Olympia Snowe

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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 wish to recognize a small business in my home State of Maine that has risen to the top during its very short existence. East Restaurant & Lounge, located in Wells, was recently named one of the top Chinese restaurants in America--the first time a Maine restaurant has been recognized with such a distinction. Opened in June 2008 by owner Ri Teng Li, East Restaurant & Lounge has quickly impressed its clients with delicious Chinese, Thai, and Japanese cuisine. Mr. Li previously owned and operated the popular Yum Mee Restaurant in Wells, and East Restaurant allows him to keep long- loved classic dishes from the prior establishment while greatly expanding his menu. With more than 400 items, ranging from Peking duck to sushi to Pad Thai, as well as an expansive and impressive buffet on Sundays, East has something for everyone. The restaurant also has a spacious lounge, where guests can relax after work and enjoy a specialty cocktail. And East offers catering services for a variety of events. Perhaps most notable about East Restaurant is the building. It is housed in a striking and eye-catching structure, with a stunning interior full of beautiful decor, from ornate chandeliers and staircases to gorgeous glass doors. There is also a gift shop on the restaurant's upper level, with unique and rare gifts that include charming jewelry. Despite its youth, East Restaurant has rapidly accumulated regular customers and well-deserved accolades. Most recently, Chinese Restaurant News, a San Francisco-based monthly publication dedicated to the more than 45,695 Chinese restaurant owners and operators across America, named East Restaurant as one of the top 10 Chinese restaurants for overall excellence in the United States, a truly remarkable feat. Restaurants were evaluated for eight categories, including decor and atmosphere, food quality, and sanitation. And because of its astonishing appearance, East Restaurant was recognized as the No. 1 establishment in the best decor category. Mr. Li was recently presented with the awards at a ceremony in Las Vegas earlier this month. Mr. Li is an entrepreneur who has consistently aimed to improve each of his new ventures. He came to the United States in the mid-1980s with minimal knowledge of English and knowing hardly anyone. He began working at the restaurant of a friend of his in New York City, and through hard work, determination, and perseverance, Mr. Li realized his dream and opened his own restaurant. After moving to Maine, he established several other restaurants and now operates one in the neighboring town of Kennebunk, as well as a gift shop in Portland. A civic-minded restaurateur, Mr. Li has constantly found ways to give back to the community. An avid contributor to the local Rotary Club and the Wells & Ogunquit Senior Center, Mr. Li has also donated to scholarship funds at Wells High School, where his daughter attends. Mr. Li's marvelous story is a reminder of the benefits and rewards of commitment and resolve. His dedication to providing quality food in an inviting and distinctive atmosphere is commendable, and the results have been astounding. Congratulations to Mr. Li and everyone at East Restaurant & Lounge on their well-deserved acknowledgement, and I wish them many more years of success to come.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I rise today to offer my strong support for the reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Program because I have been a longtime advocate. It is so crucial to my State, to the Presiding Officer's State, and to the country in terms of the magnitude of the problem it seeks to address with uninsured children. Before I address the merits of the legislation, I wish to recognize the exceptional leadership of the chairman of our committee, Senator Baucus, for bringing us to this point, for a long overdue reauthorization. It has been quite a journey over the last few years. I know there have been some differences, ones that have been expressed by the ranking member, Senator Grassley, as we have heard here on the floor, but he has been a constructive voice to bridge the divide and to reach a mutually acceptable agreement on this legislation. So his good-faith efforts always should be saluted. Regrettably, the stakes are monumentally higher than when we first tried to pass a reauthorization bill a year and a half ago. Just this week, the Department of Health and Human Services announced that 7.4 million children were enrolled in the SCHIP program in 2008, which is a 4 percent increase over the previous year. While part of that increase is attributed to state outreach efforts, which should certainly be promoted, the fact remains that SCHIP is offsetting the continued declines we have been experiencing in employer-sponsored coverage. And we cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that a 1 percentage point rise in the national unemployment rate boosts Medicaid and SCHIP enrollment by 1 million, including 600,000 children. For many working families struggling to obtain health care, if benefits are even accessible to them, the costs continue to rise, moving further out of their reach. In my own State of Maine, a family of four can expect to pay $24,000 on the individual market for coverage. For most, taking this path is unrealistic and unworkable. The fact is, SCHIP for years has been a saving grace to millions of parents who have had to make wrenching choices when it comes to balancing adequate health insurance coverage with the cost of mortgages, heating bills, trying to save for their child's college education, and myriad other financial pressures. While some may mistakenly characterize SCHIP coverage as a welfare benefit, they may not realize that nearly 90 percent of uninsured children come from families in which at least one parent is working. The anguish of parents who work hard to make ends meet, yet still cannot afford to pay for health coverage for their children, is truly devastating indeed. They face decisions no parent should have to confront such as whether their child ``is really sick enough'' to go to the doctor. They worry about their children doing simple, everyday activities such a playing on the playground, riding a bicycle, or participating in sports, merely because they cannot afford the consequences of a broken arm or a sprained ankle. All too often, their only alternative is to ratchet up their credit card balances, often irrespective of mounting debt. And over the past 10 years, Maine has been one of the most aggressive states in the nation in enrolling eligible children. Today, SCHIP covers 15,000 children in Maine. Yet