Higher pay raises for the nation's military personnel troops could lead to more readiness shortfalls for the military, a key House Democrat warned Wednesday.
Rep. Susan Davis, D-Calif., ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee’s personnel panel, said she worries House Republican plans to authorize a 2.1 percent pay raise for troops in 2017 — one-half of a percentage point above 0.5 percent what the Pentagon military has requested — will "take funds from other critical priorities," and impede the military's ability to keep its equipment and day-to-day operations functioning optimally hurt overall readiness.
"Any additional money to a military family’s budget counts, no doubt about that," Davis said during a hearing on the proposal. "But to give you a sense of the scale involved, this additional 0.5 percent pay raise will provide an E-4 with an additional $11 a month. That will cost a total of $330 million which mustch be taken out of somewhere else in the budget."
Davis' example is based on the monthly pay for an E-4 with three years of military service. For an E-7 with 10 years of service, or an O-2 with two years, the monthly difference is about $19. An O-4 with 12 years see an extra $34 a month under the higher raise plan.
"This proposal would further raid [supply] accounts in order to fund a pay increase of $11 a month," she said. "When I speak to our sailors and Marines, the message is clear from them: The lack of parts creates a service morale problem."
Davis’ argument echoes that of the White House administration and the Pentagon officials, whicho have pushed for a pay raise below the anticipated growth in private sector wages in an effort to bolster modernization and maintenance accounts.
The administration White House has authorized pay raises below that private-sector rate for each of the last three years.
But House Republicans are pushing to end that streak. Rep. Joe Heck, R-Nev., chairman of the personnel subcommittee, said the move is about more than just increasing troops' paychecks.
"It sends a signal," he told reporters. "For the last three years, the military pay raise has been less than what is authorized by law. The reason why that formula was put into law was to try and keep military pay commensurate with pay in the private sector, so we don't lose our best and brightest.
"We felt at this point in time, [troops] should get the full pay raise."
Heck said he is confident that full funding levels to be released for the annual defense authorization bill will cover both the higher pay raise and service readiness needs. Those details are expected to be made public next week, and have been a point of contention between conservatives and the White House.
Davis also echoed similar funding concerns about plans in the authorization legislation to boost military end strength by 27,000 troops over the administration's request.
"It is very concerning that we don't know where the funding will come from to pay for the increase, nor how this will impact the Army in fiscal 2018 if sequestration is not addressed," she said, referring to the automatic federal spending cuts that have hit the Defense Department particularly hard. "You could end up in a situation when Congress requires the Army to increase its end strength, then forces the Army to draw down 30,000 in a single subsequent year."
The full House Armed Services Committee is expected to mark up its full draft of the annual budget authorization bill on April 27.
Leo Shane III covers Congress, Veterans Affairs and the White House for Military Times. He can be reached at lshane@militarytimes.com.
Leo covers Congress, Veterans Affairs and the White House for Military Times. He has covered Washington, D.C. since 2004, focusing on military personnel and veterans policies. His work has earned numerous honors, including a 2009 Polk award, a 2010 National Headliner Award, the IAVA Leadership in Journalism award and the VFW News Media award.
