Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. I thank my colleague from Mississippi not only for recognizing the importance of cold water aquaculture research for marine species but also for his continued fine work as Chair of the Senate agricultural appropriations process where he continues to be a strong advocate for numerous facets of agricultural research throughout the country. human nutrition research

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as the distinguished Senator from Mississippi is aware, at the present time, the United States has no capability for the culture of cold-water, marine finfish, and the industry continues to need a consistent supply of high quality eggs or juvenile organisms. At the same time, I am especially aware as Chair of the Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee, that many important wild fish stocks in the United States, including the Gulf of Maine, as well as around the world, are suffering from overharvesting. This has the potential to greatly diminish the food supply of many nations whose greatest source of protein is from the fish they catch. The opportunity for cold water aquaculture research is immense and the rewards great for U.S. salmon farming in particular, which is a strategic industry in my State of Maine, especially in the rural area of Downeast Maine. It is important for the committee to know that representatives of the Maine Atlantic salmon industry and the University of Maine have been working with USDA's Agricultural Research Service and have defined the need to study the feasibility of a research center concept, program criteria and site criteria, site identification and evaluation. Once this has been completed, I hope we can look forward to the committee's future consideration for establishing a cold-water, marine aquaculture research center in an appropriate State such as Maine.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I rise today in support of S. 335, the Deceptive Mail Prevention and Enforcement Act, legislation authored by my colleague from Maine, Senator Susan Collins. I applaud her leadership on this issue as chair of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. I believe that this legislation strikes an important balance between consumer protection and over-regulation of the sweepstakes industry. This issue has long been a priority for me. In the late 1980s, while in the House of Representatives, I began working on initiatives to curb deceptive mailings, and during the 101st Congress, I co-authored H.R. 2331, the Deceptive Mailings Prevention Act of 1989, which was signed into law by President Bush on November 6, 1990. H.R. 2331 prohibited solicitations by private entities for the purchase of products or services or the contribution of funds or membership fees, which imply false federal government connection or endorsement. At the time, our main focus was on mailings that led one to believe that they were endorsed by the government--for example, offers that promise consumers information on federal benefits for which they may be eligible for a fee, when in fact such information is available at no cost directly from federal agencies. The legislation barred the use of any seal, insignia, trade or brand name, or other symbol designed to construe government connection or endorsement. Today, I am pleased to support S. 335, which builds on the foundation laid by the 1990 law, in recognition of the problems that have emerged as sweepstakes offers have proliferated, with all of the accompanying abuses we have witnessed. How many times have each of us received an offer in the mail promising enormous sweepstakes payoffs or other prizes? These promises are a clever way to market magazine subscriptions and other products. The old adage--``if it's too good to be true, it probably is''--comes to mind. Regrettably, for many, such offers seem too good to pass up particularly when the are accompanied by dire warnings such as ``urgent advisory,'' ``don't risk losing your multimillion dollar prize,'' or ``don't risk forfeiture now!'' Many consumers are misled by this type of advertising, which is deliberately designed to mislead. Many offers are designed to entice the consumer into believing that he or she has already won a valuable prize, for example, or is on the verge of winning, when in fact, the odds against winning may be astronomical. The sad truth is that companies use deceptive advertising because it works--it sells more product. And the tragic problem facing us today is this: all too often, the consumer who is being victimized is a senior on a fixed income or is disabled. We have all heard the horror stories about unwitting victims on fixed incomes who have purchased hundreds or thousands of dollars worth of magazine subscriptions--sometimes multiple subscriptions to the same magazine, thinking they would improve their chances of winning a prize. We have heard the tragic accounts of individuals flying to another city or state to claim a prize, genuinely believing that they had been selected as the winner, only to find that they have become a victim. Some have squandered life savings on misleading offers. When these types of incidents become commonplace, I think, we have a good indication that there is a problem. And we have a responsibility to correct the problem. What I find most troubling about this issue is that many unscrupulous companies intentionally target the most vulnerable consumers, knowing full well how devastating the results can be. S. 355 is designed to target these those companies that have demonstrated that they will not police themselves. Among other things, S. 335 requires sweepstakes mailings to display rules clearly and state explicitly that no purchase is necessary to increase one's chance of winning. It requires the sponsor of an offer to clearly state the odds of winning and the value of the prize, and prohibits companies from making false statements, such as an individual is a winner, unless they have actually won a prize. It also strengthens safeguards to protect those who have requested not to receive sweepstakes mailings and other such offers, and enhances the Postal Service's authority to investigate, penalize, and stop deceptive mailings. S. 335 does not prohibit legitimate offers. Rather, it puts fair, common sense restrictions in place in order to protect consumers, particularly those most at risk, such as seniors, or the disabled. This week, the Senate Commerce Committee, of which I am a member, is scheduled to hold a hearing on fraud against seniors. It is a serious problem, and