Olympia Snowe

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. I will do every thing I can to ensure that this provision is in any final Coast Guard legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise because the Treasury-Postal conferees have bypassed the will of the majority and decided to kill the contraceptive coverage language in the Treasury/Postal bill. This is an outrage. Our contraceptive language was included in the original legislation passed both in the House and in the Senate, and conferees last week signed off on including the House language in the bill. At the same time, conferees agreed to include the Senate's provision specifically excluding coverage of abortion or abortion- related service, and conferees signed the report, closed out the conference and sent the report to the House for consideration. The language the House of Representatives passed by a vote of 224 to 198 on July 15, 1998. The Senate language was agreed to by unanimous consent. It isn't very complicated language. If you take the time to read the two versions, you will see that their intent is the same. The main difference in the two versions is the conscience clause in the Senate bill. In addition to listing the five plans that OPM identifies as being religious-based, it goes a step further by providing a waiver to future or existing plans that have reason to oppose contraceptive coverage because of their religious beliefs. Also the Senate language clarifies that this provision is not intended to cover abortion--and again I would note that this provision was in the conference report when it was signed the first time. So last week the conferees accept the language and this week it becomes a ``killer provision'' that would keep us from passing the Treasury/Postal appropriations bill. Mr. President that fallacious argument is belied by the fact that not one person--not one of the 435 members of the United States House of Representatives--stood up on the House floor when the rule on Treasury-Postal was debated last Thursday night and cited this provision as a reason for opposing the bill. Not one! Why is this a ``killer amendment''? It can't be because of the cost. CBO won't even score the bill, because they don't score legislation that costs less than a million dollars. And they put the price tag on this language at $500,000. It can't be about the rights of religious plans, because this language protects the health care plans that OPM identifies as being religious-based. It can't be about abortion, because it does not cover abortion in any way, shape or form and it says so. So, why is it a ``killer amendment'', Mr. President? The answer to that question will remain a mystery, as it is opposed by a few people in a backroom at the expense of 1.2 million American women who are being denied affordable access to a basic health care need-- contraception. These opponents lurk in the shadows, unwilling to come out in the daylight and discuss their opposition--and apparently these few make the decisions and they decided on their own that it was coming out. They have made a mockery of the democratic process. Let's consider the language the House and Senate agreed to. It is very simple--all this language will do is provide women who work for the federal government and the spouses and daughters of federal employees equality in health care and the affordable access to prescription contraception coverage they need and deserve; and it will help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions in this country. The provision we are talking about requires plans that participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) that provide prescription drug coverage to also cover prescription contraceptives. What exactly is wrong with that? Nothing, according to 224 members of the United States House of Representatives. Today 81 percent of these plans do not cover all five of the most basic and widely used methods of contraception and 10 percent of these plans do not cover any type of contraception at all. Yet all but one of the more than 300 FEHBP plans covers sterilization. Think about that for a moment--we are willing to cover sterilization but not contraceptives. Unbelievable! Today, the victory may go to those who have lurked in the shadows, but I have something to say to those few. Do not let yourselves believe that you have had the final word on this issue because the women of America will not `go quietly into that good night' on an issue as basic to their health and well being and that of their family as contraceptive coverage. It took us 72 years to get the vote and it wasn't until 1978--only 20 years ago--that Congress finally passed legislation requiring health care plans to cover maternity leave. This is not an issue that will go away, Mr. President. You can rest assured that we will be back next year, and the year after that and as many votes and debates as it takes until we win.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to address a serious health concern for veterans infected with the hepatitis C virus. This legislation would make hepatitis C a service- connected condition so that veterans suffering from this virus can be treated by the VA. Specifically, the bill will establish a presumption of service connection for veterans with hepatitis C, meaning that we will assume that this condition was incurred or aggravated in military service, even if there is no record of evidence that the condition existed during the actual period of service, provided that certain conditions are met. Under this legislation, veterans who received a transfusion of blood during a period of service before December 31, 1992; veterans who were exposed to blood during a period of service; veterans who underwent hemodyalisis during a period of service; veterans diagnosed with unexplained liver disease during a period of service; veterans with an unexplained liver dysfunction value or test; or veterans working in a health care occupation during service, will be eligible for treatment for this condition at VA facilities. I am introducing this legislation today because of medical research that suggests many veterans were exposed to hepatitis C in service and are now suffering from liver and other diseases caused by exposure to the virus. I am troubled that many ``hepatitis C veterans'' are not being treated by the VA because they can't prove the virus was service connected, despite that fact that hepatitis C was little known and could not be tested for until recently. Mr. President, we are learning that those who served in Vietnam and other conflicts, tend to have higher than average rates of hepatitis C. In fact, VA data shows that 20 percent of its inpatient population is infected with the hepatitis C virus, and some studies have found that 10 percent of otherwise healthy Vietnam veterans are hepatitis C positive. Although hepatitis C is a very serious infection, it was actually unknown until recently. Hepatitis C was not isolated until 1989, and the test for the virus has only been available since 1990. Hepatitis C is a hidden infection with few symptoms. However, most of those infected with the virus will develop serious liver disease 10 to 30 years after contracting it. For many of those infected, hepatitis C leads to liver failure, transplants, liver cancer, and ultimately death. And yet, most people who have hepatitis C don't even know it and often do not get treatment until it's too late. Only five percent of the estimated four million Americans with hepatitis C know they have it, but with new treatments, some estimates indicate that 50 percent can have the virus eradicated. Vietnam Veterans in particular are just now starting to show up with liver disease caused by hepatitis C. And detection and treatment now may help head off serious liver disease for many of them. However, many veterans with hepatitis C will not be treated by the VA because they cannot establish a service connection for their condition in spite of the fact that we now know that many Vietnam-era and other veterans got this disease serving their country. Many of my colleagues may be interested to know how