A provision in this year’s National Defense Authorization Act would cut military housing compensation and shift money toward the readiness crisis, something the Pentagon and some members of Congress aren’t pleased with.
The Department of Defense is already implementing an approved 5 percent reduction from housing allowance over the next three years on all military members to help pay down the troop readiness crisis. Congress approved the implementation and the Congressional Budget Office estimates this program will raise $4.8 billion for readiness.
But as the fiscal 2017 defense policy bill is being debated by the Senate, two members are arguing over ways to change the policy.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., supports a provision in the bill halting the across-the-board reductions and instead dividing up service members’ housing allowances based on the number of troops living in the same place. So if a family only has one service member, he or she will receive full housing compensation. But if three service members share an apartment, each will receive only one-third of their compensation.
For example, a Marine E-4 based in San Diego with no dependents would normally receive a housing compensaion of $1,851 per month. Under the current housing allowance system, if that same Marine wanted to pool money with two other Marines of the same paygrade to get a nicer house, they would have $5,553. However, under the new provision in the 2017 NDAA, that same group of three Marines would each only receive $617, a loss of almost $15,000 per year of compensation for each Marine.
The goal of this new allowance system, according to McCain’s spokeswoman, is to use the extra money not used by service members for housing to replace the 5 percent reduction while maintaining an additional $4.8 billion for readiness.
Sen. Lisa Murkowsi, R-Alaska, has proposed an amendment to the NDAA that would stop the new provision, which she said would dramatically reduce the income of families where both parents are military members. She said this provision would “penalize” families with dual-service members simply because the family is receiving two housing allowances for their service.
This provision is “damaging and burdensome,” Murkowski said on the Senate floor Wednesday night. “[Basic housing allowance] is part of your compensation … it is part of what you earn, it is something that you can count on.”
Murkowski cited a conversation with a dual military couples saying the additional financial stress caused by this provision would cause “matter of life and death” issues. The dual military couple worries their head “won’t be in the game” when deployed if they are worrying about financial issues. The couple will lose $20,000 per year if the provision is passed.
“It was a clear reminder to me of how morale affects the mission … making sure all is well at home is a responsibility [the American people] also have,” Murkowski said. “This is not right for our military members.”
Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, spoke in favor of the Murkowski amendment and voiced concerns about the current NDAA provision, calling it “burdensome and inefficient.” Collins believes the base-housing allowance system should remain the same, something the Department of Defense has reiterated.
A spokeswoman for McCain told the Washington Examiner Murkowski’s amendment would “prioritize those who are able to pocket extra money while punishing those who need the allowance for its intended purpose — housing.”
The Pentagon strongly disagrees with provision already in the bill. A Pentagon spokesman told the Washington Examiner, “Both members of a dual-military couple would be provided a lesser compensation package than other members of equal grade, sending a message that their service is not as highly valued,” something Murkowski’s amendment seeks to fix.
Recruitment and retention are likely to be affected if the new provision becomes law, according to the Pentagon.
If passed, the provision would not take effect until 2018. McCain’s spokeswoman said that will give time for the Department of Defense to “report to Congress an alternative plan” before the provision goes into effect.
The Senate ended debate on the NDAA Friday and scheduled a passage vote for Tuesday morning. Murkowski’s amendment will not get a vote.