one that is not going to go away on its own. We must address the problem, and the deceptive mailings which S. 335 seeks to curb are certainly a component of this problem. I am pleased that S. 335 has generated so much debate on this issue, because I believe that in addition to government action, the key to this challenge is increased awareness and personal responsibility--on the part of companies and individual consumers and families. Companies should police themselves. Likewise, there are steps that consumers can take to protect themselves. For example, always read the rules for any offer very carefully, especially if it sounds too good to be true. And if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. If you receive a letter in the mail informing you that you have won a prize, and it solicits a shipping or handling fee, be wary. This type of offer should raise a red flag, and could be a fraud. Finally, make sure you know the company is a reputable one, and don't give out your bank account or credit card number. I hope this legislation will be a constructive step forward in this important effort, and I hope that it sends a strong message that government takes its responsibility as a watchdog and regulator of anti-consumer practices very seriously.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, essentially this takes a provision that is included in the amendment that Senator Schumer and I had offered that addresses the growing debt burden faced by recent college students. The bottom line is, we all recognize that the cost of college education has quadrupled over the last 20 years, growing at twice the rate of inflation. In fact, over the past 5 years, the demand for college loans has soared by more than 82 percent. Therefore, recent graduates have been forced to assume a greater burden of debt after they graduate from college. My amendment would add a tax credit for interest on student loans for the first 5 years upon graduation so that it would ease the amount of debt that individuals have to assume. It would be a $1,500 tax credit. In fact, this has received the support of the American Council on Education. I will quote from this letter: By adding your amendment to the Roth provision, students who are working hard to repay their loans will receive tax relief for the duration of their repayment and benefit from the additional relief of your credit during their first years out of college. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter from which I just quoted.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Schumer as a cosponsor of this amendment.

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

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1468.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It will dramatically improve access for working American families in this country to pursue higher education. The bottom line is that even as the cost of college has quadrupled over the past 20 years, in fact, growing nearly to twice the rate of inflation, the value of Pell grants has actually decreased. Where it used to cover 39 percent of the cost of public education, today it is 22 percent. In fact, in the last 5 years alone, the total amount of college loans has soared by 82 percent, even after adjusted for inflation. I hope that we will help American families with this amendment.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. I hope, Mr. President, that Members of this body will give very careful consideration to the compromise proposal we are offering because it keeps open the door of the tax cut for the American people.

Ms. SNOWE. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I congratulate Senators Breaux, Chafee, Jeffords, and Kerrey for reigniting the centrists on an issue that certainly is important to the American people. It is interesting that we are here today confronted with a major issue, and it is not surprising that various Members of this Senate, the House, and the President have different positions on an issue of such significance. What we have tried to do with the package that has been offered by Senator Breaux and Senator Chafee is to bridge the gap between what the President has offered, what the House has offered, and the package that has been offered by Senator Roth and the Senate Finance Committee. We are trying to bring the differences together to preserve the viability of a tax cut for the American people. Lyndon Johnson once said: The good news is, I see the light at the end of the tunnel. The bad news is, it is the light of an oncoming train. That is the prospect we are facing in Congress with the tax cut proposal because all the positions are different and everyone is taking a very polarized position on this very important issue. I hope our package will be one that can bridge the differences from all sides. That is why we have tried to stake out this position so that we can have a bipartisan proposal that will avoid that train wreck. Over the last few days, we have heard comments from the administration and from Members of this body saying there is no room for compromise; there is zero room for a consensus. I think that kind of intransigence is unacceptable because ultimately it will result in no tax cut at all, and that is not in the best interest of the American people. We should not reject out of hand the possibility of developing a consensus on this issue, and that is what this proposal is all about. This proposal is certainly similar to ones that have been offered on the floor by the Senate Finance Committee and by Senator Moynihan. So it is not a question of substance because if you look at the various components of the tax cut package, they certainly exist in all of them. It is a matter of size, and that is why we decided that instead of the $792 billion package offered by the Senate Finance Committee or the President's package of $300 billion, we would come in the middle with $500 billion. That represents a consensus upon which I think we can all agree. That represents less than 40 percent of the $1.1 trillion projected on-budget surplus over the next 10 years, less than 40 percent. It comes in the middle between the President's package and the Finance Committee's package. I think that it is eminently sensible, it is prudent, and we have to err on the side of economic caution when it comes to how much we are going to spend of the projected surpluses over the next 10 years because those surpluses are just that, they are projections. Some have referred to them as the hypothetical jackpot. We have to be particularly cautious about how much we intend to spend over the next 10 years from projected surpluses. We want to save the additional $300 billion so we can look at Medicare, so we can look at prescription drug plans, so we can look at Social Security, and all the other issues contained within discretionary spending that we think happen to be a priority, or we can create a surplus reserve.