veterans likely were exposed to this virus. Many veterans received blood transfusions while in Vietnam. This is one of the most common ways hepatitis C is transmitted. Medical transmission of the virus through needles and other medical equipment is possible in combat. And Medical care providers in the services were likely at increased risk, and may have, in turn, posed a risk to the service members they treated. Researchers have discovered that hepatitis C was widespread in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam war, and that some blood sent from the U.S. was also infected with the virus. Researchers and veterans organizations, including the Vietnam Veterans of America, with whom I worked to prepare this legislation, believe that many veterans were infected after being injured in combat and getting a transfusion or from working as a medic around combat injuries. Yet, veterans cannot establish a service connection because frequently there were no symptoms when they were infected in Vietnam. In addition, while medical records may show a short bout of hepatitis, hepatitis C was not known then and there was no testing to detect the hepatitis C infection at discharge. The hepatitis C infected veterans are essentially in a catch 22: the VA is reluctant to depart from their routine service connection requirements and veterans cannot prove that they contracted hepatitis C in combat because the science to detect it did not exist during the period of service. Without congressional authority in the form of legislation providing for presumptive service connection, thousands of Vietnam vets infected with hepatitis C in service will not get VA health care testing or treatment. I believe the government will actually save money in the long run by testing and treating this infection early on. The alternative is much more costly treatment of end-stage liver disease and the associated complications, or other disorders. I would like to describe some of the research that has led me to the conclusion that hepatitis C may be service connected in many veterans. A number of studies have established a link between hepatitis C in veterans and high risk factors for hepatitis C that are unique to combat or are highly prevalent in combat situations. A study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology in 1980 found that veterans have a higher incidence of hepatitis C compared to non-veterans. The study of veterans receiving liver transplants at the Nashville, Tennessee VA medical center, which was conducted by researchers at the Vanderbilt University Medical Center, found that there ``was a significantly greater incidence of hepatitis C . . . in veterans compared with non-VA patients.'' The study claims to confirm that ``veteran patients have a higher incidence of hepatitis C. . .'' A study published in Cancer in 1989 found that veterans have increased risk of liver cancer as compared to non-veterans. The study found that there was a 50 percent increase in the rate of liver cancer among male veterans using VA medical systems from 1970 to 1982. A study published in Military Medicine in 1997 found that from 1991 to 1994, the number of veterans diagnosed with hepatitis C increased significantly from 6,612 in 1991 to 18,854 in 1994, which is an increase of more than 285 percent. The study notes that ``total patients seen nationally . . . increased by only 4.87 percent during the same period.'' Therefore, this increase cannot be explained by increased in workload. Over the subsequent year, this increased to 21,400 (in 1996), and has since continued to increase. Some will argue that further epidemiologic data is needed to resolve or prove the issue of service connection. I agree that we have our work cut out for us, and further study is required. However, while the research being done is providing more and more data on the relationship between military service and hepatitis C, we should not force those who fought for our country to wait for the treatment they deserve. It should be noted that some progress has been made in recent years in the effort to address this health concern. This is not a new issue. The VA has done some screening and testing for hepatitis C in veterans. VA Under Secretary for Health, Ken Kizer, issued a directive that all VA medical centers should test veterans for hepatitis C if they fall into certain risk categories. However, I understand that medical centers are not complying with this directive uniformly. In addition, there is no mention of treatment in the Kizer directive. Therefore, if the virus is detected, the VA does not necessarily treat it. I would also note that the FY98 VA-HUD Appropriations report contains the following language: ``The Committee is concerned that the rates of serious liver disease, liver cancer and liver transplants related to hepatitis C infection are expected to rise rapidly among veterans populations over the next decade. Veterans health care facilities will bear a large part of the treatment cost. Those costs can be reduced with early screening and treatment of veterans infected with hepatitis C. Therefore, the Committee directs the Department to determine rates of hepatitis C infection among veterans receiving health services from the VA and to establish a protocol for screening new entrants to the VA health care system. The Committee also directs the Department to provide counseling and access to treatment for veterans who test positive for hepatitis C. The Department should pay special attention to rates of hepatitis C among veterans of Vietnam and more recent deployments.'' Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, well respected both within and outside of the medical profession, has said, ``In some studies of veterans entering the Department of Veterans Affairs health facilities, half of the veterans have tested positive for HCV. Some of these veterans may have left the military with HCV infection, while others may have developed it after their military service. In any event, we need to detect and treat HCV infection if we are to head off very high rates of liver disease and liver transplant in VA facilities over the next decade. I believe this effort should include HCV testing as part of the discharge physical in the military, and entrance screening for veterans entering the VA health system.'' The VA requires that a veteran demonstrate onset during service or within requisite presumptive periods with chronic residuals of a disease or injury that had its onset during active military service. How does a veteran prove service connection under these criteria for a condition that did not even have a name until 10 years ago. Veterans have already fought their share of battles--these men and women who sacrificed in war so that others could live in peace shouldn't have to fight again for the benefits and respect they have earned. In closing, let me say that we are just now beginning to learn the full extent of this emerging health threat to veterans and the general population. We still have a long way to go before we know how best to confront this deadly virus. A comprehensive policy to confront such a monumental challenge can not written overnight. It will require the long-term commitment of Congress and the Administration to a serious effort to address this health concern. I hope this legislation will be a constructive step in this effort, and I look forward to working with the Veterans' Affairs Committee, the VA-HUD appropriators, Vietnam Veterans of America, and others to meet this emerging challenge.