Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I yield Senator Brownback up to 3 minutes.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. How much time remains?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I yield up to 5 minutes to the Senator from Ohio.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Does the Senator from Iowa wish to go at this time? Because if not, Senator Voinovich was next in line for our side.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Parliamentary inquiry. How much time do I have left?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I am happy to yield an additional 5 minutes to the Senator from Florida. If he can take any less than that, we have other Members signed up for the time. Thank you.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I yield 10 minutes to my colleague.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Washington.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I understand that the Senator was not aware we had set aside this time by unanimous consent for the amendment. So I am happy to give him 5 minutes equally divided between Senator Specter's side and my side, if he will do that, and then allow us to go back to the amendment under the current unanimous consent agreement. Is that acceptable?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I have two speakers on the amendment, but I know Senator Akaka wants to speak on the bill. I would like to ask him if he could take 5 minutes--and then let us get back to the amendment--equally divided from Senator Specter's side and my side.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, we will have time tomorrow to speak on the amendment by Senator Specter and Senator Harkin, but I think it is important that we understand what we are talking about. The Federal Government had nothing to do with the lawsuits that were brought by the States. In fact, the States asked for Federal help. They asked for Federal guidance, and they got none. It was only after the States had settled with the tobacco companies and all States were covered that the Health Care Financing Administration decided that these suits were based on Medicaid and, therefore, the Federal Government should be able to take the average of the Medicaid expenditures from the States from these tobacco settlements. It came up with a figure of 57 percent. They are relying on the part of the law that says the States are responsible for recovering Medicaid overpayments or mistakes in billing; or if a person is covered with private insurance and they get Medicaid coverage, the States would go after the private insurance companies to pay these Medicaid costs. The Health Care Financing Administration is using that law to say that the tobacco settlement should be covered for Medicaid, and they are coming in and saying to the States that the tobacco settlement that was made should not be allowed to be kept by the States and, in fact, they want to withhold 57 percent. The amendment that is before the Senate today would take 50 percent and tell the States how to spend this money. It doesn't even tell the States that they have to spend it on Medicaid. We are not even now talking about what the Health Care Financing Administration had hoped to get in the first place, and that is help on Medicaid payments. They are just saying that big brother Federal Government is going to tell the States that they must spend the money on health care or tobacco cessation programs or helping tobacco farmers, and they are going to allocate 50 percent of the State's money for these purposes. Let's take the State of Ohio as an example. Say that the State of Ohio has a legislature that meets every other year. They are not in session. All of a sudden we have a Federal mandate that the States spend 50 percent of their hard-earned money on these specific program purposes and the Secretary of HHS says to the State of Ohio, ``I'm very sorry, but your program doesn't meet my standard so I'm going to withhold your Medicaid money.'' The legislature is not in session, the programs are in place. Is the legislature going to have to come into special session to try to determine how they are going to change the program to meet this test? They are going to have to because no State can absorb the loss of their Medicaid money, and, most certainly, they are not going to leave people on the streets unserved by Medicaid. This is going to be duplicated all over America if this amendment passes. Nobody is thinking about what happens after the Federal Government says, ``This is simple, this is simple. We will say you have to spend 20 percent on tobacco cessation and 30 percent on the health- related or tobacco farmer aid programs.'' They don't say what happens after we pass this broad general guideline. But what happens is, we are going to have standards, we are going to have regulations, we are going to have certifications, and all of a sudden they have what always happens in Washington, and that is we are going to have the Federal Government encroaching on the States rights with the States' money, earned by the States; and we are going to have costly regulations and bureaucracy, and then we are going to have crisis after crisis after crisis in States that are not going to meet the test of Health and Human Services Secretaries for 25 years to come, who will be able to hold on to the Medicaid money if we don't keep the underlying bill intact. The underlying bill is very