H.R. 3474
The Keep Our Promise to America's Military Retirees Act
(Revised version, introduced November 6, 2003)

Table of Contents:

INTRODUCTION:

This is to inform you that a revised version of the Keep Our Promise to America's Military Retirees Act has been introduced today.

The new bipartisan bill was introduced today - and will have a new bill number tomorrow - by Representatives Chris Van Hollen (D-Maryland), Chet Edwards (D-Texas), Jeff Miller (R-Florida) and Duke Cunningham (R-California). It was necessary to revise HR 58, the version of the Keep Our Promise Act that was introduced at the beginning of this year by Congressman Edwards, for a few reasons.

First, this past spring the Supreme Court laid to rest once and for all the question of the "broken promise" of military health care, when it decided NOT to revisit the November 2002 Federal Appeals Court ruling of the Class Act Group (CAG) lawsuit filed by Col. Bud Day. The Courts clearly found that promises of lifetime health care were made to recruits who would later become military retirees -- and that these promises were broken -- but that only Congress is authorized to say what kind of health care the government can provide its military retirees. The Court called on Congress to make good on the government's promise of lifetime health care. In short, while the Courts ruled against CAG on a technicality, CAG won the case in principle. The new Keep Our Promise Act acknowledges Congress' responsibility to make good on the promise to military retirees of lifetime health care.

Second, the old version of the Keep Our Promise Act offers an outdated remedy to make good on the broken promises, a remedy that the new bill fixes. The old bill offered "fully paid FEHBP" to retirees of the CAG generation, generally retirees over age 65. But these people are now eligible for Tricare for Life (TFL) - a product of the original Keep Our Promise Act introduced in 1999 - which renders "fully-paid FEHBP" unnecessary. To address the Court's ruling that Congress should make good on promises to the CAG generation, the new bill instead offers a waiver of Medicare Part B Premiums that are required to qualify for TFL.

Third, while the Court rulings applied to retirees who entered the service prior to December 7, 1956 - the date when Congress enacted the first in a series of laws that began to limit the availability of military health care to retirees - the bill acknowledges that promises of lifetime health care were made and broken for many years after these laws were passed. The new Keep Our Promise Act offers enhanced remedies for retirees who came after the CAG generation, mainly those from the Vietnam and Persona Gulf eras.

The old version of the Keep Our Promise Act offers military retirees who are not yet eligible for TFL (those under age 65) and who are not well served by the Tricare system the option of participating in FEHBP. Under the new version of the Keep Our Promise Act, the Defense Department would be required to reimburse military retirees under FEHBP for expenses they incur that would have been covered by Tricare Standard. In other words, military retirees who have been failed by Tricare and elect FEHBP would pay no more for health care than they would pay under Tricare Standard.

Make no mistake: this is a bill that provides realistic remedies to the broken promise, that can be implemented easily without creating huge new bureaucracies, and - perhaps most important - that does not bust the federal budget and therefore can be passed by Congress. Representatives Van Hollen, Edwards, Miller and Cunningham will seek cosponsors and fight for this bill.

Below my signature block is Congressman Van Hollen's press announcement about this new bill. I will keep you informed as this bill moves through the legislative process.

(In case you don't know or remember me, I was Legislative Director for Congressman Ronnie Shows of Mississippi, who introduced the original Keep Our Promise to America's Military Retirees Act in 1999.)

PHIL ALPERSON
Legislative Director
Congressman Chris Van Hollen (MD-8th)
Montgomery and Prince George's Counties
1419 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
http://www.house.gov/vanhollen/

 

HR 3474 SUMMARY:
The Keep Our Promise to America's Military Retirees Act
(Revised version, introduced November 6, 2003)
SECTION-BY-SECTION SUMMARY

Section I: Short Title: "Keep Our Promise to America's Military Retirees Act"

Section II: Findings:

Section III: Coverage of Military Retirees Under FEHBP

Section IV: Hardship Reimbursements for TRICARE Pharmacy Benefit

Section V: Waiver of Medicare Part B Premium for Military Retirees who joined the Uniformed Services Prior to December 7, 1956.

HR 3474 - Keep Our Promise to America's Military Retirees Act

To see a side by side comparison of HR 58 and HR 3474 click here

Keep Our Promise to America's Military Retirees Act (Introduced in House)

HR 3474 IH

108th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 3474

To restore health care coverage to retired members of the uniformed services, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

November 6, 2003

Mr. VAN HOLLEN (for himself, Mr. EDWARDS, Mr. MILLER of Florida, and Mr. CUNNINGHAM) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committees on Government Reform, Ways and Means, and Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To restore health care coverage to retired members of the uniformed services, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Keep Our Promise to America's Military Retirees Act'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:

(1) No statutory health care program existed for members of the uniformed services who entered service prior to December 7, 1956, and retired after serving a minimum of 20 years.