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to address a serious health concern for veterans infected with the hepatitis C virus. This legislation would make hepatitis C a service- connected condition so that veterans suffering from this virus can be treated by the VA. Specifically, the bill will establish a presumption of service connection for veterans with hepatitis C, meaning that we will assume that this condition was incurred or aggravated in military service, even if there is no record of evidence that the condition existed during the actual period of service, provided that certain conditions are met. Under this legislation, veterans who received a transfusion of blood during a period of service before December 31, 1992; veterans who were exposed to blood during a period of service; veterans who underwent hemodyalisis during a period of service; veterans diagnosed with unexplained liver disease during a period of service; veterans with an unexplained liver dysfunction value or test; or veterans working in a health care occupation during service, will be eligible for treatment for this condition at VA facilities. I am introducing this legislation today because of medical research that suggests many veterans were exposed to hepatitis C in service and are now suffering from liver and other diseases caused by exposure to the virus. I am troubled that many ``hepatitis C veterans'' are not being treated by the VA because they can't prove the virus was service connected, despite that fact that hepatitis C was little known and could not be tested for until recently. Mr. President, we are learning that those who served in Vietnam and other conflicts, tend to have higher than average rates of hepatitis C. In fact, VA data shows that 20 percent of its inpatient population is infected with the hepatitis C virus, and some studies have found that 10 percent of otherwise healthy Vietnam veterans are hepatitis C positive. Although hepatitis C is a very serious infection, it was actually unknown until recently. Hepatitis C was not isolated until 1989, and the test for the virus has only been available since 1990. Hepatitis C is a hidden infection with few symptoms. However, most of those infected with the virus will develop serious liver disease 10 to 30 years after contracting it. For many of those infected, hepatitis C leads to liver failure, transplants, liver cancer, and ultimately death. And yet, most people who have hepatitis C don't even know it and often do not get treatment until it's too late. Only five percent of the estimated four million Americans with hepatitis C know they have it, but with new treatments, some estimates indicate that 50 percent can have the virus eradicated. Vietnam Veterans in particular are just now starting to show up with liver disease caused by hepatitis C. And detection and treatment now may help head off serious liver disease for many of them. However, many veterans with hepatitis C will not be treated by the VA because they cannot establish a service connection for their condition in spite of the fact that we now know that many Vietnam-era and other veterans got this disease serving their country. Many of my colleagues may be interested to know how veterans likely were exposed to this virus. Many veterans received blood transfusions while in Vietnam. This is one of the most common ways hepatitis C is transmitted. Medical transmission of the virus through needles and other medical equipment is possible in combat. And Medical care providers in the services were likely at increased risk, and may have, in turn, posed a risk to the service members they treated. Researchers have discovered that hepatitis C was widespread in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam war, and that some blood sent from the U.S. was also infected with the virus. Researchers and veterans organizations, including the Vietnam Veterans of America, with whom I worked to prepare this legislation, believe that many veterans were infected after being injured in combat and getting a transfusion or from working as a medic around combat injuries. Yet, veterans cannot establish a service connection because frequently there were no symptoms when they were infected in Vietnam. In addition, while medical records may show a short bout of hepatitis, hepatitis C was not known then and there was no testing to detect the hepatitis C infection at discharge. The hepatitis C infected veterans are essentially in a catch 22: the VA is reluctant to depart from their routine service connection requirements and veterans cannot prove that they contracted hepatitis C in combat because the science to detect it did not exist during the period of service. Without congressional authority in the form of legislation providing for presumptive service connection, thousands of Vietnam vets infected with hepatitis C in service will not get VA health care testing or treatment. I believe the government will actually save money in the long run by testing and treating this infection early on. The alternative is much more costly treatment of end-stage liver disease and the associated complications, or other disorders. I would like to describe some of the research that has led me to the conclusion that hepatitis C may be service connected in many veterans. A number of studies have established a link between hepatitis C in veterans and high risk factors for hepatitis C that are unique to combat or are highly prevalent in combat situations. A study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology in 1980 found that veterans have a higher incidence of hepatitis C compared to non-veterans. The study of veterans receiving liver transplants at the Nashville, Tennessee VA medical center, which was conducted by researchers at the Vanderbilt University Medical Center, found that there ``was a significantly greater incidence of hepatitis C . . . in veterans compared with non-VA patients.'' The study claims to confirm that ``veteran patients have a higher incidence of hepatitis C. . .'' A study published in Cancer in 1989 found that veterans have increased risk of liver cancer as compared to non-veterans. The study found that there was a 50 percent increase in the rate of liver cancer among male veterans using VA medical systems from 1970 to 1982. A study published in Military Medicine in 1997 found that from 1991 to 1994, the number of veterans diagnosed with hepatitis C increased significantly from 6,612 in 1991 to 18,854 in 1994, which is an increase of more than 285 percent. The study notes that ``total patients seen nationally . . . increased by only 4.87 percent during the same period.'' Therefore, this increase cannot be explained by increased in workload. Over the subsequent year, this increased to 21,400 (in 1996), and has since continued to increase. Some will argue that further epidemiologic data is needed to resolve or prove the issue of service connection. I agree that we have our work cut out for us, and further study is required. However, while the research being done is providing more and more data on the relationship between military service and hepatitis C, we should not force those who fought for our country to wait for the treatment they deserve. It should be noted that some progress has been made in recent years in the effort to address this health concern. This is not a new issue. The VA has done some screening and testing for hepatitis C in veterans. VA Under Secretary for Health, Ken Kizer, issued a directive that all VA medical centers should test veterans for hepatitis C if they fall into certain risk categories. However, I understand that medical centers are not complying with this directive uniformly. In addition, there is no mention of treatment in the Kizer directive. Therefore, if the virus is detected, the VA does not necessarily treat it. I would also note that the FY98 VA-HUD Appropriations report contains the following language: ``The Committee is concerned that the rates of serious liver disease, liver cancer and liver transplants related to hepatitis C infection are expected to rise rapidly among veterans populations over the next decade. Veterans health care facilities will bear a large part of the treatment cost. Those costs can be reduced with early screening and treatment of veterans infected with hepatitis C. Therefore, the Committee directs the Department to determine rates of hepatitis C infection among veterans receiving health services from the VA and to establish a protocol for screening new entrants to the VA health care system. The Committee also directs the Department to provide counseling and access to treatment for veterans who test positive for hepatitis C. The Department should pay special attention to rates of hepatitis C among veterans of Vietnam and more recent deployments.'' Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, well respected both within and outside of the medical profession, has said, ``In some studies of veterans entering the Department of Veterans Affairs health facilities, half of the veterans have tested positive for HCV. Some of these veterans may have left the military with HCV infection, while others may have developed it after their military service. In any event, we need to detect and treat HCV infection if we are to head off very high rates of liver disease and liver transplant in VA facilities over the next decade. I believe this effort should include HCV testing as part of the discharge physical in the military, and entrance screening for veterans entering the VA health system.'' The VA requires that a veteran demonstrate onset during service or within requisite presumptive periods with chronic residuals of a disease or injury that had its onset during active military service. How does a veteran prove service connection under these criteria for a condition that did not even have a name until 10 years ago. Veterans have already fought their share of battles--these men and women who sacrificed in war so that others could live in peace shouldn't have to fight again for the benefits and respect they have earned. In closing, let me say that we are just now beginning to learn the full extent of this emerging health threat to veterans and the general population. We still have a long way to go before we know how best to confront this deadly virus. A comprehensive policy to confront such a monumental challenge can not written overnight. It will require the long-term commitment of Congress and the Administration to a serious effort to address this health concern. I hope this legislation will be a constructive step in this effort, and I look forward to working with the Veterans' Affairs Committee, the VA-HUD appropriators, Vietnam Veterans of America, and others to meet this emerging challenge.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. 2561 introduced earlier today by Senators Nickles and Bryan.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 434, S. 2095.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, Senator Chafee has a substitute amendment at the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the substitute be agreed to, the bill be considered read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today it stand in recess until 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, October 7. I further ask the time for the two leaders be reserved.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I further ask consent that there be a period for the transaction of morning business until 10 a.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of H.R. 4248 which is at the desk.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, on Wednesday there will be a period of morning business until 10 a.m. Following morning business, under a previous order the Senate will proceed to two stacked rollcall votes. The first vote will be on the adoption of the motion to proceed to H.R. 10, the financial services reform bill. The second vote will be on the motion to invoke cloture on S. 442, the Internet tax bill. Assuming cloture is invoked, the Senate will remain on the Internet tax bill with amendments being offered and debated throughout Wednesday's session. In addition to the Internet tax bill, the Senate may also consider any available appropriations conference reports, executive nominations, or any other legislative items cleared for action. The leader would like to remind all Members that there are only a few days left in which to consider remaining appropriations bills and other important legislation. Members are encouraged to plan their schedules accordingly to accommodate a busy week with votes occurring early in the morning and extending late into the evening.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask the Senate stand in recess under the previous order.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the majority leader, after consultation with the Democratic leader, may proceed to the consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 4194, the VA/HUD appropriations bill, and, further, that the conference report be considered as read. I further ask consent that there be 40 minutes for debate on the conference report equally divided and, at the conclusion or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote on adoption of the report.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be deemed read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Banking Committee be discharged in further consideration of H.R. 3790, and further that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Ms. SNOWE

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

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by my distinguished colleague from Arkansas, Senator Bumpers, because I believe it is unnecessary and could prove detrimental to mail order companies. For these reasons, I urge that my colleagues reject this amendment, just as they rejected it at the start of the 104th Congress by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 73 to 25. Mr. President, I do not believe that the bill currently before us-- the Internet Tax Freedom Bill--is the appropriate place for the Senate to consider the imposition of new taxes. This amendment contains major compliance and tax issues that should be properly considered and reported from the Finance Committee before being brought to a vote on the floor. In addition, my strong opposition to this amendment stems from my belief that this measure will be detrimental to the mail-order industry nationally, as well as posing a stark threat to a company whose quality craftsmanship, durable outdoor products, and legendary commitment to excellence has made it the pride of my home state of Maine--L.L. Bean of Freeport. L.L. Bean was established 86 years ago as a small, Maine-based store catering to the surrounding community and a limited number of mail- order customers. In 1912, who would have guessed that someday L.L. Bean would rise to become one of the premier international manufacturers and marketers of outdoor gear and other goods? But by focusing on unquestioning customer satisfaction and unparalleled quality products, L.L. Bean succeeded in bringing to our state and the local community many jobs and much pride. In Freeport alone, 4,000 people are employed by L.L. Bean full-time while over 11,000 are employed part-time during the Christmas holidays, making it the third largest employer in the State of Maine. At the same time, L.L. Bean's retail store brings to Freeport and its surrounding communities 4 million customers every year, and attracts an additional 4 million catalog customers annually--a powerful generator of tourism and business for the entire state. Mr. President, the amendment offered by my colleague, Senator Bumpers, would threaten the present and future job prospects of Freeport's residents needlessly, as well as any other community that employs individuals in the mail-order industry. And even as this amendment would prove harmful in Maine and across the nation, the irony is that this amendment is not even necessary to accomplish the goal being sought by my friend from Arkansas. Specifically, states already have the ability to collect sales taxes, just as Maine has demonstrated, and can easily collect these taxes through the voluntary income tax. In Maine, taxpayers are given the option on their personal income tax form of either stating the actual amount of sales tax due for out-of- state purchases in a given year, or entering a flat tax amount based on a percentage of the taxpayer's income. The bottom line is that states have the ability to collect these taxes--they do not need Federal legislation to do so. Mr. President, the State of Maine has proven that the legislation being proposed by the Senator from Arkansas is not necessary. I urge my colleagues join me in opposing this proposal, just as they opposed it four years ago. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the fiscal year 1999 Defense authorization conference report. This bill emerges in the turmoil of a post-cold-war world--one demanding a U.S. military that can face transnational developments such as weapons proliferation, regional tyrants such as Saddam Hussein, and emerging powers such as China. As a result, the authorization cycle of the last few months allowed Congress to bring the Pentagon's budget into alignment with the changing Armed Services on which the nation will rely to deter a broad and unpredictable spectrum of global threats to U.S. national security. The conference report emphasizes a type of warfare that will loom large in future defense planning: littoral operations near coastal plains. Accordingly to the Navy's official definition, littoral engagements require forces to maneuver ``close enough to influence events on shore if necessary.'' This post-Soviet mission connects our force structure to our security interests since 80 percent of the world's population lives near the shorelines and waterways that open into the littorals. The priorities established by the conference report demonstrate how littoral concepts have started to displace more conventional ideas of weapons development. Major research and modernization programs, for example, share the common goal of delivering increased firepower, speed, and precision at a lower cost. Ship and aircraft architectures have sacrificed the hard angles prone to enemy detection in favor of modular composite materials that leave smaller signatures on a radar screen. Smaller crews will maintain more advanced command an control systems configured for instant data transmission. And self-guided missiles now assume the targeting role that concentrated divisions of heavy armor had to bear in the past. In addition to high technology hardware, Mr. President, efficient training programs remain critical to the evolution of the military. I am therefore pleased that the bill allows the Armed Services to manage their gender-integrated training policies as commanders and instructors have designed them. The new international security environment gives us new guidelines to measure the readiness of the Total Force. Active duty men and women must subsequently continue to train as they will deploy to accomplish the gender-neutral task of supporting our war fighters. Common sense means that recruits destined to repair fighter-bombers, frigates, submarines, and missile launch tubes should train the same way, under the same standards, and at the same time. Common sense means that radar operators, quality assurance engineers, and military police should follow universal rules of engagement for males and females who wear identical uniforms. Yet we would suspend our common sense by pretending that the solution to workplace harassment means the segregation of enlistees into isolated training components. We have to move beyond the charge that integrated training fosters sexual misconduct to ask how the men and women of the All-Volunteer Force can each play a decisive role in support of combat readiness. It is for this core mission purpose, rather than the testing of social policy theories, that the armed services unite men and women to acquire the skills expected of all soldiers. Gender-integrated training maximizes the return on the taxpayers' defense investment in making all service members accountable for a range of logistical, medical, and technical jobs that sharpen the ability of the Defense Department to protect both our homeland and the country's core interests abroad. Finally, Mr. President, both the House and Senate defense authorizing committees struggled this spring with the nation's incoherent contingency operations policy. By the end of the coming fiscal year, the taxpayers will have devoted $9.4 billion to the maintenance of our Bosnia mission since the conclusion of the Dayton peace agreement in November 1995. But the administration has requested this enormous sum of money in a vacuum of silence about our strategic purpose and an aura of deception about the length of our commitment. Officials perpetuate their failure of leadership with the assumption that Congress supports the Bosnia deployments simply by funding them. This assessment, however, only uncovers the cynicism of the administration's foreign policy. Neither the House nor the Senate, as the President knows, would intentionally place our overseas forces in a position of jeopardy by depriving them of money for daily operations and self-protection. At the same time, the Pentagon cannot continue to hold the safety of our troops hostage to unjustified budget requests for keeping between 6,000 and 8,000 military personnel in a country struggling to restore its political institutions. The confusion underpinning U.S. policies toward Bosnia led Senator Cleland and I to draft an amendment requiring the submission of statutory reports to Congress on the purpose and potential endpoint of military contingency operations involving more than 500 people in uniform. The reports must accompany all budget requests made for such operations. Our amendment, including in the Senate's version of the bill and approved by the authorization conferees, reflects the lessons that the Bosnia experience teaches us about the interaction between the executive and legislative branches on the Defense Department's non- wartime deployments. Congress must insist on a regular process under which we can match the administration's own peacekeeping policy arguments with its ongoing budget demands. We need to determine more definitively if the Pentagon has a contingency operations strategy that advances the security interests of the United States rather than the false hope of relying on our military presence to solve the domestic political, economic, and cultural problems of other nations. The Snowe-Cleland amendment, I believe, will equip Congress with the tools necessary to exercise aggressive oversight of the administration's peacekeeping initiatives. The fiscal year 1999 Defense authorization conference report, Mr. President, foreshadows both the challenges and the phenomenal capabilities that the Armed Forces will manage in the new century. I, therefore, urge the Senate to uphold its tradition of bipartisan support for the military by adopting this responsible legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the Wendell H. Ford National Air Transportation Improvement Act of 1998. As a member of the Commerce Aviation Subcommittee, it has been my privilege to work with Senator Ford on this and other bills to improve the quality and safety of air transportation in this country, and I believe it is a fitting tribute that we name this bill in his honor. I appreciate the assistance I received from the Senator from Kentucky and from my good friend, the Chairman, Senator McCain, in adding three amendments to this bill which I believe will help improve safety, quality and access. I will vote for this bill because on the whole, it will benefit our airports and air travelers. But I do want to make it clear that I do not support sections 606 and 607. These sections will be detrimental to commercial air service to Maine and the other markets within the perimeter rule. While I will not be offering an amendment to strike these two sections, I would encourage the conferees to seriously consider the detrimental effects these sections will have on air service. Section 606 will negatively alter the perimeter rule at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport in a way that jeopardizes air service to Maine. It is my opinion that expanding the number of slots would clearly result in more negatives than positives. Due to the current Federal Aviation Administration guidelines on the distance required between aircraft, adding flights at National airport will require air traffic controllers to chose between staying on schedule or sacrificing safety. If more flights are added through the creation of these new slots in Section 606, the controller will have to place these flights more closely together in order to prevent delays in arrivals and departures. By