simple. It just says that the Federal Government will not encroach on the States at all. The States are using this money for very different purposes. Most of the States--in fact, almost all of the States--did not sue on Medicaid, and if your purpose is to help Medicaid, this amendment doesn't do it. So I hope that we can keep it simple. I hope that we can allow the States to do what they have sued to recover and achieve their purposes. Some States sued on health care. Some States sued on consumer fraud. Some States sued for RICO. There were a myriad of causes of action. But the fact of the matter is, it is the States that sued. So I say to the distinguished chairman of the committee, if he wants to help Medicaid, this amendment doesn't do it. If he wants to help Medicaid, what he needs to do is add another amendment that requires the money go to Medicaid. He thinks that if we pass this amendment, it will keep the State budgets from growing. It won't keep the States' budgets from growing at all in Medicaid costs. What we are talking about here is 20 percent going for tobacco cessation programs and 30 percent going for health care or tobacco farmers. So I hope, if the purpose is to give Medicaid money, that we will have a different amendment. The amendment that is before us today will be costly, it will cause more bureaucracy, more regulation, and it will cause crises in States if they don't meet the Secretary's test of what the program should be. And this Secretary of Health and Human Services will have a different interpretation, perhaps, than the next Secretary of Health and Human Services. So the States are going to fashion a program that meets Secretary Shalala's needs today, and 2 years from now they are going to have to fashion a new set of programs in order not to have the money jerked out from under their noses when they have counted on this money because their tobacco settlement was made by the States. We have time to talk about this tomorrow. I hope Members will consider the havoc that this would wreak on the States and the fact that it will not help the Federal Government. It is putting a strain on that which has no relationship to the problem that is being alleged. If the problem is that we aren't going to share Medicaid, how are we going to help tobacco farmers and meet the Medicaid needs? It is not going to work. This is not an amendment that has been thought through, and we have not thought of what is going to happen 2 years from now, and 4 years from now, and 6 years from now. I hope that Senators will understand that this will wreak havoc on our States. It is an encroachment on States rights, and it will not help the Federal coffers at all. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of the Cochran-Inouye Missile Defense Act because I think it is long overdue that this Senate take an action that is so very crucial to the security of our Nation. I commend Senator Cochran and Senator Inouye for trying so hard to get our Congress to move forward, to deploy this defense system in the face of opposition from the President of the United States. I appreciate that they have twice come to the Senate and twice been filibustered and have been unable to set this very important national security policy. In fact, the question is, Shall it be the policy of the United States to deploy, as soon as technologically possible, an effective national missile defense capable of defending the United States against limited ballistic missile attacks? It is a very simple question, and most people in this country think we already have a defense to an in-coming ballistic missile. But in fact we do not. We now know that Chinese missiles can reach our mainland. In a few short years, Iran, Iraq and North Korea could also be able to attack the United States. Today, we cannot defend the people of our country nor any place in the world where we have troops on the ground. The Clinton administration said that we would have 15 years' warning for missiles from North Korea and Iran, but the Rumsfeld report said the danger could arise at any time. I commend former Secretary of Defense and former Congressman Don Rumsfeld for really delving into this issue in a very bipartisan commission. He had a very tough row to hoe. But he said we are going to get to the bottom of this and he did not stop until he had a unanimous report from his commission, some of whom were naysayers in the beginning, that said this danger is upon us and we better do something about it. He gave us the wake-up call, and we should be forever grateful to Don Rumsfeld for having the guts to get to the truth so we would have the facts to back up the need for this security for our country. Unfortunately, U.S. espionage has shown that China has tremendously boosted its military space and missile capabilities. There is just no good argument against this resolution. The bill has support from both sides of the aisle. It really shows that people are beginning to be aware that we have a security threat to the United States. This bill is not what many of the critics have said. It does not mandate a missile defense architecture. It does not authorize a particular funding level. It is not a production decision, and it doesn't lead to the signing of any contracts. Instead, it is a policy statement by the Senate of the United States. But it is an important step for our national security. America, the innovative Nation that landed a man on the Moon, has built up an impressive array of