FEATURE ARTICLE

November 2004

National Guard Enjoys More Political Sway

by Joe Pappalardo

As the National Guard’s use and reputation grows, its political clout is likewise increasing. Once an afterthought in terms of funding, training and resources, the Guard now is pushing Congress and the White House to adopt an ambitious agenda.

High on the Guard’s list are expanding health care for troops, improving the pay status of fliers, restoring funding dedicated to the anti-narcotics efforts and capturing the assurance that deployments will have adequate warning and limited duration.

The Guard also is seeking to be equipped on par with the active force. Many Guardsmen have been deployed to combat areas with Vietnam-era equipment and have been asked to stay beyond their expected deployments. On the home front of the war against terrorism, the Guard has assumed the lead military response role.

So far, many in Congress have demonstrated support for Guard initiatives, and have expressed a willingness to pay for the profound restructuring and address other priorities. The Defense Department, on the other hand, is not always ready to accede to each demand, which sets the stage for a fight in Congress for funding.

“There is a growing awareness that the Guard is moving from a strategic reserve and has in fact become an operational force,” Lt. Gen. H Steven Blum, chief of the National Guard, told National Defense. “I think Congress is acutely attuned to the fact that the Guard is the essential part of national defense, at home and abroad.”

The main organ for petitioning Congress is the National Guard Association of the United States, or NGAUS. The bi-partisan group represents 45,000 former National Guard officers, and was formed in 1878 to lobby Congress for better equipment, better support and training equal to active forces. That goal, NGAUS notes in its mission statement, has not changed.

“Congress is listening more because of the importance of the National Guard and its new uses,” said Maj. Gen. William E. Ingram, Jr., adjutant general of North Carolina. “The major players [in Congress] have always understood, but more are understanding that now, since 9/11.”

A newer role on the national political stage is the organization’s hosting of presidential candidates to explain their positions on military issues. The centerpiece demonstration of NGAUS’ political sway is the National Guard’s annual conference. It has been a high-profile presidential campaign spot since 1992, when Presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton gave speeches before the membership of former and current officers.

The setting provides direct access to military families. In a war year, when the treatment and care of the military is especially sensitive, the event reverberates more in the media than usual.

“The candidates have come to know that their message will be taken back to thousands of Guard communities nationwide,” said NGAUS President Gen. Stephen Koper. “That makes our conference a strategic venue.”

With current and past military issues at the forefront of the 2004 presidential election, this year’s conference had an edge, and the association more leverage. Some of the board of directors said they met with the president alone during his brief stay in Las Vegas.

President George W. Bush and Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry both said what the association wanted to hear: that the National Guard is an indispensable component of the 21st century national defense strategy and that recognition would translate to tax dollars to better care for Guardsmen and their families. More importantly, both presidential candidates pledged support to the association’s legislative push for expanded healthcare, a plan called Tricare.

“Tricare is the number one issue for us,” said retired Brig. Gen. Robert Dutko, a member of the NGAUS board.

Bush, in his speech to the association, said he would improve Tricare, but wants to limit it to 90 days before troops report to active duty and 180 days after they are de-activated. Kerry said his plan includes Tricare health benefits for reservists every day they serve, no matter what the mobilization status.

In 2003, President Bush signed the reserve health initiatives into law as part of the $87 billion emergency spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan. The question on Capitol Hill now is whether to make that expansion permanent or pass a more generous version.

As the unprecedented levels of deployments place growing pressure on families, state and federal officials are beginning to take closer notice of Guard issues. This attention is reflected in congressional action. The Senate has passed a version of Tricare reform in its defense authorization bill that allows all members of the National Guard to buy into the system, regardless of mobilization status. In the bill, the government pays 72 percent of the premium on healthcare.

The House version is not as comprehensive, and calls for the creation of test sites of a fee-based Tricare coverage to those members who are uninsured or unemployed. Either plan, if adopted, would cost billions of dollars to implement.

As part of its push for Tricare, NGAUS sent a letter to Rep. Duncan Hunter and Rep. Ike Skelton, the ranking Republican and Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee. Two Ohio congressmen on the committee, one from each political party, gathered 65 signatures of fellow members to accompany the letter, asking the committee to adopt the Senate version.

With a bipartisan support in Congress and the White House on board, Guard healthcare coverage would appear to have smooth legislative sailing. However, NGAUS officials complained that resistance is coming from the Pentagon.

“I’m sure the president and Congress support us. It’s [Secretary of Defense Donald] Rumsfeld we need to convince,” said Dutko. “They see it as a question of benefits. We see it s a readiness issue … Don’t forget, they influence Congress too.”

Defense Department officials have criticized some initiatives as ignoring the differences in non-mobilized reservists and active duty troops, and they contented the additional cost would put more strain on an already overburdened military healthcare system.

Beyond benefits, some other National Guard projects remain under-funded. For example, the backlog on infrastructure construction projects for the Army National Guard is $2.4 billion and $2.8 billion for Air National Guard. Existing buildings need rehabilitation, and new ones are planned but not built. Since 2002, the funding levels have increased, but not enough to keep pace with construction and repair needs, according to NGAUS officials.

NGAUS also is trying to facilitate the construction of new facilities called readiness centers, armories with assembly areas, offices, a kitchen and arms room. The creation of these centers is being hampered by rules that require local funds. Local contributions can run as high as a million dollars. NGAUS is lobbying to have the law amended to permit federal assistance to reduce the burden on local governments.

Another stalled legislative effort is a proposal to provide pensions for members at a lower age. Several bills have been introduced in Congress that would do this through a graduated system tied to years of service, or simply, by reducing the retirement age from 65 to 55. The Defense Department has opposed the change because of the huge cost. Neither bill so far has advanced, despite NGAUS prodding. NGAUS leaders are undeterred. The week after their national conference, just before the congressional recess, officials said they would launch their lobbying for the 2005 session on Congress.

Back To Top