decreasing the spacing of the flights in and out of Reagan National, it will create an unsafe situation by subjecting the flights to the jet wash, or turbulence, of flights in front of them. Such exposure to the jet wash, especially at take-off creates a terrible safety situation. One which will jeopardize lives of the traveling public. I am also concerned about the way that section 606 distributes the new slots are distributed. Specifically, the section gives priority consideration to air carriers who have already had slots withdrawn from them. This will result in the majority of new slots to go to one dominate carrier and further increase already overpriced business airfares. Further, this language will overturn a March 1998, Department of Transportation decision concerning the distribution of slots. I would also like to note my opposition to section 607, which modifies the perimeter rule. It is well established that the perimeter rule maintains a delicate balance between National Airport and Dulles International Airport. Under the perimeter rule, Dulles has flourished as an international gateway, and National has provided regional service to states such as Maine. I believe that in the long run, violating the perimeter rule will hurt travelers from Maine. Eroding the perimeter rule will bring long- haul flights to National--short haul flights, in turn, will be rerouted to Dulles or eliminated altogether. Ironically, violating the perimeter rule would also hurt those underserved communities the legislation is designed to assist. Modifying the perimeter rule could encourage airlines at National to substitute long-haul flights for existing service to smaller communities within the perimeter. I believe that the amendment offered by the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Robb, which I have cosponsored, will mitigate some of the potential impact of modifying the perimeter rule by making it incumbent on the Secretary of Transportation to ensure that these changes will not reduce travel options for communities served by small and medium sized airports within the perimeter and not result in meaningful increases in travel delays. I also would want to note the Dorgan-Snowe amendment that was adopted and to thank the Chairman and Ranking member for their helping in working through the language. The Dorgan-Snowe amendment would facilitate air service to under-served communities and encourage airline competition through non-discriminatory interconnection requirements by permitting the Secretary of Transportation to require major carriers to enter into agreements with new entrant air carriers which serve rural or underserved markets. This amendment will give the Secretary of Transportation the authority to require an air carrier that serves an essential airport facility, such as a major hub, and has an exclusive--almost monopolistic--agreement with another airline which serves an under- served market to enter into a joint fare or interline agreement with a new air carrier, trying to enter the underserved market so that the people living in the rural or underserved area will have a competitive alternative and not be beholden to one airline. This would allow a new airline to fly from a rural or underserved market to a hub airport which is dominated by a major carrier and permit the traveler to continue to another market on the megacarrier without having to purchase a second ticket or worrying if their bags will be transferred to the megacarrier. I want to make it perfectly clear. States which are primarily rural or have a large number of underserved markets will benefit from this amendment. Opponents of this amendment argue that this is re- regulation. Nothing is further from the truth. Senator Dorgan and I are establishing a mechanism which will allow new entrant carriers to be able to compete with the mega air carriers. Only if the Secretary believes that underserved markets will benefit and that competition will result, will an interline agreement be sanctioned. It is interesting to note that when the commercial air carrier industry was deregulated, there were 19 domestic trunk-line and local service carriers. Of those 19, only 5 (American, Continental, Delta, Northwest, and United) airlines are still in existence. At the time of deregulation, eight of the 15 airlines controlled 80% of the market share. Today, the seven largest carriers control more than 90% of the market. Some say that this is positive result of deregulation, claiming that deregulation was designed to promote a ``survival of the fittest'' type industry and promote profitability. Unfortunately, deregulation has actually hurt the vast majority of communities in the United States and the passengers who travel from small and medium sized markets. According to a Government Accounting Office report, the full benefits of deregulation have yet to be realized because of problems with entering the markets dominated by a major airline. As a result of deregulation, consumers are actually paying far more for air travel. In fact, a doubling of an airline's market share on a particular route translates into a price increase of almost nine percent. Today, as a result of the lack of competition at small and medium sized markets, it is cheaper to fly from Washington, D.C. to Mexico City on an unrestricted ticket than it is to fly from Washington to Portland, Maine. Our amendment would require carriers who enter into interline and joint fare agreements with other carriers, like those which have already been proposed and implemented on a limited basis by the megacarriers, to provide these agreements on a non-discriminatory basis to carriers seeking to provide service between an underserved market and a large hub airport in which one carrier has market dominance. Open access like that proposed in this amendment is nothing new. In fact Congress, just two and one-half years ago, approved legislation with similar requirements. When Congress de-regulated the telecommunications industry, the fundamental element to promote competition in that legislation was the requirement that the incumbent carriers would be required, by law, to allow their competitors to interconnect into their network. In a situation analogous to the telecommunications market, in order to develop competition in the local market, we must impose, by law, the requirement that the dominant megacarriers, allow its competitors to interconnect into their networks. By adopting this amendment, new entrant carriers will be allowed to interconnect into the flight network of a major carrier which dominates a hub airport. In light of what has been required of other industries under the goal of promoting competition, this amendment makes sense if one wants to see a competitive airline industry. The only way to allow for competition in this environment is to impose conditions on the major carriers to cooperate with their competitors. Interline and joint fares are necessary to ensure that the dominant carriers will not kill potential competitors. Through the adoption of this amendment, much like the principle underlying the local competition in the telecommunications industry, we will be able to provide more choices, lower costs, and better service to the majority of markets across the country. permanent ban on rocky mountain national park commercial tour overflights