there are 11,000 children who are eligible and still un-enrolled. That is why a strong reauthorization is so critical. The bill before us will maintain health coverage for the children who are already enrolled and reach nearly 4 million additional children. It provides $100 million explicitly for outreach efforts. And it changes the funding formula to recognize the gains States like Maine have made in successfully enrolling low-income children, while at the same time building in performance incentives for States that have room to improve their outreach and enrollment efforts. I know many in my caucus will have amendments that condition eligibility expansions in the program to the ability of States to reach nearly all eligible but un-enrolled children. Make no mistake, I share their goal in trying to reach out to as many children as we can. One way is through the ``express lane eligibility'' option which is already part of this bill. More than 70 percent of low-income uninsured children live in families that already receive benefits through Food Stamps, the National School Lunch Program, or the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, WIC. Giving States the option to use Express Lane Eligibility will simplify the way States determine who is eligible. It will lead to quicker and more meaningful coverage gains. Beyond simply enrolling children in the program, this bill provides us an opportunity to emphasize preventive care, so not only are children covered, but we also improve their care. I am particularly heartened that the package recognizes that dental care is not a ``luxury'' benefit, but one that is paramount to the healthy development of children. Under current law, dental coverage is not a guaranteed benefit under SCHIP. While all States offer dental coverage today, the lack of a Federal guarantee for dental care in SCHIP has left children's oral health unstable and unavailable in some States. An unstable benefit that a State may offer one year and then drop the next threatens a dentist's ability to see a child regularly and can even discourage dentists from participating in SCHIP altogether. That is why I am pleased that the bill contains a guaranteed dental benefit under SCHIP, a policy that Senator Bingaman and I have advocated both in the Finance Committee and here on the Senate floor. And even beyond access to a guaranteed benefit, we had an opportunity to further meet an unmet need. Today, there are 4.1 million children in our country under 200 percent of poverty who have private medical coverage but not dental. That is why I am delighted that the Finance Committee accepted by voice vote the Snowe-Bingaman-Lincoln amendment that builds on a guaranteed dental benefit under SCHIP by giving States the option to provide dental-only coverage to income eligible children. A number of my colleagues have expressed concern about SCHIP crowding out private coverage. Our amendment addresses part of that problem. Anecdotal evidence suggests that some parents eventually drop employer- sponsored coverage for a child in order to access dental coverage through SCHIP. We give States this option so that working families without dental coverage have an incentive to maintain private medical coverage, while gaining parity with their peers who are now guaranteed dental coverage through SCHIP. It is a win-win situation. All children should have access to comprehensive, age-appropriate, quality health care, including dental coverage, whether they are in public coverage or private coverage. Proper dental care is crucial to a child's health and well-being. Yet more than half of all children have cavities by age 9, and that number rises to nearly 80 percent of teenagers by the time they graduate from high school. And if we required any more reason why we should support better coverage of dental care, consider the heart-breaking story of the late Deamonte Driver from Maryland. His tragedy puts an all-too-human face on the critical need for proper preventive dental care. The cost of treating his brain infection that resulted from an abscessed tooth at Children's National Medical Center 2 years ago was over $250,000, and despite their best efforts, the medical team failed to save his life. Yet a tooth extraction in a dentist's office would have cost under $100. In describing this tragedy, the Washington Post reported that ``there can't be a more vivid reminder of how shortsighted our system is in not fostering access to preventive health care that saves not only money, but lives.'' Another accomplishment of this bill is the option for States to extend coverage to low-income pregnant women through SCHIP. It is inconceivable to me that the most prosperous nation on earth continues to lag behind the rest of the developed world in providing quality health care to expectant mothers. The United States ranks 41st among 171 countries in the latest U.N. ranking of maternal mortality. Our country is better than this. That is why Senator Lincoln and I have long been involved in promoting investments in maternal health both in this country and globally. The benefits of covering pregnant women are clear. Women who regularly see a physician during pregnancy are less likely to deliver prematurely, and are less likely to have other serious medical issues related to pregnancy. Sometimes, these medical problems can be caught early on and can be addressed before the child is born. Other times, knowing about these health issues ensures that the necessary facilities will be available at the time of birth so that the baby has the best chances for a healthy start. Without a doubt, coverage of low-income pregnant women through SCHIP, combined with the development of quality measures so we know how we can improve, will build stronger, healthier families. I also supported Senator Rockefeller's amendment to give States the option to provide coverage of legal immigrant children. More than 20 States make this coverage available using their own dollars, and the longer we wait to extend coverage to legal immigrant children and pregnant women, the more likely they will be in worse health if they eventually are covered by Medicaid and SCHIP. Allowing States the option to extend coverage to new legal immigrants would reduce these health disparities, as well as address inefficient health care spending by ensuring access to preventive care, as opposed to relying on expensive emergency room care. I hope that my colleagues will see the true benefits of this bill and support it. This bill would allow states to increase SCHIP eligibility up to 300 percent of poverty, or $61,950 for a family of four, a boost that represents the right policy in view of the fact that over 8 million children remain uninsured