[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 160 (Thursday, November 6, 2003)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2258]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page E2258]]
          KEEP OUR PROMISE TO AMERICA'S MILITARY RETIREES ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN

                              of maryland

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, November 6, 2003

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to inform my colleagues that 
today I have introduced a revised version of the ``Keep Our Promise to 
America's Military Retirees Act'' along with Representatives Chet 
Edwards of Texas, Jeff Miller of Florida, and Duke Cunningham of 
California. This bipartisan bill addresses recent developments and 
offers more meaningful remedies to the ``broken promise'' of health 
care for military retirees.
  We have sent thousands of troops to do battle in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. We are creating a new generation of veterans who have been 
willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for our country. Our government 
must be accountable for the promises it makes to young men and women 
who are asked to serve our country in this way.
  Over the past year the Courts have laid to rest the question of who 
is responsible for making good on promises of lifetime health care that 
were made to young men and women who joined the service during World 
War II and the Korean eras. Recruits were promised by their own 
government that if they served a career of 20 years in military 
service, then they and their dependants would receive health care upon 
retirement. But while these career soldiers put their lives on the line 
for our country, the government did not keep its end of the contract.
  This past June the U.S. Supreme Court decided not to consider a 
November 12, 2002 Federal Appeals Court ruling in a suit filed against 
the government of the United States on behalf of World War II and 
Korean era military retirees. Retired Air Force Colonel George ``Bud'' 
Day, a highly decorated Congressional Medal of Honor recipient, filed a 
breach of contract suit on behalf of two retired colonels who contended 
they had been recruited into military service as young men with the 
promise of lifetime health care upon retirement after serving at least 
20 years in uniform.
  In 1956, long after Col. Day's clients signed up for military duty, 
Congress enacted the first laws that defined, and began to limit, the 
level of health care that would be provided to military retirees. These 
laws, which took effect on December 7, 1956, made health care available 
at military facilities conditioned on space availability--in other 
words, military retirees had to go to the end of the line and wait for 
health care. Subsequent laws removed them entirely from the military 
health care system when they became eligible for Medicare, resulting in 
a dramatic reduction in health care benefits.
  The Appeals Court ruled against the plaintiffs on a technicality, 
arguing that promises by recruiters were invalid because only Congress 
could authorize military health care, which Congress had not done when 
the plaintiffs entered the service. But although the retired colonels 
lost their case on that technicality, I believe they won their moral 
battle on principle because the Courts have ruled that legally only 
Congress can make good on promises made to our military retirees.
  The Court ruling said, in part, ``We cannot readily imagine more 
sympathetic plaintiffs than the retired officers of World War II and 
Korean War era involved in this case. They served their country for at 
least 20 years with the understanding that when they retired they and 
their dependents would receive full free health care for life. The 
promise of such health care was made in good faith and relied upon. . . 
. Perhaps Congress will consider using its legal power to address the 
moral claims raised by Schism and Reinlie on their own behalf, and 
indirectly for other affected retirees.
  The Keep Our Promise to America's Military Retirees Act was 
originally introduced in 1999 to acknowledge the promises made in good 
faith to America's military retirees. But now that the Courts have 
ruled, it is more important than ever that Congress pass this bill. I 
especially want to commend my friend from Texas, Mr. Edwards, for his 
leadership in introducing H.R. 58 at the beginning of the 108th 
Congress, and for working with me to bring the Keep Our Promise Act up 
to date to conform to the court rulings.
  Our new bill offers more meaningful restitution for broken promises 
by waiving both the Part B premium and the late fee for World War II 
and Korean era military retirees. The new bill also addresses broken 
promises made to military retirees who joined the service after 1956. 
Even though laws were on the books beginning in 1956 that defined and 
limited military retiree health care, the sad truth is that the empty 
promise of lifetime health care was used as a recruiting tool for many 
years beyond the scope of Col. Day's case, to those who entered the 
military after 1956. This is documented in recruiting literature well 
into the 1990s. We must keep our promises to them, too.
  These retirees, mainly from the Vietnam and Persian Gulf eras, 
qualify for the military health care program known generally as 
Tricare. Tricare works well for many military retirees but fails to 
deliver quality health care for others. Some retirees cannot receive 
care at military bases due to lack of space availability. Base closures 
have cut off access for many retirees, and too many of them cannot 
find private doctors who will put up with bureaucratic inefficiencies 
or low reimbursements they have encountered with Tricare.

  I believe strongly that military retirees who are not well served by 
Tricare deserve an alternative. The Keep Our Promise Act has offered 
these retirees the option of enrolling in the Federal Employees Health 
Benefits Program (FEHBP); the new version of the bill improves this 
benefit for military retirees by reimbursing them for expenses they 
incur under FEHBP that they would not have incurred under Tricare. This 
provision is cost-neutral since the government would be covering these 
health care expenses under one program or the other.
  The Courts have ruled. It is up to Congress to make good on the 
promises that were made--and broken--to our military retirees. They are 
not asking for handouts--they ask only for what was promised to them 
and what they earned.

                          ____________________