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the University of Maine Black Bear hockey team--winner of the National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I hockey championship for the second time this decade. Mr. President, collegiate athletics have been an important part of the educational experience for generations. As an adjunct to academics, collegiate sports at their best teach the values of teamwork, the virtues of good sportsmanship, the lessons of disappointment, and the joys of personal as well as collective achievement. Collegiate sports also bring communities and, often, entire states together. In Maine, there are few places charged with the level of excitement and comradery you'll find in Orono's Alfond Arena, where the action is close, the play intense, and the pride palpable. But you don't need to be at the Alfond to feel the excitement. All Over Maine, families gather to watch their team and cheer ``Go Blue''-- from Fort Kent to Calais to Cumberland to Kittery. And this year especially, the Black Bears gave us a lot to cheer about. With a 31, 6 and 4 record, the 1998-1999 Maine Black Bears hockey team clearly played to win--and achieved that goal with remarkable regularity. And with only one loss coming at home, the Black Bears at Alfond were almost as sure a thing as snow in January. In the playoffs--which included three New England Teams--the Black Bears continued to thrill all of Maine, rewarding audiences with college hockey as it was meant to be played. Maine's players never gave in and they never gave up. Unyielding in their play, believing in themselves to the very end, Maine clinched the championship in a hard-fought, well-played overtime game against a superb University of New Hampshire team. And at that moment, Mainers near and far--even those who didn't attend my alma mater--were reunited with each other in the spirit of fellowship and victory. So it is an honor for me to commend each and every member of the Black Bear team--not only for their tremendous commitment to personal excellence, but also to the success of the entire team. In particular, seniors Steve Kariya, Marcus Gustafsson, Jason Vitorino, Bobby Stewart, and David Cullen thrilled us with their outstanding play and their remarkable leadership. And Maine's goalie, junior Aflie Michaud, deserves special mention for stopping an astounding 46 shots--a feat that rightfully brought him the honor of being named the tournament's most valuable player. Finally, I applaud the Black Bear coaching staff for a job well done. You can't win without the fundamentals, and Maine's coaches certainly had this team prepared to take the ice--just ask their opponents. But perhaps most importantly, they took young men who were talented in their own right and made them into something even far more formidable-- a singular, unstoppable force that would not be denied in its quest to become the very best. Mr. President, there is something about excellence, especially at the highest levels of competition, that elevates all those who come in contact with it. And the magic of a sport like hockey is that, even if you have never strapped on a skate, never taken a slapshot, never iced a puck, never scored a hat trick, you're amazed by the passion of those who do. You're inspired by the athleticism and artistry. And you come to believe that perhaps we all have the potential for greatness, if only we are willing to work hard enough and care deeply enough to pursue our dreams. The 1999 Maine Black Bears hockey team had the kind of year that dreams are made of. Today, by virtue of posting a win in the last game of the last NCAA Hockey tournament of the century, Maine is truly the final word in college hockey. On behalf of the people of Maine, I commend the players, staff, and administration at the University of Maine hockey program for a season to remember. All of Maine is very proud, and we look forward to many more seasons of excitement in the new millennium.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to thank the Chairman, Senator Gregg, and the Ranking Member, Senator Hollings, for accepting the one year extension of the Community Oriented Policing Services Program. This extension, being offered by Senator Biden, with my support, will allow communities in Maine and across the country, to continue receiving assistance from this very successful program. The COPS program was created in 1994, when President Clinton signed into law the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. Not only does it provide grants that help communities hire additional police officers to help with the war on crime, the COPS Program also provides funds to acquire new technologies and equipment and provides police with opportunities to work with schools to address persistent school- related crime problems. This program is so worthwhile that one of Maine's police chiefs said it is one of the most innovative programs he has seen in his thirty-five years in police work. Since its creation, COPS grants have been awarded to more than half the policing agencies in the country. In Maine there are an additional 258 police officers in 90 city and county police forces as a result of the COPS Program. All across my state, from the Androscoggin County Sheriff's Department to the Town of Ft. Kent and from the Kennebunk Police Department to the Washington County Sheriff's Department, I am proud that the State of Maine has been able to utilize almost $18 million in COPS program funding to hire these new police officers. These new police officers have helped reduce the amount of violent crime in Maine and across the country. In fact, since 1994, violent crime in America has fallen by 13%. By restoring $495 million for Fiscal Year 2000, the Community Oriented Policing Services program will be able to fund the deployment of almost 4,000 more police officers. These new additions to the front lines of the war on crime will allow our communities to continue to reduce violent crime in America. Again, Mr. President, I appreciate Senator Gregg's willingness to accept this amendment.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. I thank the Senator from West Virginia. I appreciate that. How much time remains?

