FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act:
Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
Don J. Jansen, Coordinator
Analyst in Defense Health Care Policy
Lawrence Kapp
Specialist in Military Manpower Policy
David F. Burrelli
Specialist in Military Manpower Policy
Charles A. Henning
Specialist in Military Manpower Policy
July 17, 2009
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R40711
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
Summary
Military personnel issues typically generate significant interest from many Members of Congress
and their staffs. Ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with the emerging
operational role of the Reserve Components, further heighten interest in a wide range of military
personnel policies and issues.
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) selected a number of the military personnel issues
considered in deliberations on the House-passed version of the National Defense Authorization
Act for FY2010. This report provides a brief synopsis of sections that pertain to personnel policy.
It includes background information and a discussion of the issue, along with a table that contains
a comparison of the bill (H.R. 2647) passed by the House on June 25, 2009, and the bill (S. 1390)
introduced and reported to the full Senate on July 2, 2009. The column for S. 1390 will be
updated following Senate action on the bill. A third column will be completed after action on a
final version by both chambers. Where appropriate, other CRS products are identified to provide
more detailed background information and analysis of the issue. For each issue, a CRS analyst is
identified and contact information is provided. Note: some issues were addressed in the FY2009
National Defense Authorization Act and discussed in CRS Report RL34590, FY2009 National
Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues, coordinated by Lawrence
Kapp, concerning that legislation. Those issues that were previously considered in CRS Report
RL34590, FY2009 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
are designated with a “*” in the relevant section titles of this report.
This report focuses exclusively on the annual defense authorization process. It does not include
appropriations, veterans’ affairs, tax implications of policy choices or any discussion of separately
introduced legislation.
Congressional Research Service
FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
Contents
*Active Duty End Strengths ........................................................................................................ 2
*Military Pay Raise..................................................................................................................... 4
Expansion of Concurrent Receipt ................................................................................................ 5
Prohibition on Recruiting or Retaining Individuals Associated with Hate Groups ........................ 6
Chiropractic Health Care for Members on Active Duty................................................................ 7
Tricare Coverage for Certain Members of the Retired Reserve Who Are Not Yet Age 60 ............. 8
Earlier TRICARE Eligibility for Certain Reservists..................................................................... 9
Dental Care for Survivors.......................................................................................................... 10
Prohibition on Conversions of Military Medical Positions to Civilian and Dental
Positions ................................................................................................................................ 11
Cooperative Health Care Agreements between Military Installations and Non-Military
Health Care Systems .............................................................................................................. 12
*Sexual Assault......................................................................................................................... 13
*Government Accountability Office Report on the Progress Made in Implementing
Recommendations to Reduce Domestic Violence in Military Families .................................... 14
*Internship Pilot Program for Military Spouses ......................................................................... 15
Language Training Centers........................................................................................................ 16
Tables
Table 1. Authorized Active Duty End Strengths ......................................................................... 3
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 17
Congressional Research Service
FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
Each year, the Senate and House Armed Services Committees report their respective versions of
the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). These bills contain numerous provisions that
affect military personnel, retirees and their family members. Provisions in one version are often
not included in another; are treated differently; or, in certain cases, are identical. Following
passage of these bills by the respective legislative bodies, a Conference Committee is typically
convened to resolve the various differences between the House and Senate versions.
In the course of a typical authorization cycle, congressional staffs receive many constituent
requests for information on provisions contained in the annual NDAA. This report highlights
those personnel-related issues that seem to generate the most intense congressional and
constituent interest, and tracks their status in the FY2010 House and Senate versions of the
NDAA. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, H.R. 2647, was introduced
on June 2, 2009, reported by the House Committee on Armed Services on June 18, 2009 (H.Rept.
111-166), and passed by the House on June 25, 2009. In the Senate, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, S. 1390, was introduced and reported (S.Rept. 111-35) to
the full Senate on July 2, 2009. The entries under the headings “House-passed version (H.R.
2647)” and “Senate reported version (S. 1390)” in the following pages are based on language in
these bills, unless otherwise indicated. The entries under the heading “Final version ”will be
completed when a final bill is enacted.
Where appropriate, other CRS products are identified to provide more detailed background
information and analysis of the issue. For each issue, a CRS analyst is identified and contact
information is provided. Note: some issues were addressed in the FY2009 National Defense
Authorization Act and discussed in CRS Report RL34590, FY2009 National Defense
Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues concerning that legislation. Those
issues that were previously considered in CRS Report RL34590, FY2009 National Defense
Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues, are designated with a “*” in the
relevant section titles of this report.
