Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I appreciate very much what Senator Frist, who is the only physician in the Senate, is contributing to the issue of stem cell use for research purposes. We have just spent several hours in a hearing learning from scientists and many others about the differing viewpoints on the need for the use of stem cells for research into many diseases where it is hoped we can find an answer through the use of these embryonic stem cells. The debate is valid. Senator Frist has pointed out some of the legitimate ethical questions. I hope we can move forward in a way that does increase the ability to use these types of stem cells and cord blood for looking into the causes and, more importantly, even the treatment of some of the cancers and diseases, such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's disease, multiple myeloma, many forms of cancer where there is great hope that we might have treatment that would allow people to live healthy lives, normal lives, with this kind of treatment, even though they have these diseases. I thank the Senator from Tennessee for his thoughtful contribution to this debate.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I rise today to thank my colleagues Senator Byrd and Senator Reid for agreeing to work with me in conference on the Interior appropriations bill to ensure that the Interior Department funds the Caddo Lake Institute's wetlands project in east Texas through the North American Wetlands Conservation Act. Caddo Lake and its associated wetlands provide habitat for over 150 species of fish and wildlife. It is one of only 17 wetlands in the U.S. that has earned the distinction of being designated a Ramsar wetland of international importance pursuant to the international wetlands convention signed in Ramsar, Iran in 1971. Caddo Lake earned this distinction, in part, because the local community surrounding Caddo Lake spearheaded a long effort to convert the area from an army ammunition plant to a refuge for fish and wildlife. With that accomplished, the next stage of the effort is to secure North American Wetlands Conservation Act funding through the Interior bill for the Caddo Lake Institute so that it may advance the planned restoration and wetlands education work at the lake. The Institute has been the local voice and enduring champion for Caddo Lake.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I rise today to ask my colleagues Senator Byrd and Senator Burns to work with me in conference on the Interior appropriations bill to ensure that the Interior Department provides funding for an important Capitol Hill landmark, the Sewall- Belmont House. The Sewall-Belmont House has been a center of political life in Washington for more than 200 years. It was the home of Treasury Secretary Albert Gallatin from 1801 to 1813 and the only site in Washington to offer armed resistance when British troops invaded the city in August 1814. The building later became a beacon of liberty for American women in the 20th century as the headquarters of the historic National Woman's Party and home of the suffragist leader, Alice Paul. Congress provided $500,000 last year to begin much needed site preservation work at the Sewall-Belmont House. Funds will be needed this year to continue construction and ensure that this home remains a national treasure. Recognition of the Sewall-Belmont House as a nationally significant heritage site has dramatically increased as a result of this preservation effort. Visitorship is steadily increasing, and the National Trust for Historic Preservation recently called the Sewall- Belmont House ``the most significant unrestored women's history site in the country.'' Again, I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure funding for the continued preservation of Sewall-Belmont House.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, this amendment is a very simple one. There are several things that must be reported to an enrollee in a plan before the company can implement those things. They are major changes to that person's plan because you don't want a person to go into the doctor's office or into the pharmacy and be told they have been dropped from their insurance or that their spouse has been dropped from their insurance or their child. We are requiring under the basic bill 30-day notice of any material change. My amendment just specifies disenrollment as one of those items that must be given 30 days' notice. I have had an experience in which a person's husband was dropped from a plan, was not told about it, and found out when the person went to pick up a prescription drug for the husband, and had no way to fight it in the pharmacy. Later in the week, when the person called to find out why the husband was dropped from her plan, they found it was a mistake. Of course it was a mistake. So that is why you want the 30 days' notice, so that a person would not have to find out that they are not getting coverage they thought they had through a clerical error. That is all this amendment does. I urge its adoption.