Ms. SNOWE. Yes, I do. I thank the Senator from West Virginia for yielding.

Ms. SNOWE. Yes.

Mrs. SNOWE

Mrs. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support of the Patients' Bill of Rights. This bill will provide needed reform to our managed care system and ensure some basic patient protections for those with health insurance who do not fall under state jurisdiction. This week the Senate debated an issue that goes to the heart of the personal security of every American. . .an issue that underlies all other issues. . .that cuts across racial lines, income levels, gender, or profession. Health care in this Nation affects all of us, touches all of our lives. And I am pleased that we are having this opportunity to discuss how we can ensure that health care delivery in the new century never loses sight of its most important component--the patient. We need to have this discussion because, to paraphrase the recent car commercial, this is not your father's health care system. It isn't even the system we knew ten or fifteen years ago. Not so long ago, health care was delivered on a fee-for-service basis. Today, an explosion of advances in medicine and technology along with the advent of managed care, HMO-based networks, have changed the face of health care in America. And it is time to take stock. We need to ensure that medical decisions are dictated by patients and their doctors--not the fine print on an insurance policy. And we must do so in a way that doesn't step on the toes of sound policies already put in place by individual states and doesn't substitute endless courtroom litigation for immediate medical treatment. As more and more people enter into managed care plans, we hear of more and more problems--in some instances, it seems that patients are barely off the operating room table before they are sent home, whether they are ready or not. Or patients are denied access to a treatment or the specialist they need--something my state staff hears time and time again from constituents. I happen to think that medical tests and medical doctors should be driving medical decisions, not actuaries or accountants. In all too many cases, it seems as though health care has become too much about crunching numbers and not enough about healing patients. Indeed, the whole drive toward managed care has been prompted by an effort to contain and reduce health care costs in this nation--by itself, a worthy goal. And by-and-large, managed care has proven less costly than the traditional fee-for-service system--in fact, last year, the average premiums for traditional fee-for-service plans were almost 20 percent higher than HMO premiums and about 7 percent higher than premiums for preferred provider organizations. But the question is, at what price? There is a real feeling among many Americans that, in some far off place, bureaucrats they will never see are making decisions that will dictate the quality and level of care they will receive. There's a real feeling that the average American has little say in what is probably the most deeply personal issue there is--and that the dollar sign is more compelling than any X- ray or MRI. This bill addresses these concerns in a number of important and effective ways, all designed to put patients first. This bill recognizes that medical emergencies are just that-- emergencies. If you are being rushed to the hospital with a heart attack, that's hardly the time to have to phone ahead for prior approval--under this bill you'll know you're covered. This bill protects a patient's right to hear the full range of treatment options from their doctor. It is outrageous that patients are often denied the best possible information just when they need it most, and this legislation would make these so-called ``gag clauses'' a thing of the past. This bill would allow parents to bring their children directly to pediatricians, instead of having to go through primary care physicians. How much sense does it make that some managed care plans consider pediatricians to be specialists? The last time I checked, being a child is not a sickness--children deserve the quick and direct access they need to doctors who are really just general practitioners for kids, and under this bill they get it. This bill would protect one's right to see a specialist. If a patient believes that seeing a specialist is the only way to get a sound diagnosis, they should not be denied that option. And finally, this bill allows patients who are pregnant, terminally ill, or in the hospital to continue to see their current doctor, even if that doctor is no longer participating in the patient's health care plan. It's unconscionable that, after seeing a doctor who knows your condition better than anyone else, you could be asked to return to square one--and that would no longer happen under this legislation. I realize that both parties have identified some of the more pressing problems with managed care, and both have laid out ideas on how to address these problems. And I truly believe that Senators on both sides of the aisle are concerned with what they've seen and heard from their constituents. The point that must be made here is that it is not so much our goals that differ, but rather the path we take in getting there. And one of the most glaring differences is the way we approach existing state laws. Not surprisingly, many states have already beaten us to the punch when it comes to patient protections, and this bill respects the work they have done by complementing, rather than undercutting, their efforts. Maine, for example, banned so-called ``gag clauses'' back in 1995, provided direct access to ob/gyns in 1996, and instituted the prudent layperson standard for emergency care in 1998. Wouldn't it make a lot more sense for the federal government to focus on fixing what's broken, instead of the problems that states like Maine have already fixed? Yet, the Kennedy-Daschle bill asks us to overturn all the laws duly passed by 50 state legislatures and substitute then with a ``father knows best'' approach. It basically says, ``thanks for all your efforts on this issue --now step aside and let the real experts take over''. We