Congressional Research Service
1
FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
*Active Duty End Strengths
Background: The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (P.L. 110-181)
authorized the Army to grow by 65,000 and the Marine Corps by 27,000, to respective end
strengths of 547,400 and 202,000 by FY2012. Successful recruiting efforts, aided by a downturn
in the U.S. economy, enabled the Army and Marine Corps to achieve these new end strength
targets three years earlier than originally projected. Even with these increases, the nation’s armed
forces, especially the Army and Marine Corps, continue to experience high deployment rates.
With relatively stable operations in Iraq and a significant increase in the number of
servicemembers deployed to Afghanistan during 2009, some members of Congress and a number
of observers have recommended a further increase in end strength, especially for the Army.
House-passed version
Senate-reported version
(H.R. 2647)
(S. 1390)
Final Version
Section 401 authorizes a total
Section 401 of the Senate bill is
baseline FY2010 end strength of
virtually identical to section 401 of the
1,410,000 including 547,400 for
House bill.
the Army, 328,800 for the Navy,
202,100 for the Marine Corps,
and 331,700 for the Air Force.
Section 403 authorizes for each of Section 402 of the Senate bill also
fiscal years (FYs) 2011 and 2012,
authorizes a temporary increase for
an active-duty end strength for
the Army in each of FYs 2011 and
the Army at a number greater
2012 of 30,000 over the 2010 baseline
than the number otherwise
authorized by law up to the fiscal-
year 2010 baseline plus 30,000.
Discussion: With increased concern over the “dwell time” provided to servicemembers between
deployments and the projected end of the Army’s Stop Loss program in January 2010, service end
strengths remain a high visibility issue. Both 2010 national defense authorization bills provide the
same increases to baseline end strength (please see table below) and also allow the Army
temporary increases of 30,000 over the 2010 baseline in each of FYs 2011 and 2012.
Congressional Research Service
2
FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
Table 1. Authorized Active Duty End Strengths
2010 (H.R. 2647 and S.
2008 (P.L. 110-181)
2009 (P.L. 110-417)
1033)
Baseline Army
525,400
532,400
547,400
Baseline Navy
329,098
326,323
328,800
Baseline Marine Corps
189,000
194,000
202,100
Baseline Air Force
329,563
317,050
331,700
Baseline
Subtotal
1,373,061 1,369,773 1,410,000
Temporary Army
22,000*
22,000*
Temp. Marine Corps
13,000*
13,000*
Temporary Subtotal
35,000
35,000
Grand
Total
1,408,061 1,404,773 1,445,000
* Temporary additional authority for 2009 and 2010 provided by section 403 of P.L. 110-181.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates the cost to DOD of the 2010 baseline increase
to be $31 billion over the 2010-2014 period. CBO further estimates that the 30,000 temporary
increase in Army active-duty end strength in 2011 and 2012 authorized by sections 403 in the
House bill and 402 in the Senate bill will raise costs for salaries and other expenses by roughly $2
billion in 2011, $4 billion in 2012, and $2 billion in 2013.
References: Previously discussed in CRS Report RL34590, FY2009 National Defense
Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues, coordinated by Lawrence Kapp,
page 5. See also CRS Report R40121, U.S. Military Stop Loss Program: Key Questions and
Answers, by Charles A. Henning.
CRS Point of Contact (POC): Charles Henning, x7-8866.
Congressional Research Service
3
FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
*Military Pay Raise
Background: Ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, highlighted by the significant
increase in the number of servicemembers deployed to Afghanistan, continue to focus interest on
the military pay raise. Title 37 U.S.C. 1009 provides a permanent formula for an automatic annual
military pay raise that indexes the raise to the annual increase in the Employment Cost Index
(ECI). The FY2010 President’s Budget request for a 2.9% percent military pay raise was
consistent with this formula. However, Congress, in FYs 2004, 2005, 2006, 2008, and 2009
approved the pay raise as the ECI increase plus 0.5 percent. The FY2007 pay raise was equal to
the ECI.
House-passed version
Senate-reported version
(H.R. 2647)
(S. 1390)
Final Version
Section 601 supports a 3.4
Section 601 of the Senate bill is
percent (0.5 percent above the
virtually identical to section 601 of the
President’s Budget) across-the-
House bill.
board pay raise that would be
effective January 1, 2010.