today in the United States. The data available demonstrate that drawing the eligibility line at 300 percent of poverty will help maximize the number of children we help with this bill. In Maine alone, for example, approximately three-quarters of uninsured children are from families with incomes of 300 percent of poverty or below. The bill contains exemptions for State expansions that are already in place or for States that already have a State law allowing an expansion in coverage in place today. From the start, States were given flexibility in how they could count income. The reason is due to the fact that there are strong variations among States in cost of coverage. A poverty rate of 200 percent in the New York metropolitan area is very different than that same rate in rural regions of the country. This bill addresses the concerns over future coverage expansions. Going forward, if a State wants to exclude large blocks of income and expand beyond 300 percent of poverty, they can do so at the regular Medicaid match not the enhanced SCHIP match. And to further ensure that we are creating incentives for States to concentrate on the poorest children before expanding to higher income children, the bill provides over $3 billion in bonus incentives for increasing Medicaid enrollment of eligible children. And yet, inexplicably, we will hear a chorus of reasons why we should not expand SCHIP. Some will express concerns about the size and cost of the package, which is $32 billion. Given the fact that over 8 million children in this country are uninsured, I would respond that it is a reflection of the magnitude of the problem. Is it any wonder that States have responded to the call of families who are struggling every day with the cost of health insurance and are assuming a tremendous burden in the absence of Federal action? This bill is a critical first step towards greater health reform. Some of my colleagues will say that SCHIP will crowd out private coverage. Again, parents are choosing SCHIP because their employer sponsored coverage is often too expensive if it is even offered at all. In the early days of SCHIP, employers covered about 90 percent of the cost of health insurance for employees. Today, it is loser to 73 percent. And according to a recent Corporate Executive Board survey, one-fourth of large employers increased health insurance deductibles by an average of 9 percent in 2008, and 30 percent plan to increase deductibles by an average of 14 percent in 2009. This bill is reaching out to these families who are struggling with the costs while aligning the incentives for States towards coverage of families below 200 percent. And under this bill, 91 percent of children will come from families under 200 percent of poverty. Some of my colleagues will argue that SCHIP is the first step toward Government-run health care. Our 10-year experience thus far with SCHIP demonstrates that this absolutely has not happened. Moreover, these claims ignore the fact that today, 73 percent of the children enrolled in Medicaid received most or all of their health care services through a managed care plan. SCHIP has been the most significant achievement of the Congress over the past decade in legislative efforts to assure access to affordable health coverage to every American. Compromise on both sides of the aisle helped us create this program 10 years ago, and hopefully a renewed sense of bipartisan commitment will help us successfully reauthorize this vital program.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise as a cosponsor of Senator Specter's resolution honoring Andrew Wyeth and to pay tribute to the landmark life and legacy of this towering giant of American Art. My State of Maine joins Pennsylvania, the Nation, and the world in mourning the inexpressible loss of Andrew Wyeth, a painter of enormous genius, brave vision, and unmatched realism who long ago secured a rightful and prominent place in the pantheon of artists. One of the most `American' of painters, Andrew Wyeth possessed a courage and sensitivity to capture the stark beauty of the landscapes and individuals he depicted. And those of us from Maine will forever hold a special place in our hearts for the undeniable love he had for our State, as portrayed in his moving landscapes of Maine's coasts and especially in his exceptional ``Christina's World.'' Like millions around the world, we will miss Andrew Wyeth's historic and enduring contributions to the American story as told on canvas as well as his powerful capacity for capturing the human condition unvarnished. On a personal note, it was such a privilege to know Andy and his wonderful wife, Betsy, over the years. I will always treasure the fond memories of visiting Andy and Betsy and their family at their home on Allen Island. Indisputably, Andy lived his life the way he painted-- with integrity, grace, and an abiding sense of humanity. And I always remember the pride and honor I felt attending the presentation of a National Medal of the Arts in 2007 to Andy at the White House in an unforgettable ceremony rightly recognizing his iconic body of work over an extraordinary lifetime. I would like to include for the Record a recent outstanding article entitled Wyeth's White Wonder by John Wilmerding, published in The Wall Street Journal, Saturday, January 24, 2009. Formerly a professor at Dartmouth College, Mr. Wilmerding curated the exhibition Andrew Wyeth: The Helga Pictures at the National Gallery of Art in 1987 and recently retired as Sarofim Professor of American Art at Princeton University. Describing Andrew Wyeth's Snow Hill as one of his most memorable works, Mr. Wilmerding captures the essence of the painting and the painter, calling Snow Hill ``one of the most haunting, beautiful and resonant of Wyeth's seven-decade career.'' Poet Robert Frost once wrote of a star that ``it asks a little of us here/It asks of us a certain height,'' and certainly the same can be said of Andrew Wyeth who inspired and entreated us to experience his courageous rendering of the world as he saw it, and like generations to come, we are eternally indebted to him. Andrew Wyeth's artistic achievements resonate not only in our time--but for all time. He will be profoundly missed, and we extend our deepest condolences to Betsy and to our great friends--their son, Jamie and his wife, Phyllis--their son, Nicholas; and the entire Wyeth family for their tremendous loss. I ask unanimous consent the article be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I rise with respect to the nomination of Timothy Geithner for Secretary of the Treasury. This nomination comes at a tumultuous and precarious time, as our Nation's economy remains in the throes of an accelerating downturn-- financial