think a better idea is to complement, not displace, state decisions and this bill does just that by providing benchmark protections for patients who are not already covered by State regulated plans. We also take a different approach when it comes to disputes over care, emphasizing swift access to providers over the slow grind of the legal system. Under this bill, if an individual has a problem with a decision about their health, they can appeal, under an expedited process, to an independent party who is an expert in the condition being reviewed. Why? Because what patients need first and foremost is medical relief now, not legal relief later. If I were sick today and I didn't believe I was getting the care or treatment I needed, I would rather see a doctor than a lawyer. The bottom line is getting well, and this bill would rather put medication ahead of litigation. Finally, let me just say that I believe no patients bill of rights could be complete without a provision to protect against genetic discrimination. Every day, scientists are finding links to a whole host of diseases. An estimated 15 million people are affected by over 4,000 currently known genetic disorders. Today, testing is available for about 450 disorders--but testing is useless if people are afraid to take advantage of it for fear of insurance discrimination. No wonder then a reported 8 out of 10 people who undergo genetic testing pay for it out of their own pockets. Others simply forgo testing altogether. And still others refuse to participate in important medical research. This is a travesty that must be remedied, and it would be remedied by this bill, which includes a provision I authored that provides absolutely fundamental protections against genetic discrimination in health insurance. This language has a long history--I first introduced these protections in the 104th Congress in conjunction with Representative Louise Slaughter in the House. Since then I have worked extensively with Senators Jeffords and Frist to ensure that this bill effectively addresses the need for protections against genetic discrimination in the health insurance industry. Americans should not live in fear of knowing the truth about their health status. They should not be afraid that critical health information could be misused. They should not be forced to choose between insurance coverage and critical health information that can help inform their decisions. They should not fear disclosing their genetic status to their doctors. And they should not fear participating in medical research. We have laid out stringent, tough, and sensible guidelines that allow people to use the information that can be obtained from genetic testing without fear. Any of my colleagues who have heard me talk about genetics know about my constituent, Bonnie Lee Tucker, who is afraid to have a genetic test for breast cancer--despite the fact that she has nine immediate family members who have had this killer--and despite the fact that she believes this information could help protect her daughter. Why? Because she is afraid it will negatively impact her ability and her daughter's ability to get insurance. Our language ensures that people who are insured for the very first time, or who become insured after a long period of being uninsured, do not face genetic discrimination. It ensures that people are not charged exorbitant premiums based on such information. It ensures that insurance companies cannot discriminate against individuals who have requested or received genetic services. It ensures that insurance companies cannot release a person's genetic information without their prior written consent. And it ensures that health insurance companies cannot carve out covered services because of an inherited genetic disorder. In short, it ensures that Bonnie Lee Tucker, and the thousands of Americans like her, can take advantage of the latest scientific breakthroughs to protect their health and well-being without losing their insurance coverage. There will be no issue more important in the 106th Congress than the one before us this week. No issue affects people more personally than health care, and we have a real responsibility to ensure that any changes we make put the patient's interests first. I believe this legislation puts patients first without unnecessary bureaucracy, without excessive involvement from the federal government, without trampling the laws already on the books in all fifty states, without increasing the costs of insurance or increasing the number of the uninsured.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a resolution along with Senators Reid, Murray, Mikulski, Collins, Landrieu, Feinstein, Boxer, Hutchison, and Lincoln honoring the U.S. Women's National Soccer Team for their outstanding performance and dramatic victory in winning the 1999 Women's World Cup. This is a resolution that I've worked on with Senator Reid, who spoke eloquently earlier in the week on the World Cup victory, and I want to thank him for his strong support for the team and its accomplishments. The U.S. Womens' National Soccer Team has got to be the single greatest sports story this year, and certainly of this decade. Capturing the hearts and the imagination of America with remarkable play and even higher levels of teamwork and good sportsmanship, the U.S. Women's Soccer Team has ushered in a new era in women's athletics. We are not just talking about talented athletes here--we're talking about role models who are driven to play by the thrill of victory and the excitement of competition. And perhaps therein lies the true appeal of this team--in a time when money and commercialism often seem to overwhelm the true spirit of sport, along comes these extraordinary women who restore our faith in the virtues of athletic competition and truly give us something to cheer about. Is it any wonder, then, that these women--as well as women from other nations who have come to the United States in search of World Cup glory--have been ``packing them in'' wherever they have played. Indeed, The Boston Globe reported that only the Pope has drawn more people to Giants Stadium in New Jersey, and all 