[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 1]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 1447-1448]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




INTRODUCTION OF THE KEEP OUR PROMISE TO AMERICA'S MILITARY RETIREES ACT 
                         IN THE 109TH CONGRESS

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN

                              of maryland

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, February 2, 2005

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to inform my colleagues that 
today I have introduced the ``Keep Our Promise to America's Military 
Retirees Act'' in the 109th Congress along with Representatives Chet 
Edwards of Texas, Jeff Miller of Florida, and Duke Cunningham of 
California. This bipartisan bill addresses recent developments and 
offers meaningful remedies to the ``broken promise'' of health care for 
military retirees.

[[Page 1448]]

  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.
  For generations, recruits for military service were promised by their 
own government that if they served a career of 20 years in uniform, 
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.
  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. In June of 2003 the U.S. Supreme Court decided not to consider an 
appeal to a November 18, 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 Court acknowledged the injustice of 
their case. As the Court said:

       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. . . . 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.

  It is ironic, Mr. Speaker, that American soldiers are fighting--and 
dying--for freedom in Iraq while American veterans and military 
retirees have to fight for health care to which they are rightfully 
entitled. Military retirees are understandably outraged by comments 
made by Dr. David Chu, Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and 
Readiness, that demonstrate a callous disregard for their past service 
and sacrifice. In a January 25, 2005 article in the Wall Street 
Journal, Dr. Chu, discussing federal dollars obligated to health care 
for our veterans and military retirees, was quoted as saying, ``The 
amounts have gotten to the point where they are hurtful. They are 
taking away from the nation's ability to defend itself.''
  Dr. Chu was quoted again on February 1 in an Associated Press story 
about proposed increases in benefits to survivors of soldiers killed in 
battle. This is directly from that story:

       Chu said he was concerned that in recent years Congress had 
     gone too far in expanding military retiree benefits, but he 
     said the proposed increase in survivor benefits was well 
     justified.
       Bigger military benefits that apply mainly to retirees and 
     their families are making it harder for the Pentagon to 
     afford financial incentives targeted at maintaining today's 
     military, Chu said.
       ``They are starting to crowd out two things: first, our 
     ability to reward the person who is bearing the burden right 
     now in Iraq or Afghanistan,'' Chu said. ``(Second), we are 
     undercutting our ability to finance the new gear that is 
     going to make that military person successful five, ten, 15 
     years from now.''

  I do not think Dr. Chu meant to imply that it is wrong that we 
provide earned and promised health care benefits to our military 
retirees, veterans and their families; at least I hope that Dr. Chu was 
implying that Congress needs to address the dilemma within the federal 
budget where the needs of ongoing military operations and active duty 
personnel are forced to compete with the needs of military retirees and 
veterans. But the implications of Dr. Chu's words are undeniable--that 
keeping the promises our country made to our military veterans and 
retirees simply is not a priority.
  Military retirees and their families, who have been misled by empty 
promises in the past, see the root of the dilemma in Dr. Chu's words: 
that they have served their purpose to America and are no longer 
needed, that they--who served a career in uniform to protect our 
freedoms--are now looked upon as a burden on society, that they have 
been used up and thrown away like an old worn out paper bag.
  That is why our offices have received thousands of brown paper bags 
in the mail, with messages written on them urging this body to pass the 
Keep Our Promise to America's Military Retirees Act. I am told that, as 
of today, military retirees and their families and supporters have sent 
over 20,000 paper bags to Congress and that more are arriving every 
day.
  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. That version of the bill led to 
the enactment of Tricare for Life, TFL, which went a long way to 
restore health care to military retirees over age 65. But more needs to 
be done to keep our promises to that elderly group of retirees and to 
make sure that younger retirees receive the level of health care to 
which they are entitled.
  Our new bill offers more meaningful restitution for broken promises 
by waiving the premium that World War II and Korean era military 
retirees must pay to enroll in Medicare Part B, a requirement of TFL. 
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 the 
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 bill improves this benefit for military 
retirees by reimbursing them for expenses they incur under FEHBP that 
they would not have incurred under Tricare and makes certain 
improvements to the military pharmacy benefit.
  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. We need to do right by our military retirees, and 
to show our future military retirees that their government will live up 
to the promises it makes to them. We need to enact into law the 
important provisions of the Keep Our Promise to America's Military 
Retirees Act.

                          ____________________