Tim Johnson

Mr. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. If the Senator will yield for a moment, one of the benefits of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan is it doesn't require a large, new infrastructure to be set up. People simply choose the insurance policy of their wish and they go to whomever they wish, whether managed care or fee for service, and you are not left with trying to create a new Federal bureaucracy or structure.

Mr. JOHNSON. If the Senator will yield on that point, apart from the fact that the military retiree organizations themselves are telling us in no uncertain terms that they prefer the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan coverage, I think the following points need to be made. First, relative to this 66,000 test program, there was, in fact, I am told, a lack of timely delivery of accurate, comprehensive information about the Federal Employees Health Benefits Test Program. Some of those surveyed claimed that townhall meetings sponsored by the Department of Defense to promote the test were poorly planned and publicized. Many retirees noted the inability to get accurate information and forms from the Department of Defense call center. Frankly, there has been a fear of the unknown with the test program. Retirees are being asked to change health programs for a test program that ends in 2002. Many retirees are worried they would have to simply change back at the end of the test period. One retiree responded to the military coalition survey by saying, ``I just could not risk having to try to get insurance at age 73 should the demonstration fail to be renewed.'' That may have been a misperception, but it was one that skewed the results of the 66,000-member test. There is no doubt about that.

Mr. JOHNSON. I certainly yield to the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. JOHNSON. I think the Senator from North Dakota raises an excellent point. He himself has been a champion for veterans and military retirees. Obviously, when we come to the point of the VA-HUD appropriations issues, we will do the very best we can within the VA context, while at the same time trying to address the military retiree issues. They go hand in hand. They are both very much part and parcel of our overall effort towards military recruitment, retention, and readiness. They are part of that same package. I certainly commend the Senator from North Dakota for his leadership in that regard.

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, the Senator is exactly right. We have a problem both on the VA health care side and on the military retiree side; that is, those who have served their 20 years in the military and rely on TRICARE currently, previously CHAMPUS, for their health care needs in both instances. These people who have served this Nation in such an extraordinary fashion have, in all too many instances, not received the quality, the accessibility, or the affordability of health care they deserve. It is doubly difficult in rural States, such as our own, but it is a problem everywhere. It is suggested as a compromise that we simply extend TRICARE to those who are age 65 and older. That is an additional option which I applaud, but that does not extend the Federal Employees Health Benefits System to either people prior to 65 or older and, frankly, up until now, TRICARE is not viewed in my State with great enthusiasm by many of our military retirees. I understand it is a new program, and it may improve as time goes on. Simply doing that alone falls far short of living up to the obligations Congress made during times of war when we were not sure if our Republic was going to survive World War II, when we did not know what would happen and we called these people into service, followed with Korea, Vietnam, and other conflicts, with people dying for our liberty. We were quick to make promises at that time: If you help us out, if you work for almost nothing, disrupt your families and serve this Nation, we will provide you with quality health care. They did their share. They came home and we said: Wait a minute, this is a little more costly than we thought, and we have decided to forget about it. We are not going to live up to those obligations. That is what this Congress has said through administrations of both political parties over the years. We have an opportunity now to bring that, at last, to a halt and to deal with our military retirees with a spark of integrity, at last. That is what this amendment is about.

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes.

Mr. JOHNSON. That is satisfactory.

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. And we would each be permitted 2 minutes apiece at that time, at the time of that vote--that is my understanding--if that is acceptable?

Mr. JOHNSON. Followed by the point of order on the Johnson amendment?

Mr. JOHNSON. The Warner vote then is the first vote?

Mr. JOHNSON. It is my understanding, then, the Johnson amendment, the waiver vote on the Johnson amendment, will be the first vote? If that is successful----

Mr. JOHNSON. I certainly yield to the ranking member.

Mr. JOHNSON. I applaud the work the Senator from Arkansas and the Senator from Virginia have done.

Mr. JOHNSON. The Senator is correct. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. JOHNSON. The Senator is correct.

Mr. JOHNSON. I believe that is a key difference. Also is the fact that this legislation of mine does address the issue of free medical care.

Mr. JOHNSON. The Senator is correct.

Mr. JOHNSON. I am in agreement with the Senator on that issue.

Mr. JOHNSON. Nine billion per year.

Mr. JOHNSON. That is as I understand it.