65,080 seats at Soldier Field in Chicago were sold-out for the United States-Nigeria game--the largest crowd ever to see a soccer game at that venue. For the final, over 90,000 fans were on hand to see the national team's dramatic victory over China--a record for an all-women sporting event. Not only has women's soccer arrived, it's taken the nation by storm. From coast to coast, Americans tuned in to watch our team play world- class soccer--and they weren't disappointed. In fact, it's estimated that about 40 million viewers watched all or part of that nail-biting final match. That's nearly double the rating for the men's World Cup final last year between Brazil and Italy, and bests even the average national ratings for the recent NBA finals between the New York Knicks and the San Antonio Spurs. Those of us who viewed the tournament were rewarded with victory after victory, as well as the joy of watching athletes who truly love to play. And if Saturday's real-life finale had instead been the ending to a Hollywood movie, it would have been panned for being utterly unbelievable. Who would have thought that after 120 minutes of regulation play, the score would still be tied at zero-zero, with penalty kicks the only thing standing between defeat and victory? Throughout all that time--with the nation watching, waiting, hoping, and anticipating, with 90,000 chanting fans hanging on every kick, every header, every pass, and every breakaway--our team never gave up or gave in. Goalkeeper Briana Scurry was nothing short of remarkable, robbing the Chinese team of a critical penalty kick. And at the end, when Brandi Chastain's shot came to rest at the back of the opposing team's net, it all paid off in one of those incredible sporting moments that will go down not only in the history of sports, but in the history of womens' struggles for recognition and equality. There is no question, Mr. President, that sports are just as important an activity for girls and women as they are for boys and men. Through sports, girls and women can experience a positive competitive spirit applicable to any aspect of life. They can truly learn how to ``take the ball and run with it'', not only on the playing fields, but in classrooms, boardrooms, and, yes, even the Committee rooms of Congress. Through athletics, girls and women can achieve a healthy body and a healthy mind. They gain the self-esteem to say ``give me the ball'' with the clock running out and the game on the line. You know, when I was growing up, girls and women did not have much opportunity to participate in competitive athletics. But the enactment of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 changed all that for good. Finally, with the passage of this landmark legislation, women would be afforded equitable opportunities to participate in high school and college athletics. And the results are indisputable. Since Title IX's enactment, women and girls across the nation have met the challenge of participating in competitive sports in record numbers. In the past 28 years, the number of college women participating in competitive athletics has gone from fewer than 32,000 to over 128,000 in 1997. Before Title IX, fewer than 300,000 high school girls played competitive sports. As of 2 years ago, that number had climbed to almost 2.6 million. The U.S. Women's Soccer Team has not only underscored the achievements of Title IX, but has encouraged even more young women to get into the arena and onto the playing fields. You know, it used to be said that girls were made of ``sugar and spice and everything nice.'' Well, the U.S. Women's Soccer Team proved that there is room for being both ``nice'' and determined. There is room for being both a woman and a competitor. Indeed, it astounds me when I think of how far we have come since I introduced the original joint resolution of Congress establishing the very first National Girls and Women in Sports Day back in 1986. Where dreams of athletic glory were once almost the exclusive domain of boys, today--thanks in large part to out Women's National Soccer Team--girls now have aspirations of their own. Watching this team has inspired a whole generation of girls to believe that they can go as high and as far as their talent--and their drive--will take them. Indeed, I have no doubt that girls across America will be running around the soccer fields this summer pretending to be Briana Scurry, Michelle Akers, Mia Hamm, or whoever their particular heroine may be. Certainly, on this team, there are plenty from which to choose. The U.S. Women's National Soccer Team is but one more example of how, when it comes to athletics, women are ``coming off the bench,'' as it were, and taking their rightful place on the fields, on the courts, in the schoolyards and in our stadiums. They prove, once again, that women are just as surefooted in cleats as they are in heels or whatever other shoes they decide to fill. In addition to commending the team for all they've done, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the organizers and sponsors of the entire event for the extraordinary job they did in making this tournament a success beyond anyone's wildest dreams. I have no doubt these past few weeks will have an impact on sports in America that will resonate for years. Again, let me just express my most sincere appreciation to each and every member of the U.S. Women's World Cup Team for making us so proud. They have honored their nation with their sportsmanship, and they have honored themselves with their commitment to each other and their dedication to excellence. Now it is our turn to honor them, and I am pleased to have my colleagues' support for this resolution.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 141, a resolution submitted earlier by Senator Snowe, Senator Reid, and others.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. I was not aware of that. I was certainly not aware what was taking place on the floor. We were aware the Senator from Virginia was offering an amendment. I was aware, in fact, he was offering an amendment, but there was no strategy on this side to suggest we would not engage in that debate. I think there was some discussion on this side about the debate. I do not see that is a valid objection at all.