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I thank the Chairman, Senator McCain, and the ranking member, Senator Ford, for their assistance with my three amendments. One way that the FAA reauthorization bill will improve the nation's air service is through the new Community Carrier Air Service Program. This program will provide assistance to communities so that underserved markets can attract carriers. The Secretary of Transportation will select communities to participate in this program based on geographic diversity and other unique circumstances that presently hinder communities from attracting adequate air service. It is important to note that the intent of this language is to ensure that participation in the program will promote the development of a national air transportation system. And my amendment will ensure that it involves the Transportation must ensure this diversity so that every region of the nation can benefit from the program. An important provision for Maine's pilots is included in my amendment on the ASOS program. This amendment requires that the Federal Aviation Administration retain human observers at the automated surface transportation system stations which have had a high rate of reporting error. The language in the amendment requires the FAA to correct the problems and notify Congress that the problems have been solved before it can remove a human observer from an ASOS station. ASOS is an automatic weather observance system which uses electronic sensors, computers and display units to detect weather. It is fully automated and computerized and is intended to replace human observers of on-the-ground weather conditions in specific locales. Information from ASOS sensors are transmitted to a computer, and users, like pilots, can call a special phone number or tune into a special radio frequency to obtain information. ASOS is intended to make weather information collection and dissemination more cost-effective by replacing the human element with electronics. The problem is that in the northern tier states, such as Maine, the ASOS system has problems discerning certain weather conditions. For example, sleet falls faster than snow so ASOS records it as rain and recently heavy smoke from Canadian forest fires caused the ASOS at the Houlton airport to report heavy fog at the airport. Needless to say, flying through fog is very different than flying through smoke. This is a very serious matter and could result in life threatening problems if a pilot does not have the proper weather information. The ASOS systems in Maine have been very unreliable. The station in Houlton recorded more than 1,400 mistakes in one year. A letter from the FAA dated May 26, 1998, to you admits the problems with the system. My third amendment increases fines for those airlines which chose to discriminate against the handicapped. Although the airlines have been working to improve their treatment of the handicapped, there have been some incidents which warrant a sizable fine by the Department of Transportation. For example, one of my constituents, Ms. Alice Conway, of Portland, Maine was returning from Mexico in 1994 after attending a disabilities related conference. Her story is a very unfortunate one and clearly illustrates the need for penalties which will deter such treatment by the airlines and their employees. The problem began for Alice in Mexico City. There a mechanical problem forced a 45 minute delay in departure. While other passengers were able to exit the plane, nobody offered to help Ms. Conway off the plane. After the flight finally got underway, Ms. Conway, who is paraplegic, asked to use the aisle chair in order to visit the restroom. Ms. Conway was denied access to the restroom because the chair had been forgotten. At one point of the flight, the plane landed in Indianapolis. On the ground there, the flight attendants refused to bring her a chair and denied her any assistance which would have allowed her to visit the restroom. As the flight traveled to Chicago, she asked is she could scoot along the aisle of the aircraft to get to the restroom, a flight attendant told her that sitting in the aisle was illegal and if she did so, she would be arrested when they landed. Finally, after seven hours of travel, an attendant gave her a blanket and a bottle so that she could empty her colostomy pouch while sitting in her seat. She had to empty her colostomy pouch in her seat! How can any of us condone such behavior? Thankfully, this bill contains language that will create stiff penalties for those who violate the law. Again, I thank the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Kentucky and their staff for their assistance in coming to agreement on these three amendments.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this attempt to override the President's veto of H.R. 1122, the so-called ``Partial Birth'' Abortion Ban Act of 1997. Mr. President, let it be clear that this legislation puts women's lives and health on the line. If we vote today to override the President's veto we will bear the burden of putting women's lives and health at risk by substituting the judgement of politicians for the judgement of medical doctors. And that just isn't right. Twenty-two years ago, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Roe versus Wade that held that women have a constitutional right to an abortion, but after viability, states could ban abortions--as long as they allowed exceptions for cases in which a woman's life or health is endangered. H.R. 1122 is in direct violation of the Court's ruling. It contains no exception for the health of the mother, and therefore represents a direct, frontal assault not only on Roe, but on the health and reproductive rights of women everywhere. It should be no surprise, then, that similar efforts around the country to ban the so-called ``partial birth'' abortion procedure have not stood up to constitutional muster. In fact, legal challenges have been mounted in 20 of the 28 states that have passed these laws. Nineteen out of twenty states have had their laws enjoined or severely limited. Seventeen courts have issued temporary or permanent injunctions stopping laws from taking effect. And one attorney general has limited enforcement of the law. And I want to be just as clear that innocent women will suffer if we vote to override the President's veto. It is not simply the Constitution which demands a health exception be included in any such legislation--it is compassion for the lives of our nation's women. There is no question that any abortion is an emotional, wrenching decision for a woman. No one would debate this. And when a woman must confront this decision during the later stages of a pregnancy because she knows that the pregnancy presents a direct threat to her own life or health, the ramifications of such a decision multiply dramatically. So, too, is it beyond debate that all of us want to see the instances of abortions reduced in America. Unfortunately, contrary to what proponents of this legislation believe, H.R. 1122 will not bring us closer to this goal. In contrast, it will force women and physicians to choose another, less safe and potentially life threatening procedure. Is that what we really want? To put women's lives and health at risk? Because that is exactly what H.R. 1122 will do. It will put women at unacceptable risk, while in turn doing absolutely nothing to lower the number of abortions in this country. I suggest that there is a better way. I suggest we are not stuck with an all-or-nothing approach, even on this most contentious of issues. That is why last year, I supported an amendment which would have decreased the number of abortions in this country without putting the lives and health of women on the line. This substitute would have ensured that no abortion will take place after viability unless it is absolutely necessary to avoid grieve physical injury to a woman, while protecting women's lives and health. And most of all, unlike the underlying bill, it would have reduced the number of abortions in this country. Critics of this proposal, unfortunately, believed that this language contains a loophole because it leaves it to the doctor to determine when the fetus is viable. I find this viewpoint curious on two fronts. First, it begs the question, why did H.R. 1122 proponents trust doctors to determine when an abortion is necessary to protect a woman's life, when they do not trust doctors to determine when a woman faces a grievous health risk or when the fetus is viable? And second, who is in a better position than doctors to determine when the fetus is viable? Are opponents honestly suggesting the federal government has the answer to that question? The Supreme Court has said in Planned Parenthood versus Danforth, and I quote ``the time when viability is achieved may vary with each pregnancy, and the determination of whether a particular fetus is viable, is, and must be, a matter for the judgment of the responsible attending physician.'' It comes down to who should be making these decision. Will it be politicians, whose extent of medical knowledge may be little more than what they see on ``E.R.''