, they have dealt with it," he said. "It's important that the Senate pass the bill so the legislative process can continue."
Once that happens, House and Senate negotiators will begin writing a compromise version in talks that will also include the White House and Pentagon in an effort to avoid any veto threats.
The negotiation process usually takes at least a month and can last even longer if significant differences of opinion exist.
By Rick Maze
Marine Corps Times staff writer
As Congress dickers over the 2006 defense authorization bill, one thing is certain: The planned 3.1 percent across-the-board pay raise will appear in January paychecks, regardless of whether lawmakers finish the bill.
Doubts hang over the fate of many other military programs, including proposed increases in a variety of bonuses, special pays and other benefits. But the 2006 increase in basic pay cannot be held as a pawn in the battle over the defense bill because authority for the amount and timing of the raise is part of permanent law, according to defense officials and congressional aides.
The fact that the pay raise is on cruise control is not well-known, and could hurt efforts to complete work on the defense bill because many lawmakers believe troops will not get a pay raise unless the bill is passed - a situation that would allow the raise to become a political football in the squabbling over the bill.
That has happened in the past, but it will not this year because of a congressional order issued five years ago that sets military pay increases through 2006 at half a percentage point above any hike in average private-sector wages. Congress could deviate from that formula only if it approved additional pay increases, which occurred from 2000 through 2004 when the Pentagon sought, and Congress approved, targeted pay hikes for some ranks.
For 2006, the Bush administration is following the exact pay formula in law with the 3.1 percent raise, which is 0.5 percentage points greater than the increase in private-sector wages in 2004. The pending House and Senate versions of the 2006 defense authorization bill - the legislation that increases military pay and benefits along with setting policy for hundreds of other defense-related matters - includes no provisions that would alter the amount or timing of the raise.
"There are lots of things in doubt, but the pay raise is not one of them," said a House aide who works on military pay matters. The aide, who asked not to be identified, said Congress did not realize it was protecting the pay raise when it provided the blanket authorization for the pay formula in 1999.
Instead, the idea was to set a long-range policy for providing pay increases slightly larger than private-sector wage hikes in order to close a perceived gap between military and federal civilian pay.
The pay formula expires with the 2006 raise.
Paying for the raises
While the raise is assured, lawmakers still can argue that troops will be denied other boosts in allowances and benefits unless the authorization bill becomes law. Increases in special pays, enlistment and re-enlistment bonuses, continuation pays for officers, benefits for National Guard and reserve members, survivor and death benefits and pay for disabled retirees all are being discussed as part of the defense authorization bill.
The delay on the bill has led to sharp complaints from military advocates.
"This is very disconcerting," said Joseph Barnes of the Fleet Reserve Association, who also co-chairs the personnel and compensation panel of the Military Coalition, an umbrella group of more than 30 military-related associations.
"This is a major bill for people in the military, and it includes a lot of issues other than the pay raise that are important to pass in time of war," Barnes said.
Retired Army Maj. Gen. William Matz Jr., president of the National Association for Uniformed Services, said he understands the Senate has been busy with other issues but should not neglect the defense bill.
"We are very disappointed," he said. "I think it will be passed, but my concern is when and what will be in it."
"It is unconscionable when the nation is at war not to have a defense authorization bill," said retired Air Force Col. Steve Strobridge, of the Military Officer Association of America.
"There are all kinds of things in the House and Senate versions of the bill - increases in bonuses and special pays and death benefits - that are really worthwhile," said Strobridge, a former director of compensation for the Air Force. "How can this be anything but our No. 1 priority?"
Strobridge's group and other major military associations are urging their members to call and write Senate leaders to try to end a deadlock that began in July, when the bill was pulled after four days of debate because of concerns by Republican leaders and the White House about both the number and subjects of pending amendments.
The associations also are trying to get defense and service leaders to speak out about the importance of passing the defense bill, although military officials so far have been reluctant to complain about what is viewed as an internal congressional matter.
Sen. John Warner, R-Va., who, as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has primary responsibility for shepherding the bill through the Senate, tried but failed to attach it to other legislation Oct. 5, when once again the number and substance of pending amendments caused Republican leaders to oppose him.
Concerns over amendments
A major concern, but not the only one, is a push by Senate Democrats for an amendment that would create an independent commission to review the federal government's response to Hurricane Katrina, similar to the commission that studied the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
The White House opposes the idea, saying the administration can do its own internal reviews, and has pressed Republican leaders to prevent a vote.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., offered a deal that would have allowed the defense bill to be brought up for debate only if Republicans and Democrats were limited to offering 12 amendments each.
Democrats rejected that offer because it would have led to the withdrawal of hundreds of amendments, including some that would increase military and veterans' benefits.
Each side has taken to blaming the other for the impasse.
Strobridge said he understands the time required for the Senate to debate and vote on hundreds of amendments, but noted that this is hardly unusual.
"Every year, there are a couple of hundred amendments to the defense authorization bill in the Senate, and every year but this one, they have dealt with it," he said. "It's important that the Senate pass the bill so the legislative process can continue."
Once that happens, House and Senate negotiators will begin writing a compromise version in talks that will also include the White House and Pentagon in an effort to avoid any veto threats.
The negotiation process usually takes at least a month and can last even longer if significant differences of opinion exist.