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I want to make a few points to wrap up. I applaud the leadership of Senator Dodd with respect to clinical study trials. Obviously, I could not agree with him more on this issue. This is an issue that will be addressed further in this debate, as it should. But the Senator is frustrated, and if other Senators are frustrated at the process, then we all have a collective responsibility to make sure it does not happen again. We cannot pretend we do not know how we got here. It is unfortunate we have a Hobson's choice today, but we had a Hobson's choice yesterday when it came to mastectomies when the amendment was offered by Senator Robb to the legislation that already had the identical language. I had planned to offer this legislation well before the recess because I wanted to improve upon the Republican legislation on managed care. I thought it was absolutely essential. The Senator from Massachusetts asked, why did we just identify mastectomies and women with breast cancer? I say to the Senator, why? For the same reason the Senator singled out mastectomies in his own legislation and Senator Robb singled it out in his amendment that he offered yesterday. Because we have an identifiable problem with drive- through mastectomies and HMOs. That was the genesis of the legislation to begin with when former Senator D'Amato had introduced that legislation with Senator Feinstein and myself several years ago. I introduced the same legislation this year with Senator Feinstein for that very reason, because there has been a problem with managed care and drive-through mastectomies. We have all heard the horror stories. That is why this legislation was developed. That is why I am offering this amendment to the Republican legislation, because it does not have that language. Some suggest there is some partisan political ploy. I will compare my credentials on bipartisanship with anybody across the aisle. We have worked on a bipartisan basis on issues concerning women's health since I came to the Congress 20 years ago. I would have hoped yesterday we would have had the opportunity to work it out rather than having to vote on an amendment that included language that was already in the Democratic bill. We should have been working together, but now we are having to address the issue of defining ``medical necessity'' that no other legislation, no board, no governmental agency, no association has defined. It is going to limit the treatment that is offered to women when it comes to breast cancer. That is a fact. So the choice is, are you going to get the best care, the best treatment, the best principles when it comes to breast cancer? Or are you going to lower the threshold and say: Well, everybody offers this, no matter what, when there are other options? There is better science developing all the time, and it could be available to a woman who has breast cancer. Those are the choices. That is why we are at this point. I just say to everybody in this Chamber, if we want to avoid this kind of contrivance when it comes to this amendment process, then I suggest it is the responsibility of each of us to make sure it does not happen, so that we get the very best legislation, that we can walk across the aisle, rather than being constrained by the parliamentary procedures that we confront today.

Ms. SNOWE. How much time remains?

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I still have some remaining time. I would like to make a point. I think the point is, there are substantial differences between the legislation offered by the Senator from Virginia yesterday and the legislation we are offering in this amendment. We are not defining ``medical necessity.'' As I indicated previously, there has been no other legislation on this issue that defines ``medical necessity,'' legislation that has been introduced on a bipartisan basis over the last few years. That is going to take away from women the variety of treatments and prescriptions for breast cancer, as you can see what is illustrated on this chart. I think we ought to opt for the best treatment, the best practice, the best standard, and the best principles. No one else, no professional, no government agency, no private association with medical credentials has defined ``medical necessity'' because you can't. Leave it up to the doctor and the patient. That is what we are asking with respect to women who have breast cancer. That is a huge difference between this amendment and the one that was offered yesterday. By the way, the language offered yesterday was already included in the minority's plan, so it did not have to be restated. I think we could have worked something out that we could have agreed to on a bipartisan basis, as we already have in legislation that has been introduced on this very issue. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Ms. SNOWE. I will look at the language. I would certainly want to support it. I know it does not include FDA-sponsored trials. I cannot speak for everybody in this conference or in this Senate, but certainly it is something I could support and obviously do support, given the legislation I have introduced in this Congress. I will be more than happy to do that. At this point, we have to address the issue of mastectomies. It is that important to this legislation. We lost an opportunity to improve upon the Robb amendment, because that was a second-degree amendment offered yesterday, and, obviously, that created another Hobson's choice.