? Or will it be physicians, who live ``E.R.''? The substitute language we championed would have required that a doctor certify that a post-viability abortion is necessary to protect a woman from grievous injury. Any doctor who violated this requirement would not only have faced still civil penalties, but will risk having his or her medical license revoked. Curiously, H.R. 1122 does not require a doctor to certify that this procedure is necessary to protect a woman's life. For this reason, it appears far easier for a doctor to falsify information under the underlying bill, because there is no certification requirement. Mr. President, what the vast majority of American people really want from their leaders on this issue is an answer to the problem of late term abortions, not a ban one procedure which will only force women to and doctors to choose other less safe procedures. Because, despite the terrible conflict over H.R. 1122, there is one area where almost all Americans agree: That no viable fetus should be aborted--by any methods--unless it is absolutely necessary to protect the life or health of the mother. By coming together on this issue, we can bridge the chasm that has developed in this debate. And despite the fact that the substitute amendment failed in this body last year, I still strongly believe this is the right course to take. Forty-one States, including my home State of Maine, already ban post- viability abortions. We need to ensure that healthy pregnancies are never terminated after a fetus is viable, regardless of the procedure used. We also need to ensure that any such measure is in keeping with the Constitution and the best interests of the life and health of women. These are not mutually exclusive goals. This is not a gulf that can never be crossed. And this is an issue that is not going to go away. That is why we are coming back this year, and renewing our effort to ban all abortions after viability. On Wednesday, Senator Durbin and I, along with Senators Collins, Mikulski, Landrieu, Lieberman, Graham, and Torricelli introduced a bipartisan measure, the Late-Term Abortion Limitation Act, because we believe this can and will solve the problem of late term abortions. While the Durbin-Snowe legislation is similar to last year's substitute, it states that, prior to an abortion, both the performing physician and an independent physician certify in writing that, in their medical judgment, the continuation of the pregnancy would threaten the mother's life or risk grievous injury to her physical health. With the opinion required from another doctor, this will ensure that the abortion was absolutely medically necessary. And finally, let me be clear that the health exception for ``grievous physical injury'' could only be invoked under two circumstances. The first involves those heart-wrenching cases where a wanted pregnancy seriously threatens the health of the mother. The Durbin- Snowe language would allow a doctor in these tragic cases to perform an abortion because he or she believes it is critical to preserving the health of a woman facing: Peripartal cardiomyopathy, a form of cardiac failure which is often caused by the pregnancy, which can result in death or untreatable heart disease; pre-eclampsia, or high blood pressure which is caused by a pregnancy, which can result in kidney failure, stroke, or death; and uterine ruptures which could result in infertility. Second, the language also applies when a woman has a life-threatening condition which requires life-saving treatment. It applies to those tragic cases, for example, when a woman needs chemotherapy when pregnancy, so the families face the terrible choice of continuing the pregnancy or providing life-saving treatment. These conditions include: Breast cancer; lymphoma, which has a 50 percent mortality rate if untreated; and primary pulmonary hypertension, which has a 50 percent maternal mortality rate. Now, I ask my colleagues, who could seriously object under these circumstances? In closing, Mr. President, let me restate that this is not a problem without a solution. The Durbin-Snowe language very clearly provides this body with an alternative that will not only ensure that healthy pregnancies will never be terminated after a fetus is viable; not only reduce the number of abortions in this Nation; not only put medical decisions in the hands of medical doctors; but will be in keeping with the requirements of the United States Constitution and our responsibility to America's women. That is why I urge my colleagues to vote to sustain the President's veto, and I hope we can coalesce around support for the Durbin-Snowe bill.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to create a commission on the advancement of women and minorities in science, engineering and technology development. The House version, H.R. 3007, introduced by my good friend, Congresswoman Morella, passed the House under suspension of the rules on Monday. Six years ago, I testified before the House Education and Labor Committee in support of this legislation, as cochair of the Congressional Caucus on Women's Issues. It was a priority for the Caucus in 1992, and it remains one of the top seven priorities for the Caucus this year. Since the 102d Congress, when Congresswoman Morella first introduced this bill on behalf of the Caucus, we have learned more about the barriers facing women and minorities when they try to enter nontraditional jobs, such as engineering and research, but unfortunately the general facts haven't changed much. For example, the National Science Foundation's 1996 report, ``Women, Minorities and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering,'' found that even those women who have obtained a degree and are teaching in science and engineering still face barriers to climbing up the ladder to success. The report found that a substantial salary gap exists between men and women with doctorates in science and engineering. It also found that among doctoral scientists and engineers, women are far more likely to be employed at 2 year institutions and, are far less likely to be employed in research universities, and are much more likely to teach part-time. And the National Research Council's 1995 report, ``Women Scientists and Engineers Employed in Industry: Why so Few?,'' found that women are still facing paternalism, sexual harassment, allegations of reverse discrimination, lower salaries and different standards for judging the work of men and women. The purpose of the 11 member Commission created under this bill is to review the information on the problems facing women and minorities in moving into the areas of science and engineering and make recommendations for changes in policy that would remove these artificial barriers which currently prevent women and minorities from entering and excelling in these fields. We are all aware of the important role that technology plays in our economy today, and for the nation, a workforce possessing technological skills is more than just an earnings issue--it's an issue of meeting national employment needs. Today, experts agree that more than half of the new jobs being created require some form of technology literacy. And by the year 2000, six out of every 10 new jobs will require computer and networking skills currently possessed by only 22 percent of the labor force. We must bridge the gap between ``skills demanded'' and ``skills known'' if our Nation is to even fill the jobs that will be available just four years from today. In order to meet those demands--which are crucial to the future economic growth of our country--we must ensure that women and minorities have access to, and are not kept from, jobs in the science, engineering and technology fields. The bill I am introducing today will help us find ways to level the playing field and take down artificial barriers that are keeping women and minorities from careers in these areas.