The debate over privatizing commissaries isn’t quite over yet.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The uncertainty stems from a bit of confusion over two seemingly contradictory provisions in the Senate’s draft version of the 2016 defense authorization bill.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Neither provision appears in the House’s draft of the policy bill, which means lawmakers from both chambers will have to address the issue when they meet to iron out a single compromise version of the bill later this year.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
And some sources are concerned that conferees could resuscitate the issue of commissary privatization at the negotiating table.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The original provision passed by the Senate Armed Services Committee required the Defense Department to develop a plan for private companies to operate commissaries, and test the plan for two years in at least five of the largest U.S. commissary markets.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
That original privatization plan was rendered “null and void” after an amendment to block it was approved on the Senate floor by voice vote.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Yet in a classic example of how arcane legislative procedures can be, both the original plan and the amendment to kill it were passed by the full Senate as part of its draft bill.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Two Capitol Hill staffers told Military Times that the original privatization provision stayed in the bill because of technicalities related to how it was passed in the Senate, attached to another amendment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The subsequent provision, while blocking that privatization plan, requires DoD to assess the idea and the effects of privatizing before developing any plans to privatize commissaries, or conducting any privatization test.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The two provisions will have to be discussed in the House-Senate conference, since the House version of the bill contains neither provision, said Dustin Walker, spokesman for the Senate Armed Services Committee.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There is a chance lawmakers could choose to go with the original privatization plan in the Senate bill, said another source who is familiar with the process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But the source said considerable confusion seems to reign over this issue at the moment: “Didn’t the Senate throw out the implementation plan? … I’ve never seen anything like it. When something is voted out, it’s voted out.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The House and Senate versions of the defense policy bill have other major differences concerning commissaries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A Senate proposal would eliminate the law that requires commissaries to sell all items at cost, which has been the rule for nearly 150 years. Instead, stores would have to mark up prices to cover operating expenses. Among other things, the Senate bill includes a provision that would allow the costs of overseas transportation of groceries to be factored into the prices charged to commissary customers worldwide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“These actions will destroy the commissary benefit by changing the guiding principle for commissary operations from providing savings of over 30 percent, to an emphasis on recovering costs as the primary factor for their existence,” wrote the Coalition to Save our Military Shopping Benefits in a July 9 letter to the leaders of the House and Senate Armed Services committees.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The coalition is comprised of 18 organizations, most of them military and veterans service organizations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“Pentagon leaders have presented these measures as ‘efficiencies,’ when in fact they transfer costs from appropriations to the patron,” the coalition stated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Today, the commissary system’s annual $1.4 billion budget covers all operating expenses so that groceries can be sold at cost, plus a 5 percent surcharge at the register that goes to fund commissary construction and repair costs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
That gives customers an average overall savings of about 30 percent compared to civilian stores outside installation gates, according to commissary officials.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
One provision requires the Defense Department to move forward with a plan to privatize commissaries; the other puts a stop to it.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":92391,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_yoast_wpseo_meta-robots-noindex":"","_yoast_wpseo_meta-robots-nofollow":"","_yoast_wpseo_canonical":"","_acf":"","_yoast_wpseo_primary_category":0,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","_smg_distribution_targets":[]},"categories":[103,15,18,88],"tags":[],"coauthors":[3299],"class_list":["post-90563","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-military-benefits","category-news","category-pay-benefits","category-your-military"],"acf":{"subheadline":"","legacy_arc_id":"4LNEZ35AQ5F5BDMARCMVIV7BI4","arc_canonical_url":"\/2015\/07\/10\/commissary-privatization-may-not-be-dead-just-yet\/","remove_feature_photo":false,"is_sponsored":false,"subtype":"","redirect_url":"","disable_inline_ads":false,"native_logo_pretext":"Presented By:"},"yoast_head":"\n