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.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Will the Chair notify me at the end of 2 minutes? Madam President, I want to speak on behalf of the Grassley motion which would send this bill to committee so that it could be marked up and fully debated because while we have had great debate, bypassing the committee process I think has caused us to have to write the bill in this Chamber. I don't think that is a good way to pass legislation. I think we all want to have a Patients' Bill of Rights that is well vented and well debated and that we know will have the intended consequences because the last thing we want to do is have unintended consequences when we are talking about the health care of most Americans. I hope we can commit the bill to bring it back in a better form. Second, I hope people will support the Gramm-Hutchison amendment because this is the Texas law. Senator Harkin, on a news program this weekend, said: I would love to have just the Texas law for the entire Nation. The Gramm-Hutchison amendment is the Texas law verbatim when it applies to suing a person's employer because what we don't want to do is put the employer in the position of standing for the insurance company. The employer wants to be able to offer insurance coverage to their employees. But if they are going to be liable for a decision made by the insurance company and the doctors, then they are put in a position that is untenable. What we want is health care coverage where the decisions are made by the doctors and the patients. The Senator from North Carolina had a picture of a lovely young woman. He said: This is what the debate is about. It is what the debate is about. The Breaux-Frist plan would definitely address her concerns because it would give her the care she needs rather than going directly for a lawsuit and possibly delaying the health care she needs--and for other patients. Madam President, I ask my colleagues to support the Gramm-Hutchison amendment and support the Grassley motion. Let's get a good bill that will have the effect of increasing coverage in our country and not decreasing it. Thank you, Madam President. I yield 4 minutes to Senator Nickles.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Madam President. I ask unanimous consent that I have 6 minutes allocated--4 minutes from Senator Grassley's time and 2 minutes from Senator Gramm's time. It is my intention to yield 4 minutes to Senator Nickles of my 6 minutes.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, how much time is remaining on the side of Senator Grassley and on the Gramm-Hutchison amendment?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak after the Senator from North Carolina.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senator Mikulski and Senator Murray to offer legislation on a critical health research issue. When I first started looking into the Federal commitment to these deadly blood cancers, leukemia, lymphoma, and multiple myeloma, I was frankly astonished to learn that, despite the fact that these cancers account for 11 percent of all cancer deaths in the U.S., they receive less than 5 percent of the research funding from the National Cancer Institute. That is why I would like to offer legislation today that would authorize an additional $250 million in research at the National Institutes of Health next year, and at least that amount in subsequent years. The bill also contains the specific authorization of $25 million next year to expand public education, outreach, and early detection programs for three of these deadly blood cancers. It is my hope and my expectation that this legislation will serve to focus additional resources on these diseases, as well as to help expand the public's awareness of how deadly and pervasive they can be. I commend the Senators from Maryland and Washington for their support on this issue and urge other Senators to join us in this effort. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank those who are waiting to speak for allowing me to talk on this amendment of which I am a cosponsor because I am very familiar with the Texas law, as one would hope. I know about the success it has had since it was enacted in Texas. I have heard many people around the country talking about the Texas law, and that it would be a model for what we would want to do for every State in America that doesn't already have laws. I think it is an important point that we are not trying to preempt State laws in the Frist-Breaux-Jeffords plan. I support that. I think it is a very important point. The Kennedy-McCain-Edwards bill preempts the States that have already acted. I don't think we need to do that. The Texas law is serving very well in Texas. Yes. We can cover the plans that are not covered by State law in the Federal plan. But there is no reason to preempt a State law that is already working in a particular State. We all know that every State has different needs. People have different ways to look at things. Oregon has been a leader in many health care issues which might not work in Texas. That goes across all the State lines. I will make the point about this amendment as it would apply to the Federal parts of the law. It has worked in Texas. The No. 1 thing that we want to do in this country is encourage more people to have health care coverage. We want them to have good quality health care coverage, which is why we are passing a Patients' Bill of Rights. There have been some concerns raised about patients' rights with an HMO. I have heard many stories that are very sad, such as an HMO failing to respond to a patient. That is why all of us want to pass a Patients' Bill of Rights. It is why we want a woman to be able to go see an OB/GYN without going through a gatekeeper. We want pediatricians to be able to be seen without going through a gatekeeper. We want every American who has an HMO to be able to go directly to an emergency room. These are very important rights about which we are speaking. But I think it is most important that we also encourage employers to give health coverage options to their employees. We