antimissile technology. We have had a formal missile defense program since President Ronald Reagan launched SDI in 1983, and there were various antimissile technologies in research before that. An operational system is now within our reach. The experts say we could have one in 2 years, 3 years, perhaps 4. But because of misinformation, this promising system remains confined to the laboratory, and the Government has never taken the policy step that is illustrated in this bill. As long as we continue to ignore this basic policy question, we won't have an antimissile protection for our country, nor an effective theater defense for our forces and allies abroad. We have a chance to take that first step, and it is time that we did this. What do the opponents of a missile defense system fear so much that they will not even permit us to go forward to try to get the technology in place? The danger of ballistic missiles can no longer be ignored. The Clinton administration stubbornly sticks to the old ABM Treaty. In a letter to Senator Levin on February 3, the President's National Security Adviser, Sandy Berger wrote: . . . a decision regarding national missile defense deployment must also be addressed within the context of the ABM treaty and our objectives for achieving future reductions in strategic offensive arms through START II and START III. The ABM treaty remains a cornerstone of strategic stability. . . . The letter promises a Presidential veto of this measure if it is passed in its present form. Our choice is clear. We deploy a missile defense system as soon as technologically feasible, or we hide behind a 25-year-old treaty with a country that no longer exists. In fact, many legal and treaty scholars believe that as a matter of international law, the treaty terminated when the U.S.S.R. collapsed. How anyone can believe that the ABM Treaty is the cornerstone of strategic stability, when so many nations outside the treaty are flagrantly ignoring its principles, I do not understand, when nearly three dozen countries are building or transferring ballistic missile technology. How does the ABM Treaty protect us from high-tech missiles in North Korea, in Iran, in Iraq and in China? In fact, Mr. President, the White House cannot even say who the treaty partner is right now. To solve that problem, the administration negotiated a new ABM Treaty, signed in 1997 in New York, that would make Russia, Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan parties to the new treaty. It would also impose new limits on the most promising theater missile defenses, limits that were never envisioned in the ABM Treaty of 1972. The New York treaty would handcuff us, crippling our defenses. Where is that treaty now? The Senate has gone on record on several occasions insisting that the new treaty be submitted for our constitutionally required advice and consent, but the President has consistently refused to submit the treaty that would put new countries into it to the Senate for ratification. Have we learned nothing from the Rumsfeld Commission report, from the test of a three-stage ICBM by North Korea that went right over Japan where we have thousands of troops on the ground, from the launch of Iran's Shahab-3, from China's own threats? Eight years after the fall of the U.S.S.R., we are still fighting the last war. We are basing our safety in the cold war strategy of arms control with Russia, coupled with deliberate vulnerability to missile attack. Polls show that most Americans believe we have antiballistic missile protection. Can you imagine our country being vulnerable and not even taking the first step, the first step to a policy that says we are not going to leave ourselves open when countries are threatening that they have ballistic missiles that will reach our shores, based on an obsolete treaty that is not even in the best interest of Russia, which is the country that this administration says is the other party to the treaty? I think we would sit down with Russia, and it would be in both our best interests to have a defense for both of our countries from rogue nations that have already shown that they have ballistic missile capabilities, and some even have nuclear capabilities to put right on one of those ballistic missiles. Mr. President, there is no responsibility any greater for the U.S. Senate than the security of our country. That we would not pass the Cochran-Inouye resolution immediately and go forward with a technology that would protect our country is unthinkable; it is unthinkable. Yet, we have seen a filibuster of this very resolution twice in the last year in the U.S. Senate. I urge my colleagues not to let one more day pass that this country is not in high gear, pursuing the security of our Nation and our forces in any theater in the field and our allies who depend on us for their protection as well. Mr. President, we should not let another day pass or we will be walking away from one of the key responsibilities that Congress has, and that is to stand up to the President of the United States, to admit that the ABM Treaty is obsolete and no longer in the best interest of the former U.S.S.R., nor the United States of America, and to say we are going to protect the people of America and the troops that are fighting for our freedom wherever they may be in the world, that we would protect them from an incoming ballistic missile with nuclear, chemical or biological capabilities. That is the statement that we will be making if we pass the Cochran-Inouye bill. I urge my colleagues to do it, hopefully very soon, to start the first step. This does not appropriate the money. It doesn't designate the authorization. It only says it is the policy of this country to go forward to make the technology something that will work and to put our very best minds on this issue. Then we will authorize it. Then we will appropriate for it. We cannot shirk this responsibility, Mr. President. Once again, I thank Senator Cochran and I thank Senator Inouye for being determined that on their watch we will do the right thing for the people of the United States of America and all of our allies, wherever they may need us in the future. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a point of important history in our Nation; that is, to commemorate this day 163 years ago, Texas Independence Day. Each year, I look forward to March 2nd. This is a special day for Texans, a day that fills our hearts with pride. On this day 163 years ago, a solemn convention of 54 men, including my great, great grandfather Charles S. Taylor, met in the small settlement of Washington-on-the-Brazos. There they signed the Texas Declaration of Independence. The declaration stated: We, therefore . . . do hereby resolve and declare . . . that the people of Texas do now constitute a free, sovereign and independent republic. At the time, Texas was a remote territory of Mexico. It was hospitable only to the bravest and most determined of settlers. After declaring our independence, the founding delegates quickly wrote a constitution and organized an interim government for the newborn republic. As was the case when the American Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776, our declaration only pointed the way toward a goal. It would exact a price of enormous effort and great sacrifice. For instance, when my great, great grandfather was there, signing the declaration of independence, and then, as most of the delegates did, went on eventually to fight the Battle of San Jacinto, he didn't know it at the time, but all four of his children who had been left back at home in Nacogdoches died trying to escape from the Indians and the Mexicans who they feared were coming after them. Fortunately, he and his wife, my great, great grandmother, had nine more children. But it is just an example of the sacrifices that were made by people who were willing to fight for something they believed in. That, of course, was freedom--freedom, in that instance, of Texas at that time. But that is something, of course, all Americans cherish greatly. While the convention sat in Washington-on-the-Brazos, 6,000 Mexican troops were marching on the Alamo to challenge this newly created republic. Several days earlier, from the Alamo, Col. William Barrett Travis sent his immortal letter to the people of Texas and to all Americans. He knew the Mexican Army was approaching and he knew that he had only a very few men to help defend the San Antonio fortress. Colonel Travis wrote: Fellow Citizens and Compatriots: I am besieged with a thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Anna. I have sustained a continual Bombardment and cannonade for 24 hours and have not lost a man. The enemy has demanded surrender at discretion, otherwise, the garrison is to be put to the sword, if the fort is taken. I have answered the demand with a cannon shot, and our flag still waves proudly over the wall. I shall never surrender or retreat. Then I call on you in the name of Liberty, of patriotism, of everything dear to the American character, to come to our aid with all dispatch. The enemy is receiving reinforcements daily and will no doubt increase to three or four thousand in four or five days. If this call is neglected I am determined to sustain myself as long as possible and die like a soldier who never forgets what is due his honor and that of his country--VICTORY OR DEATH. William Barrett Travis, Lt. Col. Commander. What American, Texan or otherwise, can fail to be stirred by Col. Travis' resolve? In fact, Colonel Travis' dire prediction came true--4,000 to 5,000 Mexican troops laid siege to the Alamo. In the battle that followed, 184 brave men died in a heroic but vain attempt to fend off Santa Anna's overwhelming army. But the Alamo, as we all in Texas know, was crucial to Texas' independence. Because those heroes at the Alamo held out for so long, Santa Anna's forces were battered and diminished. Gen. Sam Houston gained the time he needed to devise a strategy to defeat Santa Anna at the Battle of San Jacinto, just a month or so later, on April 21, 1836. The Lone Star was visible on the horizon at last. Each year, on March 2, there is a ceremony at Washington-on-the- Brazos State Park where there is a replica of the modest cabin where the 54 patriots laid down their lives and treasure for freedom. Each day on this day, I read Colonel Travis' letter to my colleagues in the Senate, a tradition started by my friend, Senator John Tower. This is a reminder to them and to all of us of the pride Texans share in our history and in being the only State that came into the Union as a republic. Mr. President, I am pleased to continue the tradition that was started by Senator Tower, because we do have a unique heritage in Texas where we fought for our freedom. Having grown up in the family and hearing the stories of my great great grandfather, it was something that was ingrained in us--fighting for your freedom was something you did. I