(2) Recruiters, re-enlistment counselors, and officers at all levels of the uniformed services, and other government officials, as agents of the United States Government, used recruiting tactics that allowed members who entered the uniformed services prior to December 7, 1956, to believe they would be entitled to fully paid lifetime health care upon retirement.

(3) In the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision of November 18, 2002, in Schism v. United States (No. 99-1402), the Court said: `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 Schism and Reinlie on their own behalf, and indirectly for other affected retirees.'.

(4) Only the United States Congress can make good on the promises recruiters made in good faith to plaintiffs and others of the World War II and Korean War era.

(5) Statutes enacted in 1956 allowed those who entered service on or after December 7, 1956, and retired after serving a minimum of 20 years or by reason of a service-connected disability to medical and dental care in any facility of the uniformed services, subject to the availability of space and facilities and the capabilities of the medical and dental staff.

(6) Recruiters, re-enlistment counselors, and officers at all levels of the uniformed services, and other government officials, as agents of the United States Government, continued to allow members who entered the uniformed services to believe they would be entitled to fully paid lifetime health care upon retirement, despite enactment of statutes in 1956, subsequent statutes, and the issuance of regulations that defined and limited the availability of medical care to retired members of the uniformed services.

(7) After 4 rounds of base closures between 1988 and 1995 and further drawdowns of remaining military medical treatment facilities, access to `space available' health care in a military medical treatment facility is difficult or virtually nonexistent for many military retirees.

(8) The failure to provide adequate health care upon retirement is preventing the retired members of the uniformed services from recommending, without reservation, that young men and women make a career of any military service.

(9) Although provisions in the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (as enacted into law by Public Law 106-398) extended coverage under the TRICARE program to medicare eligible military retirees age 65 and older, those provisions did not address the health care needs of military retirees under the age of 65.

(10) The United States should make good on the promises recruiters made in good faith in the World War II and Korean War era and reestablish high quality health care for all retired members of the uniformed services.

SEC. 3. COVERAGE OF MILITARY RETIREES UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYEES HEALTH BENEFITS PROGRAM.

(a) COVERAGE FOR RETIREES AND DEPENDENTS- (1) Section 1108 of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

`Sec. 1108. Health care coverage through Federal Employees Health Benefits program

`(a) FEHBP OPTION- The Secretary of Defense, after consulting with the other administering Secretaries, shall enter into an agreement with the Office of Personnel Management to provide coverage to eligible beneficiaries described in subsection (b) under the health benefits plans offered through the Federal Employees Health Benefits program under chapter 89 of title 5.

`(b) ELIGIBLE BENEFICIARIES; COVERAGE- (1) An eligible beneficiary under this subsection is--

`(A) a member or former member of the uniformed services described in section 1074(b) of this title;

`(B) an individual who is an unremarried former spouse of a member or former member described in section 1072(2)(F) or 1072(2)(G);

`(C) an individual who is--

`(i) a dependent of a deceased member or former member described in section 1076(b) or 1076(a)(2)(B) of this title or of a member who died while on active duty for a period of more than 30 days; and

`(ii) a member of family as defined in section 8901(5) of title 5; or

`(D) an individual who is--

`(i) a dependent of a living member or former member described in section 1076(b)(1) of this title; and

`(ii) a member of family as defined in section 8901(5) of title 5.

`(2) Eligible beneficiaries may enroll in a Federal Employees Health Benefit plan under chapter 89 of title 5 under this section for self-only coverage or for self and family coverage which includes any dependent of the member or former member who is a family member for purposes of such chapter.

`(3) A person eligible for coverage under this subsection shall not be required to satisfy any eligibility criteria specified in chapter 89 of title 5 (except as provided in paragraph (1)(C) or (1)(D)) as a condition for enrollment in health benefits plans offered through the Federal Employees Health Benefits program under this section.

`(4) For purposes of determining whether an individual is a member of family under paragraph (5) of section 8901 of title 5 for purposes of paragraph (1)(C) or (1)(D), a member or former member described in section 1076(b) or 1076(a)(2)(B) of this title shall be deemed to be an employee under such section.

`(5) An eligible beneficiary who is eligible to enroll in the Federal Employees Health Benefits program as an employee under chapter 89 of title 5 is not eligible to enroll in a Federal Employees Health Benefits plan under this section.