want to make sure that everything we are doing will be an encouragement--not a discouragement--for employees to get health care coverage because generally the best plans are those that are based on an employer relationship. Keeping that in mind, the Texas law says: This chapter does not create any liability on the part of an employer, an employer group purchasing organization, or a pharmacy licensed by the State Board of Pharmacy that purchases coverage or assumes risk on behalf of its employees. Specifically, in Texas law we have a prohibition against suing an employer because we want to make sure that an employer is encouraged to continue to offer health care options for employees. I want to give a couple of statistics that talk about the importance of this and how fragile it might be. In looking at some of the reasons that people give for not having health care coverage, we have some interesting statistics. According to the Employee Benefits Research Institute, a 5-percent increase in premiums would cause 5 percent of small businesses to drop coverage. A 10-percent increase in premiums would cause 14 percent to drop coverage. There is also some good news in these figures; that is, if you have a 10-percent decrease in premiums, 43 percent of small businesses would be more likely to offer coverage. I have talked to small business owners. I can tell you that they would like to offer coverage even when they can't. Even when they can't, they have found that it is too expensive, but they feel badly about it. They would really like to do that. But the other statistic we have seen is that the number of people who are uncovered are actually people employed. They do not take health care coverage because it is too expensive even though the employer pays part of the premiums. That is the No. 1 reason given by an employee who is not covered, even though they have access to health care coverage. This is an employee who says: I need that money in my paycheck more than I need the health care coverage for myself or my family. That is an astounding thing to say because most employees would rather have health care coverage even more than higher wages because they know the importance of that for themselves and their families. So I do think when we look at the bill that is before us today that one of the key components should be that we try to keep the costs to employers down. That is why we want to specifically say in the bill that employers will not be able to be sued. We have had some debates here where it seems that some of the people who are supporting the McCain-Kennedy-Edwards bill think employers cannot be sued. What we want to do is clarify that. Whatever language it takes, we want to do that. But we know the Texas language has worked. We know it has been referred to. So we want to put the Texas language on suing employers in the bill to assure that costs will not be raised, and to assure that employers will be encouraged--not discouraged--from offering their employees health care benefits. Last point--and then I will turn this over to the others who are waiting to speak--I have talked to big employers and small employers who now offer health care coverage who say, unequivocally, if it is not very specifically clear that you cannot sue an employer for offering health care coverage to employees, they will drop the coverage. They will just give the employee a certain amount and say: You find health care coverage with this amount of money the best way you can. I can't be connected with it because I can't afford to take the risk that I might be liable in the millions of dollars that are provided for in the Kennedy-McCain-Edwards bill. That would be too costly, so I can't do it. Even really big employers would drop their coverage. We could wreck the health care system and the stability of the coverage that people have if we do not explicitly keep employers from being able to be sued for giving their employees this very important option as a perk of employment. This is the basis of coverage in our country. We cannot take a chance that we would mess it up for the people who are covered in our country, and those we hope will be covered, if we encourage employers to act. I hope we can adopt this very clear language that came right out of the Texas law where it has worked very well to make sure that we encourage employers to continue to offer health care coverage for their employees. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to address the issue today of patient protection legislation that is now before the Senate. I would like to thank so many of my colleagues who have led the effort to enact sensible patient protection legislation that will protect patients more, give patients more rights, and make sure we keep the costs down so that we will not decrease the number of insured in our country but, in fact, will increase the number of insured people. We would like a goal of every American to have quality health coverage. To do that, we must keep costs down as well as make sure that the quality part of the commitment is kept. Senator Frist, Senator Breaux, and Senator Jeffords have what I think is the best bill. Of all of the alternatives, I think there are parts of each that are similar, and I think all the three major bills will certainly be able to come together. But I think the Frist-Breaux- Jeffords approach is the one that makes the most sense and addresses the issues that are of most concern. Senator Frist, the Senator from Tennessee, is also the only medical doctor in the Senate. Of all people, he would know the danger of turning over patient care to accountants and an insurance company. He also knows the danger of turning patient care over to trial lawyers whose first interest is not the well-being of the patient. That is why I think his bill is the one that takes the balanced approach of giving more rights and addressing the major concern of quality patient care but also making sure that we do not open the courts to frivolous lawsuits that would cause the cost of health care to increase exponentially. We all know that quality health care in the United States is