markets have fallen precipitously and are threatening the retirement security of millions of Americans, credit markets are still failing to function normally, and the budget deficit regrettably is poised to reach record heights. And so, as Mr. Geithner well understands, this nomination could not arrive at a more consequential moment in our Nation's history. The Department of the Treasury states its role as ``the steward of U.S. economic and financial systems.'' And undeniably, today, we face a simultaneous crisis in both of these systems on a scale most appropriately described as monumental--as this recession approaches the longest and deepest since World War II. The cascading effect of our collapsing housing markets combined with irresponsible, unregulated and unchecked instruments and investments in our financial markets has resulted in an onrush of disastrous economic repercussions--most especially for hardworking Americans, 2.6 million of whom lost their jobs last year, with millions more looking forward to this year with a sense of profound dread. This is the morass out of which a course must be charted--and this is the challenge to which the next Secretary of the Treasury must be equal--bringing a breadth of experience combined with aggressive management, oversight, and leadership. Given Mr. Geithner's record of achievement and reservoir of experience, which includes more than 5 years as president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank and service to five Secretaries of the Treasury, spanning three administrations, it is clear Mr. Geithner brings to this crucial post a high-caliber, comprehensive, and nuanced understanding of finance, policy, and process that will also prove invaluable at this pivotal moment. At the same time, Mr. Geithner must provide leadership along with the predisposition to turn vision into action and to execute solutions. He must also simultaneously concern himself with the financial security challenges presented by this perilous period. Which brings me to the Troubled Asset Relief Program or the so-called TARP. The Bush administration committed the first $350 billion of the $700 billion Congress authorized last October to create TARP, and, now, the second half of the money will be released. I understand people's frustrations and concerns with the TARP program thus far--because I share those concerns. Indisputably, a lack of transparency and accountability in the first half of the TARP funding fostered an environment in which taxpayer dollars were invested in banks and other financial institutions that have refused to reveal how the money was used--and this is unacceptable. At the same time, given the information I have as a member of the Senate Finance Committee on the state of the economy and the undeniable seriousness of our circumstances, I believe exceptional measures can and must still be taken. President Obama conveyed to me personally that releasing the remaining TARP funds is essential for shoring up an economy that continues to plunge further into recession--and the President has also assured me that his administration would implement critical safeguards while addressing the foreclosure crisis that is plaguing our economy along with so many hardworking Americans. Indisputably, it is time for TARP to cease operating in an ad hoc manner that allowed the Treasury Secretary to tell Congress funds would be used to purchase illiquid securities, before--with no congressional review--they were reprogrammed to inject capital into banks, other financial institutions, and automakers. Therefore, following the commitments articulated by the Obama administration in letters from Mr. Larry Summers delivered to Congress on January 12 and 15, I will, in the coming days be looking for Mr. Geithner to announce programs to assist credit-starved small businesses and consumers in obtaining the loans necessary to create jobs and purchase products and services. The bottom line is that Mr. Geithner must restore public confidence in TARP by explaining in detail how funds will be used and then delivering on those pledges--because what is at stake is the public's money and the public trust. Additionally, increasing our Nation's financial security will require the infusion of TARP dollars to help forestall our foreclosure crisis that is at the root of our economic troubles. That is why I will be vigilant in making certain the Obama administration acts quickly on its pledge to use between $50 billion and $100 billion of TARP funds to help keep imperiled families in their homes. Already, we have regrettably witnessed 2.3 million foreclosure filings in 2008 or an astounding 81 percent increase from 2007, according to a January 15 report by RealtyTrac, an online real estate marketplace that publishes the Nation's largest and most comprehensive foreclosure database. Therefore, we must redouble our efforts to prevent further erosion of our financial security in the housing market. Yet indicators tell us that this slide may only worsen. In fact, the proportion of consumers with mortgages that are 60 days or more past due will hit 7.17 percent in the fourth quarter of 2009, compared to an expected delinquency rate of 4.67 percent at the end of 2008, as stated by TransUnion LLC--a national credit reporting company. Mr. Geithner must not waste any time in establishing a program that will offer financial incentives to companies that agree to reduce monthly payments on mortgage loans. Moreover, I am deeply concerned about the Government Accountability Office's--GAO's--December report that concluded that more oversight over the Troubled Asset Relief Program--TARP--is necessary. While Treasury and banking regulators have publicly stated that they expect institutions receiving capital injections as part of the TARP's $250 billion to promote the flow of credit and modify the terms of residential mortgages to strengthen the housing market, Treasury has not yet established policies to ensure the funds are being used as intended. Indeed, the Associated Press reported on December 22, that when it contacted 21 banks that received at least $1 billion in Government money, not one could provide specific answers on how the money is being used. Equally disturbing, GAO found that while institutions receiving capital injections are subject to specific restrictions on dividend payments and repurchasing shares, the Department of the Treasury has no procedures in place to ensure adherence to these strictures. And while I am pleased that the Treasury Department on January 16 issued rules requiring the chief executive officer of a financial institution receiving funds to certify compliance with executive compensation rules, Treasury must review all such