Discussion: A military pay raise larger than the permanent formula is not uncommon. In addition
to “across-the-board” pay raises for all military personnel, mid-year, “targeted” pay raises
(targeted at specific grades and longevity) have also been authorized over the past several years.
This year’s proposed legislation includes no mention of targeted pay raises. The Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) estimates the incremental cost of this larger raise would be about $350
million in 2010 and $2.3 billion over the 2010-2014 period.
Reference: Previously discussed in CRS Report RL34590, FY2009 National Defense
Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues, coordinated by Lawrence Kapp,
page 6. See also CRS Report RL33446, Military Pay and Benefits: Key Questions and Answers,
by Charles A. Henning.
CRS Point of Contact (POC): Charles Henning, x7-8866.
Congressional Research Service
4
FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
Expansion of Concurrent Receipt
Background: “Concurrent receipt” means to receive both military retirement benefits and
disability compensation. This practice was forbidden by law until 2004. The first concurrent
receipt legislation was enacted in FY2003, and successive legislation since then has extended
concurrent receipt to additional populations and further modified the program. There are two
common criteria that define eligibility for concurrent receipt: (1) all recipients must be military
retirees and (2) they must also be eligible for VA disability compensation. Beyond these common
criteria, there are separate and distinct components: (1) Combat-Related Special Compensation
(CRSC) for those with service-verified combat disabilities and (2) Concurrent Retirement and
Disability Payments (CRDP) for those with service-connected disabilities. A retiree cannot
receive both CRSC and CRDP. At present, all disabled retirees with combat-related disabilities
rated at 10% or greater are eligible for CRSC. However, two groups of retirees with service-
connected disabilities are not currently eligible: (1) Chapter 61 retirees (a reference to the chapter
of Title 10 that governs disability retirement) who were determined to be unfit for continued
military service and generally due to service-connected (CRDP) disabilities prior to completing
20 years of service, and (2) longevity retirees (those with 20 or more years of service) who have
service-connected (CRDP) disabilities rated at 40% or less.
The President’s FY2010 Budget request proposed concurrent receipt expansion similar to that in
H.R. 2647. The House report on the FY2010 NDAA (H.Rept. 111-166) did not initially include
the provision. It was introduced separately as H.R. 2990, which passed the House on June 24,
2009. H.Res. 573, the rule which provided for consideration of H.R. 2647, added the text of H.R.
2990 to the end of H.R. 2647 where it appears as Division D.
House-passed version
Senate-reported version
(H.R. 2647)
(S. 1390)
Final Version
Section 121 of Division D includes No similar provision.
a phased expansion of concurrent
receipt eligibility that would
provide CRDP to Chapter 61
military retirees. In 2010 this
would include those with
disabilities rated as either 90 or
100% disabled; in 2011 to those
rated at 70 or 80%; in 2012 to
those rated at 50 or 60%; in 2013
to those rated at 30 or 40%; in
2014 to al Chapter 61 retirees
with a disability rating
Discussion: The House version of this proposed expansion of concurrent receipt represents a
temporary, one-year program that would become effective on January 1, 2010. Many supporters
of expanding concurrent receipt have expressed concern with the House version due to its scope
and implementation.
Reference: CRS Report R40589, Concurrent Receipt: Background and Issues for Congress, by
Charles A. Henning.
CRS Point of Contact (POC): Charles Henning, x7-8866.
Congressional Research Service
5
FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
Prohibition on Recruiting or Retaining Individuals
Associated with Hate Groups
Background: While the Department of Defense and the Military Services have regulations
prohibiting the recruiting or retention of those who participate in extremist activities,1 critics have
argued that the military has not effectively enforced these provisions, leading to the infiltration of
violent extremists—including white supremacists—into the armed forces. Defense officials have
stated that racist or extremist behaviors are not tolerated in the military.
House-passed version
Senate reported-version
(H.R. 2647)
(S. 1390)
Final Version
Section 524 amends 10 USC 504 to
No similar provision.
specify that “A person associated or
affiliated with a group associated
with hate-related violence against
groups or persons or the United
States government, as determined by
the Attorney General may not be
recruited, enlisted, or retained in the
armed forces” It prohibits recruiters
from enlisting anyone associated
with a hate group. It also requires
the immediate discharge of military
personnel found to be associated
with a hate group, though it provides
an exception for those who have
renounced a previous association.