unparalleled. There is no argument from anywhere regarding that fact. The question is, How do we maintain this level of quality while expanding it to as many Americans as possible? This is a complicated question, but there is a deceptively simple answer: Cost. When you review the statistics on the uninsured, it becomes very clear. Only 18 percent of the uninsured come from families who have no connection to a workforce. The Kaiser Commission found that 82 percent of the uninsured come from working families. In fact, 71 percent of the uninsured come from families with one or more full-time workers. According to a study done by the Center for Studying Health System Change, 20 percent of all uninsured people are offered health insurance by their employer, or a family member has an employer who offers health insurance, and they could get coverage for his or her family, and they choose not to enroll in the plan. The most cited reason for not enrolling in an offered plan is cost. The costs are a double-edged sword. They are of concern to the patient and the employer who would provide insurance. High costs have caused people to choose to be uninsured in return for more money in their paycheck, feeling that they need that money for other priorities higher than health care coverage. It also is the stated cause by employers that say they cannot offer health insurance to their employees. That is why it is essential that any bill we pass not increase costs either for the patient or for the employer. If health costs continue to climb, the potential results could be alarming, as evidenced by a recent series of nationwide polls of employers. In each one, an overwhelming majority of employers stated unequivocally they would have to pass on any new cost to their employees, whether by raising the employees' premium or out-of-pocket costs or by reducing benefits or eliminating coverage of certain services. As the American economy begins to cool, businesses are beginning to tighten their belts. We are seeing the unemployment rolls go up. This could take a bigger toll on the rolls of the Nation's uninsured. We cannot fool ourselves that a minor increase would make no difference to businesses, especially small businesses with tight profit margins. Indeed, it would not take much at all for small businesses to drop coverage of their employees. According to a study done by the Employee Benefits Research Institute, a 5-percent increase in premiums would cause 5 percent of small businesses to drop coverage, and a 10-percent increase would cause 14 percent to drop coverage. There is also some good news in these figures, if we can just address them; that is, this would also work in reverse, with decreases in rates creating more coverage. In fact, just a 10-percent decrease in rates would make 43 percent of small businesses more likely to offer coverage. We must keep these consequences in mind. We must also remember the consequences of our own actions in another way. Remember the health care debate that we had less than 10 years ago. I doubt that my colleagues across the aisle want to relive the consequences of trying to force upon the American people a nationalized health care system in our fiercely independent, democratic Nation. If Americans are currently unhappy with decisions being made by their HMO rather than their doctor, then just as in 1993, they are not going to want decisions to be made by a bureaucracy in Washington, DC. Yet today we are considering legislation that would impose numerous new Federal mandates and regulations. I know if we don't learn from the mistakes of the past, we are doomed to repeat them. I didn't think we would be doomed so soon. We all have the same goals: to ensure high-quality health care is not compromised; that more Americans have access to health care; and that all patients have basic rights and guarantees concerning their health care. This is about people, not lawyers. We understand that people care more about getting health care, not about filing a good lawsuit. We understand patients want the care. They are not interested in filing a lawsuit later, when the injury may be irreparable. We have the support of the American people on this issue. A recent survey by Market Strategies showed that 83 percent of Americans say lawsuits with few restrictions would make it even harder for the working poor to afford coverage. We should also listen to States that have already introduced some form of a Patients' Bill of Rights, such as my home State of Texas. One size does not work on humans, and it should not be applied to all States, either. Yet one of the bills that is before us, the Kennedy- McCain bill, would make all States the same. It would penalize States such as Texas that have taken steps toward a Patients' Bill of Rights and where, in fact, it is working. When Texas enacted the broad set of managed care reforms in 1997, they addressed an issue that we are attempting to address in Congress. Texas successfully tackled even the sticky issue of appeals and lawsuits, one of the greatest hurdles in the debate on the bill today. In Texas, if an HMO denies a claim, patients have the right to internal and external appeals. Once you have exhausted your administrative remedies and only then can you contemplate suing your HMO in court. The external review section was struck down by a Federal court as the State tried to apply these provisions to federally regulated HMOs. As you can imagine, that didn't stop Texas. They revived their external review section of the law, this time making it voluntary. Despite the ability to decline to participate, HMOs and other health plans are participating, and they are agreeing to be bound by the external review process. This is how the external review process works in Texas. We let an external review board of professionals, who are not associated with the HMO, decide who is right concerning the patient's care. If the HMO denies coverage for a certain procedure, the patient and the doctor disagree with their decision, then the patient can make an internal appeal within the HMO first. If after the HMO reviews the appeal they still refuse to change their