disclosures to assure their accuracy. Indeed, if confirmed, Mr. Geithner must, as the Obama administration has pledged, take steps on day one to address this egregious lack of oversight, making the protection of taxpayer funds a top priority and holding healthy banks accountable for lending--not holding--the public funds they have received. Moreover, these rules should apply not only to banks receiving injections in the future, but also to those who have already obtained taxpayer dollars. Because of the reasons just cited--in addition to deficiencies I learned about at the confirmation hearing last November of TARP inspector general Neil Barofsky--I introduced legislation on November 20, 2008, to strengthen the inspector general's authority to vouchsafe taxpayer dollars. Among other provisions, my bill would waive applicable hiring standards in order to enable the IG to swiftly acquire staff, allow the investigation of any program receiving TARP funding, and require a study of whether banks are indeed lending the taxpayer dollars they have been given. This measure represents the right course to demanding disclosure, and yet, frankly, it is patently absurd that we even have to divine such a course. All of the provisions in my IG bill were incorporated into the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program Act of which I am an original cosponsor and that the Senate unanimously passed on December 10, 2008, but regrettably that measure did not pass Congress. That is why I am joining with Senator McCaskill in reintroducing this measure, which must be considered in short order and be one of the first measures approved by the 111th Congress. In taking up the gauntlet of providing both economic and financial stewardship, Mr. Geithner must, in the process, work hand in glove with Congress to see to it that we are never again forced to vote on a financial rescue package. We must renew accountability and transparency from all of our financial products that have contributed to the meltdown to which we are now responding. And we must have more effective mechanisms to understand whether firms are creating systemic risks that could undermine the foundations of our financial system. To that end, last September, I introduced the Federal Board Certification Act of 2008, legislation that would better assess the risk characteristics of the mortgage-backed securities that led to the financial crisis. This bill would establish a voluntary Federal Board of Certification to certify the risk characteristics of mortgage-backed securities. I hope Mr. Geithner will work with me to make it law. Not only should Mr. Geithner help Congress draft a proposal to ensure our system of regulation is viable, but he must also ensure that we do not find ourselves in the situation that occurred with the fall of Lehman Brothers, which was allowed to fail sending the financial system into a downward spiral--followed by disparate explanations of why exactly that failure was permitted. Indeed, according to a December 14, 2008, New York Times editorial, Questions for Mr. Geithner, there are conflicting accounts as to how Lehman--an institution in existence before the Civil War--was allowed to collapse. In testimony before Congress on September 24, 2008, Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke said that the Federal Reserve and Treasury declined to commit public funds to support Lehman. Bernanke testified that the failure of Lehman posed risks but that the firm's troubles had been well known for some time and investors recognized bankruptcy was a possibility. Thus, Bernanke concluded, ``We judged that investors and counterparties had time to take precautionary measures.'' But the same New York Times editorial then said that Chair Bernanke changed his story and on December 1, 2008, said that ``legal constraints'' had prevented the Fed from rescuing Lehman. Additionally, the paper reports that a spokesman for the New York Fed, which Mr. Geithner led, also said that the Fed had no legal authority to intervene. Regardless of which explanation is true, Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke, former Treasury Secretary Paulson, and Mr. Geithner should have come to Congress for any additional authority necessary to prevent a calamity if they believed Lehman's failure was likely to wreak havoc on the Nation's financial system as it appears to have done, particularly as they saw the effects of such a downfall coming. As Treasury Secretary, Mr. Geithner cannot afford to allow such a mistake to occur once again. We are counting on him to go to President Obama and Congress when conditions warrant and not to stand on the sidelines. Regarding Mr. Geithner's tax return mistakes, they are deeply troubling. After intense scrutiny by the Senate Finance Committee, of which I am a member, Mr. Geithner acknowledged that his errors were ``careless'' and ``avoidable,'' and, frankly, should not have occurred--a sentiment I strongly share. I am confident this experience will make Mr. Geithner more sensitive to the struggles that average Americans face in dealing with the tax code, and that he will aggressively utilize his leadership position to advocate and advance tax simplification. Looking at the totality of the record--Mr. Geithner's achievements and broad experience--and considering all of these factors within the context of the gravest economic times since the Great Depression, I believe that Mr. Geithner is well suited to serve as our next Secretary of the Treasury, and that President Obama should have his nominee confirmed. Indeed, a recent USA Today editorial echoes this sentiment, stating that ``Mr. Geithner deserves rebuke on taxes, then fast confirmation.'' Our Nation deserves the best qualified individual to take the helm of the Treasury Department during these unprecedented times and to tackle these Herculean challenges to our modern economic system. And so, for the reasons I have outlined, I will today vote to confirm Mr. Geithner as the 75th Secretary of the Treasury. I stand ready to work with Mr. Geithner and President Obama not only to help reverse this economic downturn, but at the same time to ensure vigilant and vital congressional oversight in the process--and that American taxpayer dollars are being spent wisely, effectively, and as intended by Congress and the American people.