[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 1847-1848]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                   COURT RULING ON CLASS ACT LAWSUIT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Shows) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SHOWS. Mr. Speaker, in a major legal development this past 
Thursday, a U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a lawsuit filed by 
the class act group of the military retirees.
  In the case of Schism versus the United States, the court found that 
there is, in fact, a broken promise between the United States 
Government and thousands of military retirees and their families.
  This suit was filed on behalf of military retirees who were recruited 
into the service with a promise that lifetime health care would be 
provided to them if they served a career of at least 20 years.
  The class act represents retirees who entered the service prior to 
June 7, 1956. That was the day Congress enacted the first military 
retiree health care plan, which today we know it as Champus or TRICARE.
  Enactment of those health care plans actually stripped away health 
care that had been promised to these recruits and which had been 
routinely delivered.
  After June 7, 1956, statutes no longer obligated the government to 
provide health care to military retirees, but health care that is now 
provided at military bases on a space-available basis is out of reach 
for many retirees, due to base closures and downsizing, and that is 
assuming that space is available which is not always the case.
  Here are a few choice quotes from the appeals court decision. The 
retirees entered active duty in the Armed Forces and completed at least 
20 years of service on the good faith that the government would fulfill 
its promises.
  The terms of the contract were set when the retirees entered the 
service and fulfilled their obligation. The government cannot 
unilaterally amend the contract terms now.
  The government breached its implied-in-fact contract with the 
retirees when it failed to provide them with health care benefits at no 
cost.
  Congress was without power to reduce expenditures by abrogating 
contractual obligations of the United States. To abrogate contracts, in 
the attempt to lessen government expenditure, would not be the practice 
of economy, but an act of repudiation.
  The case has been remanded to a lower court to determine damages. 
Such damages could result in billions and billions of Federal dollars 
being awarded to millions of military retirees and their families, 
particularly if damages are rewarded to retirees who fall beyond the 
scope of the class act group.
  What does this mean to us in Congress? The court decision validates 
what I had been saying since 1999 when I introduced the Keep Our 
Promise to America's Military Retirees Act.
  The appeals court decision gives us the opportunity to act now and 
restore health equity to military retirees who now have the courts on 
their side, and we can do it without busting our budget.
  We must pass H.R. 179, the Keep Our Promise Act.
  It acknowledges the broken promise of lifetime health care by 
providing military retirees within the class act group with fully-paid 
Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan eligibility, and allows all other 
military retirees to participate in the FEHBP, just like any other 
Federal employee.

[[Page 1848]]

  Mr. Speaker, but if they are happy with TRICARE, the military health 
plan, they can stay with it, Congress passed that part of the Keep Our 
Promise Act last year.
  If we pass this bill, the U.S. government will have responded to the 
court, and we will have acknowledged and made good on the broken 
promise to our America's military retirees.
  We must do the right thing and quickly enact H.R. 179 into law.

                          ____________________