Discussion: The House provision would statutorily prohibit the recruitment, enlistment, or
retention of individuals who are associated with a “group associated with hate-related violence”
or a “hate group.” These terms are defined to encompass seven meanings, the broadest of which
appears to be “groups or organizations engaged in criminal gang activity including drug and
weapons trafficking and smuggling.” The provision specifies the evidence—such as tattoos,
meeting attendance, online activity, and written material—which demonstrate hate group
association. Those already in the military who have renounced a previous affiliation with a hate
group are exempted from separation. There is no exemption for those seeking to join the military
who have renounced a previous affiliation; this could affect recruiting in neighborhoods where
some form of criminal gang affiliation by teenagers is relatively common. The language of this
provision and its location at 10 USC 504—the section of the U.S. Code which covers persons not
qualified for enlistment—appear to limit its effect only to enlisted personnel, not officers.2
Reference(s): None
CRS Point of Contact (POC): Lawrence Kapp, x7-7609 and Dave Burrelli at x7-8033.
1 DOD Directive 1325.6, 3.5.8; Army Regulation (AR) 600-20, 4-12; AR 601-210, 4-2(e)(i)(a)(9); Navy Regulations,
Ch. 11, Art. 1167; Navy Recruiting Command Instruction 1130.8H, Vol I, Ch. 1, Sec. 4, p. 4; Air Force Instruction
(AFI) 51-903, 5; AFI 36-2002, Att. 2; Marine Corps Order (MCO) 5370.4B; MCO P1100.72C, 3-85, 3-146 to 148.
2 However, current law requires all newly appointed regular officers to be of “good moral character” (10 U.S.C. 532)
and provides for the separation of regular officers for misconduct or moral dereliction (10 USC 1181).
Congressional Research Service
6
FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
Chiropractic Health Care for Members on Active
Duty
Background: Chiropractic is a health care approach that focuses on the relationship between the
body’s structure—mainly the spine—and its functioning. Although practitioners may use a variety
of treatment approaches, they primarily perform adjustments to the spine or other parts of the
body with the goal of correcting alignment problems and supporting the body’s natural ability to
heal itself. Research to expand the scientific understanding of chiropractic treatment is ongoing.
Section 702 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001
(P.L. 106-398) established the Chiropractic Care Program, replacing the former Chiropractic
Health Care Demonstration Program (CHCDP) that ended in Sept. 1999. Under this program 60
military clinics and hospitals currently provide chiropractic care to active duty service members.
The current Chiropractic Care Program is only available to active duty service members at
designated military treatment facilities. A service member’s primary care manager determines if
chiropractic care is appropriate. Family members, retirees and their family members, unremarried
former spouses and survivors are not eligible for chiropractic care. They may be referred to non-
chiropractic health care services in the military health system (e.g., physical therapy or
orthopedics) or may seek chiropractic care in the local community at their own expense.
House-passed version
Senate-reported version
(H.R. 2647)
(S. 1390)
Final Version
Section 702 would require the
No
similar
provision.
Secretary of Defense to provide
chiropractic services and benefits as
a permanent part of the Defense
Health Program, including the
Tricare program for all active duty
service members.
The Secretary would also be
authorized to conduct one or more
demonstration projects to provide
chiropractic services to deployed
members of the uniformed services.
Discussion: The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that about 900,000, or roughly
two thirds, of the 1.4 million active-duty members are currently able to receive chiropractic
services. CBO estimates that extending chiropractic care to the remainder of the active-duty
population would result in 160,000 additional visits to chiropractors each year, at a net cost of
about $55 per visit, or about $9 million per year. CBO also estimates such the chiropractic
demonstration program for deployed troops would cost about $12 million over a five-year period,
based on cost data from previous DOD chiropractic demonstration programs. In total, CBO
estimates that section 702 would cost $53 million over the 2010-2014 period.
Reference(s): None.
CRS Point of Contact (POC): Don Jansen, x7-4769
Congressional Research Service
7
FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
Tricare Coverage for Certain Members of the
Retired Reserve Who Are Not Yet Age 60
Background: Under current law, reserve component members who have completed 20 years of
service but have not yet reached the age of 60 (so called “grey-area” retirees), are not eligible for
Tricare benefits. This has traditionally been the policy because the individuals in this category of
“working-age,” were assumed to be able to obtain health insurance from their civilian employer.
House-passed version
Senate-reported version
(H.R. 2647)
(S. 1390)
Final Version
Section 704 would amend Chapter
Section 701 includes a similar provision.