Mr. JOHNSON. Very good. The opponents of S. 2003, in my amendment, again would claim that it simply costs too much; roughly $3 billion in fiscal year 2001, and, over 10 years, CBO estimates an average cost of $9 billion a year to fulfill our promise of health care for military retirees. This does not come cheaply. I am very up front on that fact. However, we are talking about a $200 billion budget surplus--$9 billion here; $200 billion surplus--$800 billion to $1 trillion over 10 years. That is a conservative estimate. So if we look at the larger scheme of things, in terms of where this ought to be within our budget, and also with the possibility of some reprioritization of the existing budget, I believe the argument that we simply can no longer afford to live up to our promises to military personnel who sacrificed so much, including families of those who have died defending our right to be here debating this issue today, simply no longer holds. We invest billions of dollars each year to build new weaponry, and rightfully so. But all the weapons in the world will be rendered useless or less useful without the men and women in uniform and without the high-quality, qualified personnel we need to operate them. I believe a promise made should be a promise kept. We owe it to our country's military retirees to provide them with the health care they were promised. The effort behind this amendment has been 100-percent driven by military retirees taking action on the benefits to which they are entitled. It is the right thing to do. No more tests; no more demonstration projects; no more experiments. I think we need to act now on a program that works, building on the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan system. On average, 3,784 military retirees are dying each month. The time to act is now. These retirees have mobilized in a grassroots lobbying campaign throughout the country to fight for lifetime health care. I hope we do not leave this floor today without giving true access to health care to these soldiers, sailors, and airmen who have patriotically served our country. We have a long way to go. I will continue to work with Senators Warner and Levin, and my colleagues, to be sure that our country's active-duty personnel, military retirees, and veterans receive the benefits they deserve. Senator Warner has suggested we draw some clear distinctions between the amendments. I think that is a very constructive suggestion. I am sure he will elaborate on the differences. A difference, as I understand it, is that my amendment would allow those who retired before June 7, 1956, to have fully paid participation in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan. That is the plan in which all Federal employees, including Members of this body, participate. Frankly, it is a very successful and very popular health system. Ask any Federal employee. They will tell you the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan is an excellent one. It provides every citizen with an option, a menu, from a ``Cadillac'' to lower-priced option, depending on how extravagant they feel in relation to their share of premiums in the health care plan. For those who retired before 1956, we will say, if you want to continue to participate in TRICARE, you certainly can, but your other option is to move over to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, like other Federal employees and like your Senator. What is good for your Senator is good for you. For those who retired after the magic date of June 7, 1956, we say, you, too, have the option of participating in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, or you can continue to use TRICARE. You will, however, pay premiums similar to what Federal employees pay. It is not entirely free, but you will have this additional option, and you may continue to stay there post age 65 in retirement. Our plan builds on utilization of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, fully premium paid for those older military personnel with premiums for the somewhat younger personnel, optional. And it is perpetual. This is not a pilot project. This is not an experiment. We will not take this away from you 2 years down the road because we ran out of money. This is a commitment. You have to decide what your retirement plans are. You have to plan for that. We don't want to be jerking the rug out from under you. We have a plan. It is there. You choose it, if you choose it. No more demonstration projects that apply to some parts of the country and not other parts or it is in for a couple years and then we will assess it and decide whether to continue it or not. We are not interested in that. The Warner amendment, which I think is certainly a step ahead of where we are now, does move the health care benefits down the road in a constructive way. I applaud the Senator for that. But as I understand the Senator's amendment, it essentially allows those who are 65 and older, rather than to be pushed out of TRICARE on to Medicare, to continue their participation in TRICARE health care services post 65. That is an additional option. I am all for options. I think that is a good thing. It does cost some money. Senator Warner's amendment does fit within the current budget resolution, but in order to get it within the budget resolution, it would terminate in 2004. It may be, if this is successful, there will be additional revenue, and maybe we will continue it post-2004. But there is no certainty to that within the legislation. It fits within the current budget resolution because it has been chopped short in fiscal year 2004. So while TRICARE works better for some people than for others, it has not worked terribly well in my home State. My State is a rural State, which may be a bit different. Trying to make managed care work in my State is a little more difficult than it might be in other areas. I certainly concede that. But in my area, even if we gave people a continued TRICARE option, I am not sure they would beat a path to it particularly. Some may. Again, I certainly applaud the option. That is the basic difference between Senator Warner's amendment, which is constructive and does give an additional option to those who are post 65, and my plan, which builds on the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, applies both to pre-56 and post-56--pre-56 with premiums paid--and on into retirement, and gives people those options. Frankly, most people I talked to, if they had a choice between TRICARE and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, they would run as fast as they can go to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, the plan their Senators and Congressman have, and, for that matter, all Federal employees in their hometown have. As I see it, put very shortly and perhaps not with as much detail towards the plan of the senior Senator from Virginia, that is the basic difference from which we have to choose. They are not inconsistent necessarily, but I do believe that 2003 is a far, far more expansive and permanent approach to the urgent crisis we have for military retiree health care. The distinguished Senator from Virginia has suggested that he may want to comment at this stage on his amendment. I think it is appropriate that we discuss both of them in this context. Mr. President, I renew my request for the yeas and nays.