stance, then the patient can appeal again to an outside panel of experts not associated with the HMO in any way. It works. In fact, of more than 300 appeals heard under the external review system, fewer than 10 lawsuits has emerged. At the same time, the system has proved to be fair. The conclusions of the appeals are virtually 50/50 in favor of both the patients and the health plans. I know all of us want the best health care for America. But it is a lot easier to jump on a rhetorical or political bandwagon, sometimes, than to create good legislation. Rather than rushing a bill through Congress--and this bill has not even had a committee markup--it is important that we examine this bill carefully. We are going to have to do that in this Chamber because the committee process was bypassed. It is important that we ensure we are not creating more problems than we are trying to solve. We must remember the rule of unintended consequences, that sometimes the end results are vastly different from what we expect or intend. We can't afford to take a chance with unintended consequences with our health care system. It is too basic to too many people in this country for us to make a mistake and go overboard and find that we have allowed so many lawsuits with not very many limits to create a cost increase in our health care system that would cause people to lose coverage or to start relying on lawsuits instead of talking to their doctors and getting an outside appeal to get the care on a timely basis. A Patients' Bill of Rights is important. We must make sure that we work together to get this high quality. Let me describe some of the reasons I am supporting the Frist-Breaux- Jeffords plan. It gives access to emergency rooms without any question and without any delay. In fact, all of the bills agree on these basic issues. I believe if we have a bill that has direct access to an emergency room, direct access, without going through a process, to get to an OB/GYN specialist or a pediatrician or specialty care by a specialist in an area, when that is called for in a diagnosis, then I think that will be a good Patients' Bill of Rights. If we have a rapid, binding internal and external review process on denials of claims, that would be a good Patients' Bill of Rights. If we have access to Federal courts, after going through the external review process, with reasonable limitations on noneconomic damages, that will be a good Patients' Bill of Rights. No one argues that we should have unlimited economic damages if a person is found not to have gotten the proper care. That person needs to have the right to that care that was found to be denied in error. It is the noneconomic damages that have caused so much rise in cost throughout our health care system, that has caused premiums to go up, hospital costs to go up, equipment costs to go up, doctor visits to go up. We can come to a reasonable compromise that gives people rights to sue and rights to access but doesn't take the cap off responsibility so that the patient care is secondary to the big court reward that you might get even if it is unwarranted. That hurts everybody in the system because the cost goes up. And who is hurt the most? It is the person who is barely able to afford that insurance coverage but has access to it and might drop it or choose to go uninsured because the costs become unbearable. This has a ripple effect throughout the health care system. When a person goes uninsured and then has a terrible accident, then the costs must be shared by all taxpayers, by all the people in and out of the system. It is in everyone's best interest that we have quality, affordable health care coverage so people will have their needs met in a responsible way. That is what I think the Frist-Breaux-Jeffords plan will do. I hope very much that my colleagues will make sure that we do the responsible thing because it would be a bigger harm to our country to do the wrong thing, to take a chance. I was here during the debate in early 1994 on the health care plan that was put forward, which would have basically nationalized our health care system. After 2 days of debate on that bill, it was pulled down because people began to see that putting our health care system into a government system was going to limit quality. It was going to limit the access that people have to the great quality health care that we have come to enjoy in our country. When we talk about quality health care, we are talking about new innovations in prescription drugs. We are talking about being able to treat something with prescription drugs today that 10 years ago would have been a huge operation and a 2-week stay in the hospital. We have been in the forefront of the innovation with the newest technologies and the newest prescription drugs that would allow America to have the very best health care coverage of any country in the world. We don't want to lose that. Our freedom to choose has been a big part of the success of that system. But we are in danger of losing it if we turn our system over to people who are not interested in patient welfare. It could be the accountant in the insurance company office who makes a data entry error and causes the person to lose coverage; or it can be the trial lawyer who is more interested in earning a big fee than in getting the patient the coverage they need. It is my intention to offer an amendment to this bill that would also make sure that a person can't have coverage dropped without notice. Today, a person can walk into a pharmacy and order a prescription under their insurance policy and be told by the pharmacy that a family member has been dropped from coverage, unbeknownst to the person who walked in the door. What kind of system is it that someone can be told they don't have insurance and, therefore, they can't get their prescription or they must pay for it in full even though they have coverage, and then when the person calls the next week and says, excuse me, but I was told this week, after 6 years of coverage by the same insurance company, that a member of my family was dropped from coverage, and the person says, oh, there was an error made