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to thank my Senate colleagues--particularly the persistent efforts of Senator Mikulski, but also to commend Senators Kennedy and Specter for their willingness to address a controversial Supreme Court decision head-on. I am proud to see the Senate taking up an issue that is so fundamental to America--to the way we see ourselves, to the way we are perceived around the world, to the core principles by which our country abides. Equality. Fairness. Justice. I believe everyone in this body is familiar with the story of Lilly Ledbetter. She spent 20 years diligently working at the same company, at the same facility in suburban Alabama, striving alongside her coworkers, both male and female. Unknown to her at the time, from her earliest days at the facility she had become a victim of gender discrimination. How? Over time, those male colleagues who rose through the ranks at the same rate as Ms. Ledbetter were receiving considerably more compensation. Then, one day in June of 1998, her eyes were opened by an anonymous individual who provided her with documentation finally alerting her to the discrepancy in wages. From there, her legal odyssey began. She filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, EEOC, in July, filed a discrimination lawsuit 4 months later and found herself at what she expected to be the end of her journey, the U.S. Supreme Court, 8 years later. But this was not the end of the journey. As Justice Ginsburg indicated in her dissenting opinion, the majority did not sufficiently consider the broad array of case law that would have resulted in a decision in favor of Ms. Ledbetter. Yet we are here today not to argue the validity of the May 2007 Supreme Court decision. Rather, we are here to address the root of the problem, a role Congress must fulfill when the law clearly is lacking. In fact, in that same dissent, Justice Ginsburg urged Congress to act expeditiously to repair this inequity. Today, we are one step closer to doing just that. The existing statute plainly indicates the discrimination must have occurred within 180 days of filing the complaint in order for the complaint to be considered timely. But as Ms. Ledbetter's case proves, this provision, now codified in title VII of U.S. law, is fundamentally flawed. With respect to a situation like that experienced by Ms. Ledbetter, and thousands of American women every day, the statute is not tailored in such a way to recognize long-term workplace discrimination. If a woman is terminated solely because of her gender-- or perhaps passed over for promotions or increased compensation irrespective of merit, but instead based solely on the fact she is a woman, she typically would have the ability to meet the 180-day requirement. But the kind of mistreatment we are attempting to rectify with this legislation is both subtle and longstanding, it is almost impossible to comply with the statute as written. Generally, women like Ms. Ledbetter enter a company on a lower pay scale than their peers, and starting with such a handicap continues to plague them throughout their careers. Over time, that gulf between her compensation and that of her male colleagues only widens. But why should they be penalized in law simply because they didn't have the information necessary to know they were being discriminated against? Do we really wish to say that justice should be arbitrarily decided merely by a date and time? Now, opponents of the legislation have indicated the Ledbetter bill before us today will cost jobs, that it is a radical departure from the intent of the law, that it will impose massive costs on employers, and encourage a deluge of lawsuits. But nothing could be further from the truth. This bipartisan bill would simply restore the law of the land prior to the Supreme Court's 2007 decision. Nine courts of appeals followed the approach we endorse in this bill, and the EEOC used the same underpinnings included in the Ledbetter bill under both Democratic and Republican administrations. In fact, the legislation mimics language that Congress employed in the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to mitigate a Supreme Court decision that all but eliminated employees' opportunity to challenge seniority systems in the workplace. Indeed, after 17 years, this language has not resulted in even a minimal spike in claims through the kind of broad interpretation we were warned against. That's why the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, CBO, has specifically stated it will not significantly increase the number of pay discrimination claims. What it will do is give workers who have reasonable claims a fair chance to have them heard. In addition, this legislation does nothing to alter current limits on the amount employers owe. Under Senator Mikulski's bill, employers would not have to make up for salary differences that occurred decades ago. Current law limits back pay awards to 2 years before the worker filed a job discrimination claim under title VII of the Civil Right Act of 1964. The bill would do nothing to change this 2-year limit on back pay. Some view this as a unique circumstance specific to Ms. Ledbetter. I wholeheartedly disagree. According to a Government Accountability Office presentation based on the 2000 Census data, 7 of the 10 industries that hire the majority of women in this country experienced a widening of the wage gap between male and female managers. In 1963, when Congress passed the Equal Pay Act, a woman working full-time was paid 59 cents on average for every dollar paid to male employees, while in 2005 women were paid 77 cents for every dollar received by men. Over the last 42 years, despite our best efforts, the wage gap has only narrowed by less than half of a penny per year. In my home State of Maine, the situation is even harsher for women in the workplace. For women in Maine, the concern about equal pay is especially acute. In 2007, on average, women in my State working full- time year-round earned only 76 percent of what men working full-time, year-round earned. This is 2 percentage points below the nationwide average of 78 percent. Over recent years, the gender wage gap has plateaued--we are not making progress. The following point is particularly illustrative--the wage gap in Maine persists, like it does across America, at all levels of education. Women in the State with a high school diploma earned only 62 percent of what men with a high school diploma earned. In fact, as is true nationwide, the average woman in Maine must receive a bachelor's degree before she earns as much as the average male high school graduate. So, today, we have come here only to ensure that women who have been treated unfairly in the workplace have the opportunity to seek redress. In conclusion, Lilly Ledbetter's journey--indeed, the journey of all working women--continues. Like Ms. Ledbetter, many of us who followed the case all the way to the chambers of the Supreme Court considered it the final step. We were wrong--but now we have the opportunity to right that injustice. I urge my colleagues to support final passage for this legislation, and guarantee that the Senate's support for this legislation is indeed her final step on a decade-long journey.