PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Executive Comment Requested from DOD.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 16, 2000
Directs the Secretary of Defense to expand and make permanent a demonstration project which allows individuals eligible for medical care and services under the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS) to obtain pharmaceuticals by mail in order to permit individuals who are entitled to hospital insurance benefits under part A of title XVIII (Medicare) of the Social Security Act and who are members or former members of the armed forces, dependents of certain former members, or dependents of members who died while on active duty for a period of more than 30 days to participate in the project. Requires the Secretary to modify each managed health care program which includes a managed care network of community retail pharmacies in order to supply pharmaceuticals to the above individuals.
People & committees
Rep. Vitter, David [R-LA-1] · R–LA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Executive Comment Requested from DOD.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Military Personnel.
Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jun 6, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.3697 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.3697 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.3697 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.3697 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.