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute a veteran from Maine who this week will have bestowed upon him high honors from the French Government for the sacrifices he made during World War I. Fred Gylfe will receive the most prestigious honor that France bestows, the award of the National Order of the Legion of Honor, in gratitude for the valor he displayed serving in France during the First World War. Last year, the French Government announced Project 1918-1998, which honors the 80th anniversary of the armistice of World War I. As part of this undertaking, France is awarding the Legion of Honor Award to surviving American veterans who served in France between 1914 and 1918--in recognition for the crucial support American veterans lent to French soldiers fighting to defend French soil. It is estimated that as many as 1,000 American veterans who served in France during World War I may still be living, and there is a search underway to locate as many of these men and women as possible. Fred Gylfe was born in Worcester, Massachusetts on August 14, 1897. His parents emigrated from Sweden, and he was their first child born in the U.S. He entered the U.S. National Guard in 1916 and departed for France on May 16, 1918. He fought in Ypres/Lys and Saint Quentin Tunnel in the French province of Somme. He was a Sergeant in Headquarters Company for the 108th Infantry 27th division of the New York National Guard. He is the father of two children, and three grandchildren. I have nothing but the utmost respect for those who have served with courage, honor and distinction, answering the call to duty when their country--and the world no less--needed them so desperately. Indeed, it is no small challenge to put into words the enormous pride I feel for the opportunity to represent men like Fred Gylfe as Maine's senior Senator. On November 11, 1918, almost 81 years ago, at the eleventh hour, the Armistice was signed in France that silenced the guns and ended the carnage of World War I. From the War for Independence, to World War I, through the Persian Gulf War and the Balkans more than two hundred years later, Americans have answered the call to duty--not for the glory of conquest or empire, but to ensure that the flame of liberty burns ever brightly. The debt of gratitude owed to our veterans can never be fully repaid. What we can and must do for the men and women who, like Mr. Gylfe, answered the call to duty is keep alive the values of freedom and democracy they have defended, and honor them as the guardians of those ideals. This occasion reminds us that winning freedom is not the same as keeping it. The cost of safeguarding freedom is high. It requires vigilance and sacrifice. Time and gain when freedom has been threatened, men like Fred Gylfe emerged as heroes, America's veterans have served our country and the world ably in times of need, and know well the personal sacrifices which the defense of freedom demands. It is a true honor to congratulate this Maine hero today on such as well- deserved recognition.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to congratulate a courageous World War I veteran from my home state of Maine who on Friday will be awarded the most prestigious honor that France bestows, the National Order of the Legion of Honor. Everett McKenney who has lived in Augusta and Waterville will receive this distinguished honor for the tremendous sacrifices he made to safeguard freedom and democracy while serving in France during the first World War. In 1998, the French Government announced Project 1918-1998. The purpose of Project 1918-1998 is to honor the 80th anniversary of the armistice of World War I, and as part of this undertaking, France announced that it would award the Legion of Honor designation to surviving American veterans who, like Mr. McKenney, served in France between 1914 and 1918. This step is taken in recognition of the decisive support Americans gave to French soldiers as they fought to defend French soil. Up to 1,000 American veterans who served in France during World War I may still be alive today, and there is a search underway to locate as many of these men and women as possible. Private Everett McKenney, who is 104 and a longtime resident of Waterville and Augusta, has two daughters, five grandchildren, four great grandchildren, and one great, great grandchild. He was the youngest of four children and was born in Freedom, Maine in 1895. He enlisted in July 1918 at 23, in Waterville. He was stationed in Fort Devens, Massachusetts and received special training in New Jersey. He was assigned to the 41st Rainbow Division and later was assigned to the 101st Field Artillery unit. In New Jersey, he was notified to pack his gear and prepare for an overseas assignment. During a 12-day Atlantic crossing, a flu epidemic broke out and many of his comrades were buried at sea. This would be the first of many trials he would face. I have nothing but the utmost respect for those who have served with courage, honor and distinction when their country--and the world-- needed them so desperately. Indeed, I am truly honored to represent these men and women as Maine's senior Senator. On November 11, 1918, almost 81 years ago, at the eleventh hour, the Armistice was signed in France that silenced the guns and ended the carnage of World War I. From the War for Independence, to World War I, through the Persian Gulf War and the Balkans more than two hundred years later, Americans like Everett have answered the call to duty--not for the glory or conquest or empire, but to ensure that the flame of liberty burns ever brightly. The debt of gratitude owed to our veterans can never be fully repaid. What we can and must do for those who, like Mr. McKenney, answered the call to duty is keep alive the values of freedom and democracy they have defended, and honor them as the guardians of those ideals. Elmer Runyon once wrote that: ``We will remain the home of the free only as long as we are also the home of the brave.'' Today, America and the world is basking in the shine of freedom because of yesterday's and today's service men and women--who offer nobly to sacrifice in war so that others may live in peace. These are America's true heroes. This occasion reminds us that winning freedom is not the same as keeping it. The cost of safeguarding freedom is high. It requires vigilance and sacrifice. Time and again when freedom has been threatened, men like Everett McKenney emerged as heroes. America's veterans have served our country and the world ably in times of need, and know well the personal sacrifices which the defense of freedom demands. It is a true honor to congratulate Mr. McKenney on a well- deserved recognition.