think it is very important that we remember the people who sacrificed, the 184 men who died at the Alamo, the men who died at Goliad, who made it possible for us to win the Battle of San Jacinto and become a nation, which we were for 10 years before we entered the Union as a State. I might add, we entered the Union by a margin of one vote, both in the House and in the Senate. In fact, we originally were going to come into the Union through a treaty, but the two-thirds vote could not be received and, therefore, President Tyler said, ``No, then we will pass a law to invite Texas to become a part of our Union,'' and the law passed by one vote in the House and one vote in the Senate. Now we fly both flags proudly--the American flag and the Texas flag--over our capitol in Austin, TX. I am very pleased to, once again, commemorate our great heritage and history. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to submit an important resolution recognizing the Girl Scouts of America. This year commemorates the 87th anniversary of the founding of this outstanding organization. On March 16, 1950, the Girl Scouts of the United States of America became the first national organization for girls to be granted a Federal charter by Congress. The Girl Scout Organization has long been dedicated to inspiring girls and young women with the highest ideals of character, conduct, and service to others to that they may become model citizens in their communities. For 86 years, the Girl Scout movement has provided valuable leadership skills for countless girls and young women across the nation. Today, overall membership in the Girl Scouts is the highest it has been in 26 years, with 2.7 million girls and over 850,000 adult volunteers. I am proud to say that I, too, was a Girl Scout. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Mikulski in introducing this legislation, which would designate the week beginning March 7, 1999, as ``National Girl Scout Week.'' I ask our colleagues to join us.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I really appreciate the one-on-one experiences that Senator Edwards has mentioned because that really brings it home, when that poor child started with a small rash and by the time she could get an appointment with a doctor the rash had covered her body. That is a terrible story, and I have heard stories like that as well. It is why I became interested in trying to fix a problem that was really hurting the military families and our ability to retain those military families. Just last week I toured Lackland Air Force Base. That is the basic training base for all Air Force personnel. A young drill instructor came up to me and said, ``Senator, keep up the good work and fix TRICARE.'' I told him that we would. Certainly, this is the answer to that drill instructor, because he clearly was having a hard time getting care for his family. In a letter that was written to me recently, a retired veteran explained the difficulties he was experiencing with TRICARE. But, he said, ``Senator, please don't concentrate your efforts on my individual problems--this is a systemic problem * * *'' It is a problem. We are losing access to care because of the nightmare associated with claims processing and the dismal rate of reimbursement for services. In fact, if you go to a smaller community that has a base, often you cannot see a heart surgeon because they just will not see a military person because they know the rate of reimbursement is so low. We cannot allow that to be the case for our military personnel. General Dennis Reimer is the Chief of Staff of the Army. He recently said, ``This is about readiness and this is about quality of life linked together. We must ensure that we provide those young men and women who sacrifice and serve our country so well * * * the quality medical care that is the top priority for them * * *'' General Reimer said, ``We must help them or else we're not going to be able to recruit this high quality force.'' When we are talking about readiness, we are talking about the high quality people that make up our Armed Forces and we are talking about keeping them. The last thing we want is a lot of great equipment but not people to run that equipment. We have to realize that times have changed in the military. No longer are most of our military personnel unmarried. They are now married and they have families. They expect to have health care for those families and housing and good pay. That is what they expect, and that is what they deserve. We need to give it to them. That is why our amendment is so important, to be part of adding to the quality of life of our military. We cannot allow the retention problems to continue to erode the powerful military that we have. Our military strength is based on people, good people, quality people, people who are dedicated, people who care about this country and want to protect it. They want to protect our freedom. If they are going to give their lives to protect our freedom, I think in return they deserve a quality of life for themselves and for their families that would make us all proud. That is why Senator Edwards and I, Senator Hagel, Senator Helms, Senator Fitzgerald, Senator Coverdell, Senator Johnson, Senator Santorum, Senator Kennedy, Senator Bingaman, and Senator Sessions have come together on this amendment to try to add quality health care and improvements to the TRICARE system to the military pay raise and the pension improvements that are already in this bill. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to announce the cosponsors for whom I am offering this amendment. The cosponsors are Mr. Edwards, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Helms, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Bingaman, and Mr. Santorum. Mr. President, this is an amendment that I think goes very well in the bill before us. This is a military Bill of Rights. This bill is going to try to help alleviate a very bad situation that we have with our military. Right now we are having a hard time recruiting. We have had the worst recruiting year in the Army for the United States since 1979. We are having a hard time retaining our best people. For every two pilots that we lose, we are only gaining one to replace those pilots. So you can see, if we are losing two pilots and gaining one, pretty soon we are going to have a pilot shortage in the Air Force, and the time has come. It is also going to add to the expense of training the pilots in the Air Force. The Navy has had to lower its educational standards to recruit. This is not good. So many of us in Congress on a bipartisan basis said, What can we do? What can we do to make sure we are giving quality of life to those who are giving their lives to protect our freedom? What can we do to make it worthwhile for them? The basic things we have heard that are a problem that cause us to lose personnel are pay, health care, and pension benefits. This bill, with our amendment, will address all three. The bill before us today is a pay raise. It does increase pension benefits. But what it hasn't addressed until our amendment is health care. And when I go across my State or when I visit a base in Saudi Arabia, or Tuzla, Bosnia, I hear that people are worried about health care. They are worried that their families back home are not able to get the quality health care they need. So the amendment that Senator Edwards and I are proposing today, along with all of our cosponsors, would reform the TRICARE system. It would require that benefits be portable across the regions that are established in the current system. We all know that military personnel have to move every 2 to 3 years. We want them to be able to take the benefits of their TRICARE system with them when they go to another base. That costs nothing, but it certainly does help ease the transition for the military family. We would ensure military coverage as comparable to the average coverage available to civilian Government employees. Many times on our bases we have civilian Federal employees working side by side with military personnel. We want them to have comparable health care. So within the bounds that the Department of Defense can produce, we want to try to make that comparable and equal if we can get it there. We want to minimize the bureaucratic red tape and streamline the claims processing. One of the big complaints of the doctors who serve our military personnel from the community is that there is so much bureaucratic red tape that they can't get their claim, and it is not worth the hassle. So what happens? The doctor says, ``I'm not going to serve military families.'' Well, we want to stop that right now. We would increase the reimbursement levels to attract and retain quality health care providers. Where a base city does not have the capability to attract pediatricians or OB-GYN or key areas of specialty to serve the military families, we want to authorize the Department of Defense to reimburse at greater levels in order to attract that service for our military families. That is what the amendment does. We also allow our military treatment facilities, our military hospitals, to be reimbursed at Medicare rates from third party givers. This is not adding a cost. In fact, it will help these military hospitals to be reimbursed at a better rate so that they will be able to give better care to our military participants. So that is what our amendment does. We think it is a good amendment, that the Department of Defense will be able to do some of the things they have said they want to be able to do to get better health care in the TRICARE system, and our amendment will allow them to do it. So I appreciate very much that the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee are supporting this amendment. I think it is essential to make a true improvement in the quality of life for our military to improve their health care benefits at the same time that we are giving them pay raises. At this time, I would like to yield to the Senator from North Carolina, my cosponsor, Senator Edwards.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Absolutely. In fact, I think what we are trying to do, of course, is to give the Department the ability to do some of the things that it would like to be able to do to improve the service.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. That is correct.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Yes. I say to the distinguished chairman that we are obviously saying to the Department of Defense that we want to improve the TRICARE system if they find that it is feasible to do so. Obviously, they are going to have to find it feasible. But the priorities that are set will improve TRICARE and particularly allow immediately--well, when the amendment takes effect a year from now. But there will be no cost to allowing people to be able to go to another base and keep their TRICARE system in place. There is no cost in that.