55 of title 10 of the United States
Code by inserting a new section
1076e. The new section would
extend Tricare standard coverage
for certain members of the retired
reserve who are qualified for a non-
regular retirement but are not yet
age 60. Eligible members would be
required to pay premiums
beneficiaries would be required to
pay premiums equal to the cost of
coverage as determined by the
Secretary of Defense on an
appropriate actuarial basis.
Discussion: The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates the net cost to the government of
this new program should be “insignificant over the long-run.” DOD would incur start-up costs
estimated to total about $15 million over the 2010-2011 period.
Reference(s): None.
CRS Point of Contact (POC): Don Jansen, x7-4769
Congressional Research Service
8
FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
Earlier TRICARE Eligibility for Certain Reservists
Background: Since September 11, 2001, the United States has activated hundreds of thousands
of reservists for service in the United States, Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. In response to this,
both Congress and the executive branch have taken a variety of actions to smooth the transition of
reservists from civilian to military status and back. In 2003, Congress provided reservists with
early access to Tricare for reservists for up to 90 days prior to the projected date of activation if
they had received “delayed-effective-date active-duty orders.” “Delayed-effective-date active-
duty orders” were defined as “an order to active duty for a period of more than 30 days in support
of a contingency operation under a provision of law referred to in section 101(a)(13)(B) of [Title
10] that provides for active duty service to begin under such order on a date after the date of the
issuance of the order.”
House-passed version
Senate-reported version
(H.R. 2647)
(S. 1390)
Final Version
Section 706 amends 10 USC 1074 to No similar provision
extend the period of early TRICARE
coverage from a maximum of 90
days to a maximum of 180 days prior
to the projected date of activation if
they have received “delayed-
effective- date active-duty orders” or
if they have received official
notification from their Service
Secretary that such orders are
forthcoming.
Discussion: The House provision extends the period of early Tricare access to as much as 180
days prior to the projected activation date and provides such access upon “official notification”
that orders are forthcoming. “Official notification” is defined as “a memorandum from the
Secretary concerned that notifies a unit or a member of a reserve component of the armed forces
that such unit or member shall receive a delayed-effective-date active-duty order.”
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates this expanded authority would cost about $92
million in 2010. In total, CBO estimates that section 706 would cost $347 million over the 2010-
2014 period.
Reference(s): CRS Report RL33537, Military Medical Care: Questions and Answers, by Don J.
Jansen
CRS Point of Contact (POC): Lawrence Kapp, x7-7609
Congressional Research Service
9
FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
Dental Care for Survivors
Background: Under current law (10 U.S.C. 1076a(k)(3)) a dependent enrolled in the Tricare
dental program is no longer eligible for coverage after the end of the three-year period beginning
on the date of the death of the member upon which the dependent’s eligibility was based. Unlike
other survivor eligibility standards, exceptions are not provided for children until they reach age
21 or age 23 if enrolled in college.
House-passed version
Senate-reported version
(H.R. 2647)
(S. 1390)
Final
Version
Section 703 would amend 10
Section 702 also would amend
U.S.C 1076a(k) to extend Tricare
10 U.S.C 1076a(k) to extend
dental benefits to the survivors of
Tricare dental benefits to the
members who die on active duty
survivors of members who die
until they reach the age of 21, or,
on active duty until they reach
if they are still enrolled in college,
the age of 21, or, if they are still
age 23.
enrolled in college, age 23.
Discussion: This provision is intended to expand survivor eligibility under the Tricare dental
program so that it matches other Tricare survivor eligibility standards. CBO estimates this section
would allow about 7,000 additional survivors to receive dental benefits through the Tricare
program each year, at an annual cost of about $300 per person for an overall cost to DOD of $2
million per year.
Reference(s): None
CRS Point of Contact (POC): Don Jansen, x7-4769
Congressional Research Service
10
FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
Prohibition on Conversions of Military Medical
Positions to Civilian and Dental Positions
Background: In previous years the Defense Health Program appropriations request budgeted for
savings to be achieved by converting military medical positions to civilian positions. H.Rept. 111-
166 states without explanation that such conversions have had an adverse impact on the military
health system. Section 721 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (P.L.
110-181) prohibited such conversions and required that any unfilled positions slotted for
conversion be restored to a military position. The Department of Defense budgeted for these
restorations in its 2010 appropriations request.