Mr. JOHNSON. The chairman, the Senator from Virginia, has a very constructive suggestion. I certainly will not put words in his mouth relative to the interpretation of his legislation. I applaud him for his legislative efforts. But I will draw some distinctions as to his pending amendment and my amendment. I intend to vote for both amendments. My amendment is farther reaching and, as I am sure the distinguished Senator from Virginia would note, is more costly. Because of that, it runs into additional parliamentary issues perhaps. But I will attempt, in closing, to draw some distinctions between what it is we are trying to do.

Mr. JOHNSON. I yield to my colleague.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators McCain, Bingaman, Murray, Reid, and Jeffords in offering an amendment dealing with military retiree health care. I first want to thank Senators Warner and Levin for their continued hard work in the Armed Services Committee in attempting to address this critical and urgent issue. Last year, the Senate began to address critical recruitment and retention problems currently facing our nation's armed services. The pay table adjustments and retirement reform enacted with my support in the fiscal year 2000 Department of Defense authorization bill were, frankly, long overdue improvements for our active duty military personnel. However, these improvements did not solve our country's difficulty in recruiting and keeping the best and the brightest in the military. In order to maintain a strong military for now and in the future, our country must show that it will honor its commitment to military retirees and veterans as well. Too often, military health care is treated as an afterthought rather than a priority. That's why on the first day of this legislative year, I introduced the Keep our Promise to America's Military Retirees Act, S. 2003. This legislation currently has 32 bipartisan cosponsors including 18 Republicans and 14 Democrats. Companion legislation in the House has over 300 bipartisan cosponsors. The bill also has the strong support of military retirees across the country and organizations including the Retired Enlisted Association, the Retired Officers Association, the National Association of Uniformed Services, and the Disabled American Veterans. The amendment I offer today is the same language as that contained in S. 2003. This legislation honors our nation's commitment to the men and women who served in the military by keeping our Nation's promise of health care coverage in return for their service and selfless dedication. In doing so, it also illustrates to active duty men and women that our country will not abandon them when their military career ends. Our country must honor its commitments to military retirees and veterans, not only because it's the right thing to do, but also because it's the smart thing to do. We all know the history: For decades, men and women who joined the military were promised lifetime health care coverage for themselves and their families. They were told, in effect, if you disrupt your family, if you work for low pay, if you endanger your life and limb, we will in turn guarantee lifetime health benefits. Testimony from military recruiters themselves, along with copies of recruitment literature dating back to World War II, show that health care was promised to active duty personnel and their families upon the personnel's retirement. In fact, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Henry Shelton, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee and said: Sir, I think the first thing we need to do is make sure that we acknowledge our commitment to the retirees for their years of service and for what we basically committed to at the time that they were recruited into the armed forces. Defense Secretary William Cohen also testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee and said: We have made a pledge, whether it's legal or not, it's a moral obligation that we will take care of all of those who served, retired veterans and their families, and we have not done so. Prior to June 7, 1956, no statutory health care plan existed for military personnel, and the coverage which eventually followed was dependent upon the space available at military treatment facilities. Post-cold war downsizing, base closures, and the reduction of health care services at military bases have limited the health care options available to military retirees. That's right: Many of the people who helped us win the cold war have lost their health care because the cold war ended. Some military retirees in South Dakota and other rural states are forced to drive hundreds of miles to receive care. Furthermore, military retirees are currently kicked off the military's TRICARE health care system when they turn 65. This is a slap in the face to those men and women who have sacrificed their livelihood to keep our country safe from threats at home and abroad. My amendment honors the promise of lifetime health care coverage. It does so in two ways: First, it allows military retirees who entered the armed services before June 7, 1956 (the date military health care for retirees was enacted into law) to enroll in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), with the United States paying 100 percent of the costs. Second, military retirees who joined the armed services after space- available care was enacted into law on June 7, 1956 would be allowed to enroll in FEHBP or continue to participate in TRICARE--even after they turn 65. Military retirees who choose to enroll in FEHBP will pay the same premiums and fees--and receive access to the same health care coverage--as other Federal employees. In my own family, my oldest son is in the Army and currently serves as a sergeant in Kosovo. I fully appreciate what inadequate health care and broken promises can do to the morale of military families. This stress on morale not only effects the preparedness of our military units, but also discourages some of our most able personnel from reenlisting, making recruitment efforts more difficult. I