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, this week, our country celebrated two historic events. On Monday, we commemorated the life and accomplishments of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., on what would have been his 80th birthday. The following day, January 20, our Nation's first African-American President, Barack Obama, was inaugurated on the west front of the U.S. Capitol. During this special and remarkable week, I rise to celebrate an African-American owned small business in my home State of Maine that has consistently sought to make a difference in people's lives, and has succeeded every step of the way. Sivad Productions, Inc., located in Portland, offers its clients a wide variety of general contracting services. From administrative services and video production, to real estate and information technology, Sivad provides customers with superior quality and years of knowledge and experience. In March of 2008, Sivad Productions was named a Small Business Administration certified 8(a) firm. The 8(a) program is a business development tool that assists small disadvantaged businesses to compete in the Federal marketplace by helping them gain a myriad of procurement opportunities. One of the most innovative projects that Sivad Productions' president, Dudley Davis, has been a part of is the Youth News & Entertainment Television, or YNETV. YNETV produces youth programming, and involves young adults in the process of producing, directing, and creating the shows. In nearly a decade and a half, students of high school and college age have created over 600 television episodes seen on many of the Maine affiliate stations of major networks. Of YNETV's television shows, its most popular is Youth in Politics. Area high school and college students from across Maine debate the pressing issues facing Maine and America by engaging in thoughtful and substantive discussions and hosting candidate forums. The show's goal is the civic education and wider political participation of Maine's young adults. YNETV frequently features an equal number of college Democrats and college Republicans to provide balance, and deals with issues as varied as the war in Iraq to academic freedom. Mr. Davis has forged a reputation as someone who has contributed immensely to the betterment of the community in southern Maine. He has long been associated with the YES! Summer Basketball League and The Basketball Academy, which seek to provide young athletes with an outlet to participate in sports in a positive environment. Parents and students alike have praised Mr. Davis's ``exceptional ability to inspire, motivate and teach,'' and commended his admirable contributions to Maine's children. Mr. Davis has also been honored by the Maine Commission for Community Service for his motivated and exceptional service to Maine youth programs. President Obama has made a passionate and eloquent plea for increased community service on the part of all Americans. It is a call that Dudley Davis heard long ago. Mr. Davis's determination to effectuate positive change for the youth of southern Maine is laudable, and his tremendous work has certainly not gone unnoticed. I thank Mr. Davis for his passion and dedication, and wish everyone at Sivad Productions, Inc., much success in the years to come.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my strong support for the confirmation of my highly esteemed colleague and good friend, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, as the next Secretary of State. When Senator Clinton arrived in the U.S. Senate in 2001, she had very large shoes to fill--those of the late and admired Senator from New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan--but filled them she did and with tremendous distinction and accolades from both sides of the aisle. And over time, our colleague was rightly lauded and recognized for her unwavering work ethic, her expansive and detailed command of the issues, and her care for her constituents. And in 2007, Senator Clinton began what would become a historic, Presidential campaign that was an inspiration to many and especially women. The fact is, throughout her remarkable trajectory of public service, Hillary Clinton has encountered immense challenges with intelligence, resilience, and resolve--traits that will stand our colleague in great stead as our Nation's 67th Secretary of State. Indeed, the international environment facing our next chief diplomat is daunting. The world today is rife with crises that, if inadequately addressed, could lead to geopolitical instability and human suffering that spans both the globe and generations. Continuing nuclear programs in North Korea and Iran threaten the very existence of some of our closest allies and undermine decades of nonproliferation efforts. A maelstrom of conflicts as bloody as it is complex stretches across the heart of Africa, compounding heartbreaking poverty with unspeakable acts of violence. And inaction on global climate change has stymied a long-overdue coordinated international response, imperiling every coastline, crop and country on the planet. Tackling these desperate problems will be a difficult, and, at times, thankless job. But if there is a Senator within this body who is equal to that task, it is certainly Senator Clinton. In her work on the Senate Committee on Armed Services, she has demonstrated an exhaustive understanding of the global security environment confronting the United States and its allies. As a fellow founding member of the Senate Women's Caucus on Burma and in her tireless support for legislation urging intensive diplomatic efforts to halt the genocide in Darfur, Senator Clinton has demonstrated not merely a deep-seated humanity, but a visceral and personal commitment to speak for the oppressed and fight for the defenseless. On a personal note, today's vote is indeed a bittersweet moment--when we will offer our consent to President of the United States--also a former colleague, to tap another extraordinary Member to help guide our country and the free world at a perilous time. Senator Clinton's counsel and exceptional commitment to public service will be sorely missed in this august Chamber. Yet we take heart and no small measure of pride in knowing that her indefatigable intellect is being called into service beyond these walls to the benefit of not just an administration, or one country, but an entire community of nations seeking peace and prosperity for their citizens. And so, as we look ahead to the future success of our good friend, I wish her Godspeed.