Introduction of the Keep our Promise to America's Military Retirees Act in the 109th Congress

INTRODUCTION OF THE KEEP OUR PROMISE TO AMERICA'S MILITARY RETIREES ACT IN THE 109TH CONGRESS -- (Extensions of Remarks - February 02, 2005)

SPEECH OF
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.

· 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.

http://thomas.loc.gov