House-passed version
Senate-reported version
(H.R. 2647)
(S. 1390)
Final Version
Section 701 provides that the
No
similar
provision.
Secretary of a military
department may not convert any
military medical or dental position
to a civilian medical or dental
position.
In the case of any military medical
or dental position that was
converted to a civilian medical or
dental position during the period
beginning on October 1, 2004,
and ending on September 30,
2008, if the position was not filled
by a civilian by September 30,
2008, the Secretary of the military
department concerned must
restore the position to a military
position that may be filled only by
a member of the Armed Forces
who is a health professional.
Discussion: This section would indefinitely extend a prohibition on conversions of military
medical and dental positions to civilian positions. The provision reenacts section 721 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (P.L. 110-181) but without an end date.
The Bush Administration had opposed prohibitions on conversions saying that they would
eliminate the flexibility of the Secretary of Defense to use converted positions to enhance the
strength of operating units and would have an adverse impact on all the services, especially
the Army. Previous DOD budgets had recognized annual savings in excess of $200 million
from conversions.
Reference(s): None.
CRS Point of Contact (POC): Don Jansen, x7-4769
Congressional Research Service
11
FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
Cooperative Health Care Agreements Between
Military Installations and Non-Military Health Care
Systems
Background: Congress has enacted several provisions over the years to allow for the
establishment of cooperative health care arrangements between military installations and local
and regional non-military health care systems. Section 721 of the Ronald W. Reagan National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (P.L. 108-375) required the Secretary of Defense
to conduct a pilot program at two or more installations for the purpose of testing initiatives that
build cooperative health care arrangements and agreements between military installations, and
local and regional non-military health care systems.
Section 707 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (P.L. 110-181)
extended the pilot program through 2010 and pushed back the due date for a required final report
describing the results of the program with recommendations for a model health care delivery
system for other military installations until July 1, 2010.
DOD submitted an interim report on the two pilot programs it established under this authority to
Congress on July 30, 2007.3 This report provided an overview of a pilot project at Fort Drum, NY,
and at Yuma, AZ, where there is a Marine Corps facility and an Army proving ground.
House-passed version
Senate-reported version
(H.R. 2647)
(S. 1390)
Final
Version
Section 705 would
No
similar
provision.
authorize the Secretary of
Defense to establish
cooperative health care
arrangements and
agreements between
military installations and
local and regional non-
military health care systems.
Discussion: Cooperative arrangements between DOD and non-military health care systems may
offer opportunities to increase access to care for Tricare beneficiaries and to leverage Federal
health care resources in medically underserved areas by allowing support for hospitals and other
facilities in areas that might not feasibly support both a military health care facility and other
facilities. Unlike previous provisions, section 705 is not-time limited.
Reference(s): None
CRS Point of Contact (POC): Don Jansen, x7-4769
3 Available at:
http://www.tricare.mil/planning/congress/downloads/20070830/2007%20Reports%20to%20Congress/131553-
Update_to_Congress_on_the_Pilot_Program_for_Health_Care_Delivery_-_Coordinations_-_SIGNED.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
12
FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
*Sexual Assault
Background: DOD affords the victims of sexual assault the option of confidential reporting of
assaults to specified individuals and services including medical care, counseling and victim
advocacy, without initiating an investigation.
House-passed version
Senate-reported version
(H.R. 2647)
(S. 1390)
Final Version
The House Armed Services
No
similar
provision
Committee Report (H.Rept. 111-
116) notes that the committee is
concerned that when a sexual
assault report is made to certain
individuals (e.g. commanders, law
enforcement) by someone other
than the victim, the report may
trigger an investigation regardless
of the victim’s desire for
confidentiality. The committee
directs the Secretary of Defense
to develop a procedure to
provide the victim with
confidentiality in cases where the
assault is reported by someone
other than the victim or other
individuals covered under
confidential reporting. The
Committee also directs the
Secretary to report on the
availability and adequacy of
proper care for victims of sexual
assault.
Discussion: The new procedure described in the House Report would allow alleged victims of
sexual assault to seek assistance while protecting the desire for confidentiality in instances where
the alleged assault is reported by a non-covered individual. The Senate bill does not contain a
similar provision. However, section 571 of the Senate bill would amend section 576(e)(1) of the
Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (P.L. 108-375) to
change the due date of a required report regarding sexual assaults due by December 1, 2009.
Reference(s): None.
