[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 1]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 1026-1027]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



 PROTECTING THE MILITARY HEALTH CARE BENEFITS OF LONG-MARRIED MILITARY 
                       SPOUSES FOLLOWING DIVORCE

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. PATSY T. MINK

                               of hawaii

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, January 30, 2001

  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation 
extending eligibility to use the military health care system and 
commissary stores to un-remarried former spouses of a member of the 
uniformed services in certain circumstances. The legislation is 
identical to H.R. 475 which I introduced in the 106th Congress.

[[Page 1027]]

  Current law provides health and commissary benefits to un-remarried 
former spouses who meet the 20/20/20 rule--those who were married to 
military personnel for at least 20 years, whose spouse served in the 
military for at least 20 years, and whose marriage and spouse's 
military service overlapped for 20 years.
  A problem that frequently arises is that many members who retire upon 
attaining 20 years of service were married a year or two after entering 
active duty. The overlap of their service and marriage is just short of 
20 years. Thus regardless of the subsequent length of marriage the 
spouse can never meet the criteria requiring the 20 year overlap.
  The bill would eliminate this current inequity by extending to un-
remarried former spouse's medical care and commissary benefits if the 
member performed at least 20 years of service which is creditable in 
determining the member's eligibility for retired pay and the former 
spouse was married to the member for a period of at least 17 years 
during those years of service.
  This inequity affects not only individuals in my district, but 
spouses in every district across the Nation. Since the introduction of 
H.R. 475 last Congress, I have received letters and phone calls from 
Massachusetts, Idaho, California, Ohio, Arizona, Florida, Washington, 
Maryland, Kansas, and Utah.
  The Department of Defense has stated that by providing a more liberal 
entitlement to these individuals, we would ``tax'' the Department's 
resources thus increasing the budgetary requirements. Well, I say it is 
worth it when I read about a woman from Arizona who was married to her 
husband for 36 years, but because she married him 1 year after his 
initial enlistment, she missed the 20-20-20 rule by 11 months. These 
stories are tragic, and we must correct this unfairness.
  I urge my colleagues to join as cosponsors of this legislation.

                          ____________________