in a data entry and it was a mistake that your wife was dropped from coverage. That has happened with one of the better insurance companies in this country. I am going to offer an amendment that would keep an insurance company from dropping without notification someone who has been approved for coverage, so if there is a mistake, the person will have the ability to correct the mistake before suffering the embarrassment of being told that they don't have coverage. I just wonder what would have happened if the person had showed up in the emergency room and was told they didn't have coverage anymore, unbeknownst to them, because of a data entry error that was inadvertently made by a faceless bureaucrat in an insurance company system. So I do think it is important that we have a Patients' Bill of Rights, and I think it is important that we proceed with the utmost caution to make sure that everything we are doing is going to contribute to the problem's solution and not make it worse. That is the choice that we have today, and the reason that I am supporting the bill created by the only physician in the Senate, Senator Bill Frist, who has seen firsthand the dangers of an insurance company making a bad decision in an HMO and the dangers of putting patient care in the hands of trial lawyers. What we want is a Patients' Bill of Rights that puts patient care first and foremost and makes sure that we don't increase costs with unintended consequences. That is the issue that we will be debating for the next 2 weeks. I hope the people of America will take the opportunity to learn the differences between the two major bills that will be before us today and the rest of this week, and probably next week, because a person's insurance coverage and quality of care will be greatly affected by what we do in the Senate in the next 2 weeks. I urge my colleagues to take the responsible approach to make sure that we keep the high level of quality care that we have been able to enjoy in our country--the best in the world--and let's not take a chance on lowering the quality while we give more people the ability to have guaranteed rights, and that our eye is on more access for more people in our country, not less. I yield the floor.

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senator Inouye and Senator Hutchinson to offer legislation on a very important issue for those military men and women who serve our country every day. Our current military retirement system, I have come to understand, has a serious flaw on it. We often memorialize those soldiers, sailors, and airmen who died in combat, but too often we forget that service men and women die frequently during daily operations or while training. In the past five years, 2,206 military families lost their spouse, father or mother while serving their country. In just the past year we have mourned the loss of the sailors on the USS Cole, Air Force pilots in Scotland, and soldiers in helicopter crashes in Hawaii, and Vietnam. What is not fully understood is that their families do not receive their full retirement pensions in many cases. Because service members are not vested in their retirement system until the day they retire active duty personnel do not qualify for a retirement pension unless the services medically retire them before death. This has caused hardships to families and necessitated extraordinary efforts by commanders and medical and manpower personnel. Most Americans, and even many in uniform, do not understand that this affects those with one year of service as well as those with thirty. If these military members were in the Federal service system, or a policeman in Arizona, their family would be able to receive part of their pension. This bill will correct that inequity by amending Sections 1222 and 1448 of Title 10 U.S.C. and allowing members of the armed forces on active duty who die while serving in the line of duty to be posthumously retired. In addition, the bill would allow the services to ensure the family is given the best choice of benefits based on their individual situation. This is the least we can do when they make the ultimate sacrifice for their country. Though we have not been involved in a major conflict in more than ten years, every day we deploy our military to many more places than we did just a decade ago. The day-to-day activities of our armed forces are inherently dangerous. If we are going to maintain and recruit a quality force, we must reassure those who serve that we are going to provide for their family. I believe that Brigadier General William Caldwell, Assistant Division Commander of the 25th Infantry Division, said it best, ``Everything we do is complex.'' BG Caldwell made this comment after the crash of two helicopters in Hawaii that killed six members of the 25th Infantry Division. That sums up the situation perfectly. This bill will be a step in the right direction and is a way to help repay our debt to our military and their families. Not only is it the right thing and fair thing to do, but during these times of increased deployments and personnel shortages, it is in our national interest to continue to show our dedicated service members that we appreciate their sacrifice and commitment. I commend the Senator from Hawaii for his support on this issue and urge other Senators to join us in this effort. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senator Inouye and Senator Hutchinson to offer legislation on a very important issue for those military men and women who serve our country every day. Our current military retirement system, I have come to understand, has a serious flaw on it. We often memorialize those soldiers, sailors, and airmen who died in combat, but too often we forget that service men and women die frequently during daily operations or while training. In the past five years, 2,206 military families lost their spouse, father or mother while serving their country. In just the past year we have mourned the loss of the sailors on the USS Cole, Air Force pilots in Scotland, and soldiers in helicopter crashes in Hawaii, and Vietnam. What is not fully understood is that their families do not receive their full retirement pensions in many cases. Because service members are not vested in their retirement system until the day they retire active duty personnel do not qualify for a retirement pension unless the services medically retire them before death. This has caused hardships to families and necessitated extraordinary efforts by commanders and medical and manpower personnel. Most Americans, and even many in uniform, do not understand that this affects those with one year of service as well as those with thirty. If these military members were in the Federal service system, or a policeman in Arizona, their family would be able to receive part of their pension. This bill will correct that inequity by amending Sections 1222 and 1448 of Title 10 U.S.C. and allowing members of the armed forces on active duty who die while serving in the line of duty to be posthumously retired. In addition, the bill would allow the services to ensure the family is given the best choice of benefits based on their individual situation. This is the least we can do when they make the ultimate sacrifice for their country. Though we have not been involved in a major conflict in more than ten years, every day we deploy our military to many more places than we did just a decade ago. The day-to-day activities of our armed forces are inherently dangerous. If we are going to maintain and recruit a quality force, we must reassure those who serve that we are going to provide for their family. I believe that Brigadier General William Caldwell, Assistant Division Commander of the 25th Infantry Division, said it best, ``Everything we do is complex.'' BG Caldwell made this comment after the crash of two helicopters in Hawaii that killed six members of the 25th Infantry Division. That sums up the situation perfectly. This bill will be a step in the right direction and is a way to help repay our debt to our military and their families. Not only is it the right thing and fair thing to do, but during these times of increased deployments and personnel shortages, it is in our national interest to continue to show our dedicated service members that we appreciate their sacrifice and commitment. I commend the Senator from Hawaii for his support on this issue and urge other Senators to join us in this effort. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: I ask the distinguished manager of the bill if there will be another opportunity with appropriate notice to have a vote on the Federal priorities for Federal schools because I, too, am very interested in our military schools and our Indian schools being a first priority. That is my inquiry.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Was the amendment withdrawn, or did the author of the amendment intend to withdraw it?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent the quorum call be lifted for----

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I wanted to ask if it would be appropriate----

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senator Voinovich to offer legislation on a health issue that is very important to parents across the Nation. Bacterial meningitis affects 3,000 people across the United States each year. Approximately 10 to 13 percent of patients with bacterial meningitis die despite receiving antibiotics early in the disease. Of those individuals who survive, an additional 10 percent have severe aftereffects of the disease, including mental retardation, hearing loss, and loss of limbs. My bill would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the Director of the Centers for Disease Control, to develop and make available information about bacterial meningitis. In addition, it would make available information about the availability and the effectiveness of bacterial meningitis vaccinations for children and adults. To help prevent these needless deaths, the bill requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to provide this information to a list of institutions, including child care centers, schools, universities, boarding schools, summer camps, detention facilities, and, as determined appropriate by the Secretary any other entity that provides housing in a dorm-like setting. This information in turn would be provided to both children and adults. This will allow parents and others to be more informed about this dangerous disease and encourage them to obtain appropriate vaccines. I commend the Senator from Ohio for his support on this issue and urge other Senators to join us in this effort.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senator Voinovich to offer legislation on a health issue that is very important to parents across the Nation. Bacterial meningitis affects 3,000 people across the United States each year. Approximately 10 to 13 percent of patients with bacterial meningitis die despite receiving antibiotics early in the disease. Of those individuals who survive, an additional 10 percent have severe aftereffects of the disease, including mental retardation, hearing loss, and loss of limbs. My bill would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the Director of the Centers for Disease Control, to develop and make available information about bacterial meningitis. In addition, it would make available information about the availability and the effectiveness of bacterial meningitis vaccinations for children and adults. To help prevent these needless deaths, the bill requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to provide this information to a list of institutions, including child care centers, schools, universities, boarding schools, summer camps, detention facilities, and, as determined appropriate by the Secretary any other entity that provides housing in a dorm-like setting. This information in turn would be provided to both children and adults. This will allow parents and others to be more informed about this dangerous disease and encourage them to obtain appropriate vaccines. I commend the Senator from Ohio for his support on this issue and urge other Senators to join us in this effort.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.