[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 34 (Wednesday, February 28, 2007)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E424]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  ON THE INTRODUCTION OF THE REVISED ``KEEP OUR PROMISE TO AMERICA'S 
 MILITARY RETIREES ACT'' AND THE NEW ``KEEPING FAITH WITH THE GREATEST 
                   GENERATION MILITARY RETIREES ACT''

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN

                              of maryland

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, February 28, 2007

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, today, with my colleagues Chet 
Edwards, Jeff Miller and Walter Jones, I am re-introducing the Keep Our 
Promise to America's Military Retirees Act, a bill to fulfill promises 
made to young men and women when they entered the service that quality 
health care would be available to them when they retired after a career 
in uniformed service to their country. In addition, we are introducing 
a new bill, the Keeping Faith with the Greatest Generation Military 
Retirees Act, legislation addressing a specific obligation Congress has 
to military retirees who entered the uniformed services prior to 1956 
under one set of rules but retired under a different set of rules that 
stripped them of health care that had been provided routinely to them. 
It was this class of military retirees for whom a Federal Appeals Court 
cited the moral obligation of Congress to address a remedy.
  America's military retirees and their families have sacrificed much 
for their nation. The last thing they need is to contend with the 
government's failure to deliver health care that was promised and 
earned. For generations, military recruits were told they would receive 
health care at military facilities when they retired, and for 
generations this was routinely the case. However, beginning in 1956 
laws and administrative policies gradually made this care less 
available, so that ultimately many military retirees had no access to 
health care under the military system. Military downsizing made access 
to military bases more difficult for retirees, military treatment 
facilities were no longer required to provide--and in some cases 
stopped providing--retiree health care, and many retirees who could not 
get care at military bases could not find private doctors willing to 
participate in the off-base plan known as Tricare Standard.
  The original version of the Keep Our Promise to America's Military 
Retirees Act was introduced in 1999, with two legislative goals:
  To ensure that military retirees under age 65 who were ill-served by 
the Tricare military health care system could have the option to enroll 
in the Federal Employees Health Benefit (FEHB) plan; and
  To ensure that military retirees who qualify for Medicare (generally 
those over age 65) would retain coverage under the military system, 
just as federal civilian retirees could retain FEHB coverage as a 
second payer.
  One year later Congress authorized the program known today as Tricare 
for Life (TFL) in the FY2001 National Defense Authorization Act. TFL 
was a major victory for Medicare-eligible military retirees, offering 
Defense Department coverage as a second payer to Medicare.
  Unfortunately, Congress did not address the needs of other groups of 
military retirees for whom the military health care system continues to 
be broken. While the Tricare system works well for many military 
retirees, some younger retirees, especially those under age 65 who do 
not yet qualify for TFL, still do not have access to promised--and 
earned--health care. Many military facilities will not treat military 
retirees on a timely basis, if at all, and many continue to have 
difficulty finding private doctors who participate in Tricare Standard.
  And even though TFL addressed the health care needs of Medicare-
eligible retirees over age 65, there remained an outstanding broken 
promise to a class of the most elderly retirees from the World War II 
and Korean War eras. These military retirees joined the service under 
one set of rules with a promise and expectation that fully paid health 
care would be theirs upon retirement, but when they retired they 
discovered that intervening laws forced them to operate under a 
different set of rules that took away that promised care. Many of them 
were forced to expend significant life savings on health care and they 
believe that the government literally owes them. A breach-of-contract 
lawsuit filed by some of these pre-1956 retirees went all the way to a 
Federal Appeals court, which ruled in 2003 against the plaintiffs on a 
technicality but made it clear that the plaintiffs had a legitimate 
moral claim:

       Accordingly, we must affirm the district court's judgment 
     and can do no more than hope Congress will make good on the 
     promises recruiters made in good faith to plaintiffs and 
     others of the World War II and Korean War era--from 1941 to 
     1956, when Congress enacted its first health care insurance 
     act for military members, excluding older retirees. . . .
       We cannot readily imagine more sympathetic plaintiffs than 
     the retired officers of the 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. Again, however, because no 
     authority existed to make such promises in the first 
     place, and because Congress has never ratified or 
     acquiesced to this promise, we have no alternative but to 
     uphold the judgment against the retirees' breach-of-
     contract claim. . . .
       Perhaps Congress will consider using its legal power to 
     address the moral claims raised by [the plaintiffs] on their 
     own behalf, and indirectly for other affected retirees.

  Recent versions of the Keep Our Promise to America's Military 
Retirees Act have enjoyed strong support in Congress. Most recently it 
had 260 bipartisan cosponsors in the 109th Congress. The bill addressed 
the ongoing broken promises to military retirees with two main 
legislative provisions:
  As with the original version of the bill, the bill in the 109th 
Congress offered military retirees under age 65 who were ill-served by 
the Tricare military health care system the option to enroll in the 
Federal Employees Health Benefit (FEHB). The FEHB provision offered a 
proven and effective health care option that can take effect very 
quickly without creating a new bureaucracy; and
  Addressed Congress' moral obligation to make good on broken promises 
to the pre-1956 retirees, who were forced to spend significant sums for 
health care despite assurances when they joined the service that no-
cost retirement health care would be provided, by exempting them from 
paying the Medicare Part B premiums required to enroll in Tricare for 
Life.
  The exemption from Part B premiums for the pre-1956 retirees was a 
fair and just matter of principle. But the high costs of that provision 
prevented the bill from moving forward. Many Members of Congress 
believed we had addressed the health care needs of elderly military 
retirees by enacting TFL in the FY2001 defense bill, and even if the 
Federal Court had rightfully noted that Congress needed to further 
address broken promises to the most elderly military retirees, the 
federal budget simply could not accommodate exempting one and one-half 
million military retirees, spouses and dependents from paying Medicare 
Part B premiums.
  In addition to the cost issue, there remained another significant 
legislative hurdle for the Keep Our Promise Act. Because of its impact 
on the delivery of health care generally and its direct impact on three 
different health care systems--Tricare, FEHB and Medicare--the bill was 
referred to four separate congressional committees, which makes 
consideration and passage of any legislation much more difficult.
  An old axiom says that ``politics is the art of the possible.'' We 
hope this year to prove that axiom right, by dividing the Keep Our 
Promise Act into two distinct pieces of legislation, to improve the 
chances that at least one of the bills' legislative provisions can soon 
become law.
  So today we are introducing a revised Keep Our Promise to America's 
Military Retirees Act, which has the sole purpose of offering the FEHB 
options to military retirees so they have a way to get quality health 
care underwritten by the U.S. government if the military health care 
system doesn't work for them. This is a legislative remedy that keeps 
the government's promise that military retirees will have quality 
health care without creating a new bureaucracy.
  We are also introducing a new companion measure, the Keeping Faith 
with the Greatest Generation Military Retirees Act, which fulfills the 
country's moral obligation to the most elderly military retirees for 
whom the rules were changed in the middle of the game and to whom we 
continue to owe back debts.
  While the financial cost of this bill is high, the moral costs of not 
enacting it are far higher. It is our hope that this bill will get the 
hearing it deserves and that Congress will acknowledge its moral 
obligation that was made so clear by the Federal Courts.
  Madam Speaker, today we set a course that we believe is politically 
viable--the art of the possible. Our new legislation has significant 
revisions that will rectify injustices and hardships for America's 
greatest heroes that we have allowed to fester for far too long. This 
is the year we can and must make health care available to many military 
retirees for whom the military health care system is broken. This is 
the year we must Keep Our Promise to America's Military Retirees.




                          ____________________