have long contended that all the weapons and training upgrades in the world will be rendered ineffective if military personnel and their families are not afforded a good ``quality of life'' in our nation's armed forces. I have been a strong advocate of better funding for veterans health care, military pay, active duty health care, education and housing. The Johnson amendment continues these efforts led by Senator Warner, Senator Levin, and others to address these important quality of life issues. Senator Warner's modified amendment incorporates an important part of S. 2003--the extension of TRICARE to Medicare-eligible retirees and dependents. I applaud the Senator for his work. However, only my amendment fulfills the promise of health care for military retirees while illustrating to current active duty personnel that our country supports its commitments to men and women in the military. I am also concerned that Senator Warner's modified amendment terminates in 2004. This could leave military retirees once again wondering where their health care will come from. The Johnson amendment does not terminate. I understand the rationale for Senator Warner's amendment. I am going to support the amendment of Senator Warner. It is a good-faith effort to do the best that can be done on the health care issues, within the context of the budgetary marching orders that have been imposed on Senator Warner's committee. I understand that. I understand he is doing the best he can within the fiscal envolope that he has been afforded. But it frustrates me, as I know it frustrates tens of thousands of military retiree and active duty personnel, that for years and years we have been told: Yes, we know we have a commitment to you for health care but we can't afford it. The Nation's budget is in the red. We are running deficits. We simply cannot afford to live up to those promises. That was never entirely true. In fact, in the context of a $1.5 trillion budget, we could have reoriented priorities, I believe, in such a way that we could have kept our promises to military personnel and retirees. But there was an element of truth to the fact that we were running red ink and we were running massive deficits. Those days are gone for a lot of different reasons. We have had much debate on this floor as to why we now find ourselves running significant budget surpluses over and above that attributable to Social Security and why those surpluses, projected out 10 years from now, will run in the $3 trillion range, some $700 billion to $1 trillion over and above what is required for Social Security because we are certainly in agreement we are not going to dip into anything that is attributable to Social Security. That is off the table, and rightfully so. There is the question about what will we do with the $700 billion to $1 trillion budget surplus that is being projected by both the White House and by the congressional budget experts. The amendment pending is an expensive amendment. I understand that. It could run around $3 billion next year and $9 billion a year after that, according to our friends at the Congressional Budget Office. That is a significant expense. What I am asking is if this is not a time when we can afford to live up to our promises to our military retirees and our military personnel, then when will that time ever occur? There are those who see other uses for that $700 billion to $1 trillion surplus over and above Social Security. I have other things I would like to do as well, including some tax relief. There are those who want tax relief in the range of essentially the entire surplus. I am suggesting there is room for tax relief, there is room for paying down the debt, there is room for education, and a number of other things. If we do this right, this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to utilize some of that projected surplus to, in fact, finally-- finally--live up to our commitment to our military personnel and retirees, many of whom, frankly, have gone to their graves without the benefits they were promised. We do have that once-in-a-lifetime, unique opportunity this year to do something constructive, to make a commitment that we will fund this, not out of military readiness, not out of active duty budgets, but, in fact, out of this projected surplus that the CBO and OMB people tell us is headed our way. Military retirees and veterans are our Nation's most effective recruiters. Unfortunately, poor health care options make it difficult for these men and women to encourage the younger generation to make a career of the military. In fact, in Rapid City, SD, which is outside of Ellsworth Air Force Base, a very significant B-1 military base in my State, I was talking to military personnel and talking to retirees who are as loyal and as patriotic, who have paid a price second to none for our Nation's liberty, and they told me: Senator, I can't in good faith tell my nephews, my children, young people whom I encounter, that they ought to serve in the U.S. military, that they ought to make a career of that service because I see what the Congress has done to its commitment to me, to my family, to my neighbors. The health care promises were never lived up to, and we don't think you ever will live up to them. You have no credibility with us. It has gone decades, it has gone generations, and you have not lived up to the health care obligations and responsibilities that you said, if we put our lives in danger, we would have. How can I in good faith tell these young people they ought to make a career of the military, that it is a distinguished professional option they ought to consider, when you treat us shabbily? That is the message I hear from active duty as well as retired military personnel in my State. It is the same in the mail and e-mail I get from all across the country saying: 2003 is the only legislative option we see that truly lives up to Congress' obligations. No more excuses. The money is there. The only question is, Is the political will there? Is this a priority or is it not? I am pleased we are having this debate.