`(6) An eligible beneficiary who enrolls in the Federal Employees Health Benefits program under this section shall not be eligible to receive health care under section 1086 or section 1097. Such a beneficiary may continue to receive health care in a military medical treatment facility, in which case the treatment facility shall be reimbursed by the Federal Employees Health Benefits program for health care services or drugs received by the beneficiary.

`(c) CHANGE OF HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN- An eligible beneficiary enrolled in a Federal Employees Health Benefits plan under this section may change health benefits plans and coverage in the same manner as any other Federal Employees Health Benefits program beneficiary may change such plans.

`(d) GOVERNMENT CONTRIBUTIONS- The amount of the Government contribution for an eligible beneficiary who enrolls in a health benefits plan under chapter 89 of title 5 in accordance with this section may not exceed the amount of the Government contribution which would be payable if the electing beneficiary were an employee (as defined for purposes of such chapter) enrolled in the same health benefits plan and level of benefits.

`(e) SEPARATE RISK POOLS- The Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall require health benefits plans under chapter 89 of title 5 to maintain a separate risk pool for purposes of establishing premium rates for eligible beneficiaries who enroll in such a plan in accordance with this section.

`(f) REIMBURSEMENT FOR EXPENSES FOR HEALTH CARE SERVICES NORMALLY PROVIDED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE UNDER TRICARE STANDARD- The Secretary of Defense shall develop and implement a system to reimburse an eligible beneficiary who enrolls in a health benefits plan under chapter 89 of title 5 in accordance with this section for health care costs incurred by the beneficiary that are not paid under the health benefits plan but would have been paid by the Department of Defense under TRICARE Standard.'.

(2) The item relating to section 1108 at the beginning of such chapter is amended to read as follows:

`1108. Health care coverage through Federal Employees Health Benefits program.'.

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE- The amendments made by this section shall take effect on October 1, 2004.

SEC. 4. REIMBURSEMENT FOR TRICARE PHARMACY BENEFITS AT TRICARE NETWORK PHARMACY LEVELS TO CERTAIN MILITARY RETIREES AND DEPENDENTS IN HARDSHIP CASES.

(a) IN GENERAL- In the case of an eligible person who has a certification described in subsection (b), the Secretary shall reimburse such person for pharmacy benefits received from a pharmacy that is not a TRICARE network pharmacy in the same manner and in the same amounts as the Secretary would reimburse such person for such benefits received from pharmacy that is a TRICARE network pharmacy.

(b) CERTIFICATION- The certification referred to in subsection (a) is a certification from an eligible person's physician--

(1) stating that the person does not have access to a TRICARE network pharmacy due to physical or medical constraints; and

(2) meeting such other criteria as the Secretary of Defense considers appropriate.

(c) ELIGIBLE PERSON- In this section, an eligible person is an eligible beneficiary as described in section 1108(b) of title 10, United States Code who has another insurance plan or program that provides primary coverage for health benefits.

SEC. 5. WAIVER OF MEDICARE PART B PREMIUM FOR CERTAIN MILITARY RETIREES.

(a) IN GENERAL- Section 1839 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395r) is amended--

(1) in subsection (a)(2), by striking `The monthly premium' and inserting `Except as provided in subsection (h), the monthly premium'; and

(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:

`(h)(1) The amount of the monthly premium for an eligible individual enrolled under this part is equal to $0.

`(2) For purposes of paragraph (1), the term `eligible individual' means--

`(A) an individual who is entitled to retired or retainer pay based upon service in the uniformed services (as defined in section 101 of title 10, United States Code) that began before December 7, 1956;

`(B) the spouse (as determined under section 7703 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) of an individual described in paragraph (1); and

`(C) the widow or widower, as the case may be, of an individual described in subparagraph (A).

`(3) With respect to years beginning after the date of the enactment of this subsection, the monthly premium rate calculated under subsection (a)(3) for individuals enrolled under this part who are not eligible individuals under this subsection shall be determined without regard to benefits and administrative costs attributable to such eligible individuals during such years.'.

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE- The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply to premiums for months beginning with January 2004. The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall establish a method for providing rebates to eligible individuals (as defined in subsection (h)(2) of such section 1839) of any premium penalty paid by reason of subsection (b) of such section for months on or after January 2001.

 

PRESS RELEASE:
November 6, 2003
Van Hollen Bill Would Make Good on Promised
Health Care for Military Veterans

(Washington, D.C.) -- United States Representative Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) introduced a revised version of the "Keep Our Promise to America's Military Retirees Act" today along with Representatives Chet Edwards (D-TX), Jeff Miller (R-FL) and Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-CA). This bipartisan bill addresses recent developments and offers more 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," said Congressman Van Hollen. "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."

"Over the past year 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,' said Van Hollen. "Recruits were promised by their own government that if they served a career of 20 years in military service, 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."