CRS Point of Contact (POC): David F. Burrelli, x7-8033
Congressional Research Service
13
FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
*Government Accountability Office Report on the
Progress Made in Implementing Recommendations
to Reduce Domestic Violence in Military Families
Background: On May 24, 2006, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a
report entitled, “Progress Made in Implementing Recommendations to Reduce Domestic
Violence, but Further Management Action Needed (GAO-06-540).”
House-passed version
Senate-reported version
(H.R. 2647)
(S. 1390)
Final
Version
Section 582 would require the
No
similar
provision.
Comptroller General to review
and assess the progress of the
Department of Defense in
implementing the
recommendations contained in
GAO report GAO-06-540, and to
submit a report containing the
results of the review and
assessment to the congressional
defense committees.
Discussion: Issues affecting military families have been of particular interest to Congress. The
review and assessment of recommendations concerning domestic violence affords both Congress
and the DOD an opportunity to stay up to date on this issue.
Reference(s): CRS Report RL34590, FY2009 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected
Military Personnel Policy Issues, coordinated by Lawrence Kapp, page 21.
CRS Point of Contact (POC): David F. Burrelli, x7-8033
Congressional Research Service
14
FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
*Internship Pilot Program for Military Spouses
Background: Many military spouses desire and seek employment. Obtaining such employment,
much less a career, is often hampered by frequent moves. It has been suggest that some
employers discriminate against military spouses in the hiring process because of their relatively
high turnover.
House-passed version
Senate-reported version
(H.R. 2647)
(S. 1390)
Final Version
Section 581 establishes an
No
similar
provision.
internship pilot program and
reporting requirement for certain
military spouses to obtain federal
employment that could lead to
career portability and
enhancement
Discussion: This provision authorizes the Secretary of Defense to enter into agreements with the
heads of other federal agencies that have established internship programs to reimburse the agency
costs associated with the first year of employment of an eligible military spouse who is selected
to participate in the agency’s internship program. All spouses would be eligible except for those
that are legally separated, already on active duty, or retired from the military.
Reference(s): CRS Report RL34590, FY2009 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected
Military Personnel Policy Issues, coordinated by Lawrence Kapp, page 10.
CRS Point of Contact (POC): David F. Burrelli, x7-8033
Congressional Research Service
15
FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
Language Training Centers
Background: In recent years, both Congress and the Department of Defense have shown
significant interest in increasing the ability of military personnel to operate in foreign countries by
enhancing their cultural knowledge and foreign language proficiency. However, building these
language and cultural skills has proven challenging due to the intensive study required for
mastery and the competing demands of other training and operational requirements for currently
serving personnel.
House-passed version
Senate-reported version
(H.R. 2647)
(S. 1390)
Final Version
Section 534 requires the Secretary
No similar provision
of Defense to establish “at least
three Language Training Centers at
accredited universities, senior
military colleges, or similar
institutions of higher education to
create the foundational critical and
strategic language and regional area
expertise....” Members of the armed
forces, including reservists and
ROTC candidates, and DOD civilian
employees are authorized to
participate. Language Training
Centers must be established by
October 1, 2010; program authority
expires on September 30, 2015.
Discussion: The House provision would require the establishment of at least three Language
Training Centers, who purpose would be: 1) to graduate military and DOD civilian personnel
with critical and strategic language skills; 2) to develop language proficiency training programs in
critical and strategic languages to meet operational needs; 3) to develop alternative language
training delivery systems; 4) to develop critical and strategic language programs for use in ROTC
units; 5) to develop programs to increase the number of language instructors in the military; and
6) to develop program to encourage native speakers of critical and strategic languages to serve in
the Department of Defense or the Civilian Linguist Reserve Corps. The Language Training
Centers are also authorized to “partner with elementary and secondary educational institutions to
help develop critical and strategic language skills in student who may pursue a military career.”
Reference(s): None.
CRS Point of Contact (POC): Lawrence Kapp, x7-7609
Congressional Research Service
16
FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues
Author Contact Information
Don J. Jansen, Coordinator
David F. Burrelli
Analyst in Defense Health Care Policy
Specialist in Military Manpower Policy
djansen@crs.loc.gov, 7-4769
dburrelli@crs.loc.gov, 7-8033
Lawrence Kapp
Charles A. Henning
Specialist in Military Manpower Policy
Specialist in Military Manpower Policy
lkapp@crs.loc.gov, 7-7609
chenning@crs.loc.gov, 7-8866
Congressional Research Service
17