| The field of Congress and national security, with few exceptions, describes Congress in the post-World War II era as a secondary player in the development of defense policy. In fact, some scholars argue that Congress' approach at times is characterized by deference, ambivalence, and even abdication. However, this dissertation argues that by failing to recognize some of the most influential forms of actual congressional power, scholars do not have a comprehensive understanding of the legislative branch's participation in defense policymaking. In fact, in some areas of defense policy, such as military personnel policy, Congress actually leads.;The dissertation uses a case study on TRICARE-for-Life (TFL) to answer the research question: How have Congress' disagreements with the executive on TFL and subsequent legislative mandates affected broader defense policies and budgets, and what does the case indicate about Congress' role in defense policymaking? The dissertation concludes that the legislative branch does not defer to the executive in military personnel policymaking. Instead, it commands. Congress exercises its power in three noteworthy ways. First, it takes direct action to pursue its policy agenda, often over the objections of DOD and the executive. Second, it liberally uses its lawmaking authority to put in statute detailed policies, including military entitlements, thereby achieving and maintaining its desired policies. Third, congressionally mandated military personnel policies, and especially compensation, often result in budgetary implications that alter broader defense policy. Collectively, these three actions and their implications---some intentional and some inadvertent and indirect---are important elements of actual congressional power. Although the congressional action in question occurs in military personnel policy, the spillover effects are significant for national security in general. Current scholarship overlooks such activity, causing the field to underappreciate the legislative branch's influence.;Many DOD officials and analysts have called for reform of military pay and benefits because the significant growth in cost per service member makes compensating the force less affordable, which presents concerns for future military capabilities. Because the legislature leads in military compensation and because military entitlements cannot be altered without amending the underlying program law, Congress has and will continue to play an important part in this public policy area. This dissertation prepares practitioners for ongoing attempts to reform military compensation by offering critical information about Congress' involvement in military compensation. |