This past June the U.S. Supreme Court decided not to consider a November 12, 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 in 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," said Van Hollen. "But although the retired colonels lost their case on that technicality, I believe they won their moral battle on principle."

The Court ruling said, in part, "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."

Van Hollen continued, "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. But now that the Courts have ruled, it is more important than ever that Congress pass this bill. The Courts have ruled that legally only Congress can make good on promises made to our military retirees." The new bill offers more meaningful restitution for broken promises by waiving both the Part B premium and the late fee for World War II and Korean era military retirees.

Van Hollen continued, "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. But now that the Courts have ruled that only Congress can make good on promises made to our military retirees, it is more important than ever that Congress pass this bill." Van Hollen noted that the new bill offers more meaningful restitution for broken promises by waiving both the Part B premium and the late fee for World War II and Korean era military retirees.

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," he said, "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," said Van Hollen. "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."

Van Hollen believes strongly that military retirees who are not well served by Tricare deserve an alternative. The Keep Our Promise Act has offers these retirees the option of enrolling in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP); the new version of the bill improves this benefit for military retirees by reimbursing them for expenses they incur under FEHBP that they would not have been incurred under Tricare. "This provision is cost-neutral since the government would be covering these health care expenses under one program or the other," said Van Hollen.

"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," said Van Hollen.

The Courts Have Ruled:
Only Congress Can Make Good on Promises
Made to America's Military Veterans
Co-Sponsor H.R. 3474, the Updated Bipartisan
"Keep Our Promise to America's Military Retirees Act"

November 7, 2003

Dear Colleague:

We write to ask you to co-sponsor a bipartisan revision of the Keep Our Promise to America's Military Retirees Act, to address recent developments in the matter of the "broken promise" of health care for military retirees and to offer more meaningful remedies.

This past June the U.S. Supreme Court brought closure to a landmark court case when it decided not to consider a November 12, 2002 Federal Appeals Court ruling in a suit filed against the government of the United States on behalf of military retirees who had put their lives on the line for our country in World War II and Korea. 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 in 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. Although the retired colonels lost their case on that technicality, we believe they won their moral battle on principle, as the Appeals Court concluded:

''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 Schism and Reinlie on their own behalf, and indirectly for other affected retirees.''

The "Keep Our Promise to America's Military Retirees Act" was introduced in the 106th Congress so that Congress could, at long last, acknowledge the promises made in good faith to America's military retirees. Now that the Courts have ruled, it is more important than ever that Congress pass this bill. The bill was reintroduced in the 108th Congress by Rep. Chet Edwards as H.R. 58 and has 200 cosponsors.

We recently reintroduced the bipartisan Keep Our Promise Act as H.R. 3474 to reflect the Appeals Court ruling that only Congress can, legally - and should, morally - make good on promises made to our military retirees. But more important, H.R. 3474 significantly corrects provisions of H.R. 58 that were rendered moot by actions the 106th Congress took to address inequities in military retiree health care when it enacted Tricare for Life (TFL), which restored military health care to Medicare-eligible military retirees.

To qualify for TFL, Medicare-eligible military retirees are required to pay Medicare Part B premiums. Retirees past age 65 are required to pay late fees for joining the system to qualify for TFL. To address the Court's admonition in Col. Day's case that Congress should make good on its promises of lifetime health care, H.R. 3474 waives both the Part B premium and the late fee for military retirees who joined the service prior to December 7, 1956.

H.R. 3474 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.

These retirees, mainly from the Vietnam and Persian Gulf eras, are not old enough to qualify for TFL but do 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.

Military retirees who are not well served by Tricare deserve an alternative. Since it was first introduced in 1999, The Keep Our Promise Act has offered these retirees the option of enrolling in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). But enrollment in FEHPB requires substantial expenses that military retirees would not incur if Tricare worked properly, so H.R. 3474 improves this benefit for military retirees by reimbursing them for expenses they incur under FEHBP that they would not have been incurred under Tricare. This provision is cost-neutral to the government.

As the Appeals Court said, 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 urge you to cosponsor H.R. 3474, so that Congress can once and for all acknowledge and make good on the broken promise of military retiree health care. If you are already a cosponsor of H.R. 58 then you should sign on to this bill because it repairs flaws in the first bill. And if you are not currently a cosponsor of H.R. 58, then signing on to this bill will tell military families in your district that you believe Congress should stand behind the promises made to them.

Sincerely,

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, CHET EDWARDS, JEFF MILLER, DUKE CUNNINGHAM

Members of Congress

 

home
E-mail webmaster fsears@bellsouth.net
Posted 8 Nov 2003