House subcommittee backs military pay hike

The House Armed Services Total Force Subcommittee approved its portion of the fiscal 2004 defense authorization bill Wednesday, recommending military pay raises and an increase in active-duty forces for the Army, Navy and Air Force.

The bill (H.R. 1588) would raise basic pay an average of 4.1 percent for members of the military, and provide "targeted increases" for mid-level and senior noncommissioned officers and select warrant officers "to enhance retention," said subcommittee chairman John McHugh, R-N.Y.

"The recommended increases continue Congress' commitment to reduce the pay gap between military and private-sector pay increases," McHugh said. "As a result, the gap would decrease from 6.4 percent to 5.5 percent."

The subcommittee's move may be an indication of the pay raise civilian employees in the Defense Department and domestic agencies will receive next year. Traditionally, Congress provides the same average increase to civilian workers that military service members receive.

The legislation, which the panel approved by voice vote, addresses emerging lessons learned from the war on terrorism and the war with Iraq, as well as "long-standing committee concerns about the inadequacy of military manpower," McHugh said.

"The legislative and funding initiatives ... enhance the ability of the active, national guard and reserves to operate as an integrated total force," McHugh added.

The legislation would authorize $291 million more than President Bush requested in his fiscal 2004 budget to increase the number of active forces in the Army, Navy and Air Force. McHugh said the bill calls for 6,240 more "active component strengths" than Bush's budget would provide.

"Even before Operation Iraqi Freedom, the global war on terrorism, and the commitment to homeland security, the armed forces had insufficient manpower for existing wartime and peacetime requirements," McHugh said. "Now, there is the certainty of the open-ended, long-term military manpower requirements of stabilizing Iraq and continuing the war on terrorism. What's more, there is the potential for new areas of engagement to emerge."

McHugh said the legislation would help the Army, Navy and Air Force address "high priority manpower shortfalls" in areas such as special operations, force protection, communications, intelligence and naval coastal warfare.

The legislation would add $43.4 million to Bush's budget request in order to sustain the growth of "full-time support" in the Army National Guard. The subcommittee also recommended increasing, by 2.2 percent, the number of reserves on active duty.

The bill also includes a controversial provision that would raise the retirement age for senior officers and eliminate term limits for the chairman and vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and other officers serving in top leadership positions.

Calling the current mandatory retirement age of 62 a "foolish waste of expertise," McHugh said the legislation would enable senior officers "with a lot of experience and knowledge" to continue serving in the military after they've reached that age.

Democrats opposed that provision, arguing that it could undermine lower-ranking officers' promotion opportunities. Democrats also maintained lawmakers had not had enough time to consider the provision.

"These are radical changes," said Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Calif. "I don't see what the big rush is. I think we do not understand the unintended consequences of doing this, and I think they are significant."

Tauscher offered an amendment to strike those "general officer" provisions from the bill, but Republicans defeated it on a 6-7 party-line vote.

A similar amendment by Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tenn., would have left term limits in place for the chairman and vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs and other top-ranking officials. But Cooper's amendment, which also would have eliminated a provision allowing the lateral transfer of general officers, failed by a 6-7 vote.

Rep. Vic Snyder, D-Ark., the panel's ranking member, offered an amendment to retain current term limits, with some modifications. But Snyder's amendment failed by voice vote.

Rep. Loretta Sanchez, D-Calif., tried unsuccessfully to modify a provision requiring the Defense secretary to appoint a civilian and military task force to examine sexual harassment and assault issues at the Naval Academy and the Army's Military Academy at West Point.

The provision would require the task force to report its findings to Congress after completing the one-year study. That report would have to be accompanied by a report from the Defense secretary on the effectiveness of corrective actions taken in response to allegations of sexual harassment and assault at the Air Force Academy.

"Based on both reports, the Congress will be in a better position to judge what additional action, if any, is required," McHugh said.

Sanchez' amendment would have required the task force to examine sexual harassment and assault issues at the Air Force Academy after completing its one-year investigation of those issues at the Naval Academy and West Point.

"If we tacked on an extra six months and allowed the task force to look at the Air Force [Academy] reports ... we would get much more out of this task force," Sanchez said.

But McHugh noted that four separate investigations into the allegations at the Air Force Academy are currently underway, and said "a whole lot of groundwork needs to be done" before Congress considers sending the task force to the Air Force Academy. The subcommittee then defeated Sanchez' amendment by a 5-6 vote.

But the panel did approve, by unanimous consent, two amendments by Del. Madeleine Bordallo, D-Guam. One of those amendments would give Guam, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa one additional nomination each for the service academies. Guam and the Virgin Islands would each be able to nominate three academy candidates under the amendment, and American Samoa would have two nominations.

The second Bordallo amendment would require senior enlisted members of the military to be treated in a similar manner to general and flag officers in the calculation of retirement pay.