Two senators have reached across the aisle to fight Tricare fee increases, introducing a bill that would cap enrollment fees, deductibles and pharmacy copayments for military retirees.

The Military Health Care Protection Act of 2012, cosponsored by Sens. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., and Marco Rubio, R-Fla., would limit increases in cost shares, pharmacy fees and deductibles to no more than the most recent annual percentage cost-of-living adjustment in military retired pay.

“A tough fiscal climate is no excuse to balance the budget on the backs of our nation’s military retirees and their families,” Lautenberg said in a release Friday.

The bill was introduced as the Senate Armed Services Committee prepares to discuss the fiscal 2013 defense authorization bill, which ultimately will address the question of Tricare fee hikes.

The House’s version of the 2013 defense authorization bill includes similar language.

More than 20 veterans and military support groups have come out in favor of the Lautenberg-Rubio bill, including the Military Officers Association of America, the National Military Family Association and the American Legion.

“We’re grateful for Sen. Lautenberg’s and Sen. Rubio’s leadership in introducing this bill to protect uniformed services beneficiaries from dramatic fee increases for their military Tricare coverage. … [The bill] would restore a much-needed sense of stability for this core career retention incentive,” said retired Vice Adm. Norb Ryan, MOAA president.

The bill aims to strengthen legislation passed in 2012 that restricted Tricare enrollment fee increases to percentages no higher than the annual COLA increase.

The Defense Department has pushed for more extensive fee hikes and requested approval to charge military retirees health care enrollment fees based on the amount of retirement pay they receive.

“This bill would give veterans on Tricare greater assurances that their costs will not spiral out of control beyond their means to pay for them,” Rubio said.

A group of investors, government officials, business executives and former military personnel broke ground May 18 on a private retreat they hope will become a premier getaway for wounded warriors recovering in the Washington, D.C., region.

Boulder Crest Retreat, in Bluemont, Va., is a planned 37-acre site where recovering service members and their families can vacation, enjoying therapeutic and recreational activities, said founder Ken Falke, a retired Navy explosive ordnance disposal master chief.

“A large percentage of our military members come from rural America. Wounded warriors treated at Walter Reed can sometimes be assigned there for one to four years. While they are in top facilities, at the end of the day, they are still living in military apartments and medical clinics. This will give them the chance to get out of the city,” Falke said.

The $10 million project, set to open in May 2013, will include a central clubhouse, family cabins, a fishing pond, wheelchair-accessible trails and gardens.

Falke said the administration plan is to partner with area businesses to offer additional recreational activities, including winery tours, therapeutic horseback riding, fly-fishing, canoeing, kayaking and more.

On hand to mark the groundbreaking were retired Army Sgt. 1st Class Dana Bowman, a double amputee who performed a skydive jump, and former Navy Secretary and honorary board member John Lehman.

“It takes Ken’s vision to move this unprecedented project a step closer to reality, marking another selfless gesture to honor our wounded,” Lehman said.

Falke is a 21-year veteran who served as an EOD consultant to the federal government. He also founded the Wounded EOD Warrior Foundation.

The retreat, he said, will provide a “home away from home” for personnel and their families at no cost.

“This will be a place for family time, for rest, for healing,” Falke said.

GARDEZ, Afghanistan — They say their M16s are dust-prone antiques. Their boots fall apart after a couple of months, they complain, and many of their helmets are cracked and patched. Yet they set out on patrol.

They are the men of the Afghan National Army, the critical part of the huge machine being built to protect Afghanistan’s security after the NATO alliance is gone in less than three years.

With Afghanistan topping the agenda at a gathering of NATO leaders in Chicago on Sunday and Monday, an Associated Press reporter and photographer traveling with Afghan army forces in Logar and Paktia provinces are hearing a mix of messages from dozens of officers and enlisted men.

The foreign forces are leaving too soon, the men say. Why then are attacks by Afghan soldiers on NATO forces increasing, killing 35 last year and 22 so far this year? Because the Afghans feel disrespected, the soldiers say. Handing out inferior equipment is disrespectful; burning Korans, however accidental, is disrespectful; urinating on dead bodies, even Taliban, as video that emerged in January showed U.S. troops doing, is disrespectful.

Washington spent more than $20 billion in 2010-2011 on training and equipping a 352,000 strong army and police force — one of the costliest projects ever undertaken by the Pentagon.

Yet the footsoldiers don’t have night-vision goggles to go after the Taliban under cover of darkness.

At the rock-strewn firing range of the 203 Thunder Corps in Paktia province, Sgt. Said Aga recalled his M16 jamming in the middle of a fierce firefight with the Taliban, and grimaced as his young charges aired their gripes about the Vietnam-era firearm.

“The Americans have really much better equipment than us,” he said. “Our vehicles and weapons are very weak compared to theirs.”

A soldier named Abdul Karim said he’d prefer a 30-year-old Russian-made Kalashnikov to an M16. The Americans “are giving us old weapons and try to make them look new with polish and paint. We don’t want their throwaways,” he said.

In Kabul, Lt. Col. Timothy M. Stauffer, U. S. Army Director, Public Affairs, rejected the complaints about aging weapons, saying the Afghans get basically the same firearms that U.S. soldiers have. “I am not sure their complaints are valid,” he said. “The equipment they are asking for and are being issued is sufficient to meet the current threat.”