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. I rise today to speak on a bill I am introducing with my colleagues, Senators Dodd and Kerry, to improve the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve program to ensure that when our country experiences the next energy crisis we are better prepared. Specifically, I believe that this legislation will provide flexibility as well as certainty that heating oil currently sitting in New England will be used when it is most essential to the region's population. Through Senator Dodd's leadership in 2000, Congress created the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve, which put in place a critical tool to reduce supply disruptions. At that point, heating oil prices were $1.49 per gallon, and while the situation has improved since the price spikes this past summer, it is clear that the Northeast remains dangerously reliant on a commodity that has shown extreme volatility in recent years. The need for of the Heating Oil Reserve was clearly demonstrated this past summer when a catastrophe was emerging for our region with heating oil reaching the unprecedented level of $5 per gallon. Thankfully, the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve provided a basic level of assurance that heating oil could be provided if supplies were dramatically interrupted. However, the trigger mechanism for the release of the funds is convoluted to the point that the program's functionality is in question. Indeed, under the law, the President does not have the ability to release heating oil from the reserve even if the health and safety of the population is at risk. Rather, the current threshold for release is when the differential between crude oil and heating oil is 60 percent higher than the 5 year average. As a result, neither the overall price of heating oil nor the plight of our constituents has any factor on the release of the reserve. The formula trigger in statute is flawed to the point that the actual trigger has come close to being met not when crude oil prices are rising, but actually falling. This is clearly not the intent of the reserve. The legislation that I am introducing with Senators Dodd and Kerry today streamlines the federal law to provide the President the discretion to release the reserve if the health and safety of the population is at risk. Furthermore, if heating oil prices are above $4 per gallon during the critical winter months, the heating oil automatically will be distributed for sale. I believe this will dramatically improve the functionality of the reserve program and I look forward to working with Chairman Bingaman and Ranking Member Murkowski of the Energy Committee to enact this legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. I rise today to speak on a bill I am introducing with my colleagues, Senators Dodd and Kerry, to improve the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve program to ensure that when our country experiences the next energy crisis we are better prepared. Specifically, I believe that this legislation will provide flexibility as well as certainty that heating oil currently sitting in New England will be used when it is most essential to the region's population. Through Senator Dodd's leadership in 2000, Congress created the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve, which put in place a critical tool to reduce supply disruptions. At that point, heating oil prices were $1.49 per gallon, and while the situation has improved since the price spikes this past summer, it is clear that the Northeast remains dangerously reliant on a commodity that has shown extreme volatility in recent years. The need for of the Heating Oil Reserve was clearly demonstrated this past summer when a catastrophe was emerging for our region with heating oil reaching the unprecedented level of $5 per gallon. Thankfully, the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve provided a basic level of assurance that heating oil could be provided if supplies were dramatically interrupted. However, the trigger mechanism for the release of the funds is convoluted to the point that the program's functionality is in question. Indeed, under the law, the President does not have the ability to release heating oil from the reserve even if the health and safety of the population is at risk. Rather, the current threshold for release is when the differential between crude oil and heating oil is 60 percent higher than the 5 year average. As a result, neither the overall price of heating oil nor the plight of our constituents has any factor on the release of the reserve. The formula trigger in statute is flawed to the point that the actual trigger has come close to being met not when crude oil prices are rising, but actually falling. This is clearly not the intent of the reserve. The legislation that I am introducing with Senators Dodd and Kerry today streamlines the federal law to provide the President the discretion to release the reserve if the health and safety of the population is at risk. Furthermore, if heating oil prices are above $4 per gallon during the critical winter months, the heating oil automatically will be distributed for sale. I believe this will dramatically improve the functionality of the reserve program and I look forward to working with Chairman Bingaman and Ranking Member Murkowski of the Energy Committee to enact this legislation.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Lincoln of Arkansas, to introduce the Medicare Home Infusion Coverage Act. As we do so, we recognize that Medicare has serious fiscal challenges. Currently, the Part A, Hospital, Trust Fund faces insolvency in 2019, when expenditures will exceed projected contributions and require additional taxpayer support to maintain the care required by our seniors and so many disabled Americans. At the same time, today Medicare beneficiaries struggle under the burden of paying nearly half of their health care costs. So the legislation we are re-introducing is vital to addressing the fiscal issues affecting Medicare. Many serious conditions--including some cancers and drug-resistant infections--require the use of infusion therapy. Such treatment involves the administration of medication directly into the bloodstream via a needle or catheter. Specialized equipment, supplies, and professional services--such as sterile drug compounding, care coordination, and patient education and monitoring--are components of such therapy. Infusion treatment is an extensive medical treatment often lasting for several hours per day over a 6-to-8 week period. The unfortunate fact is that under current Medicare rules, patients requiring infusion therapy must either bear that cost themselves or endure costly and unnecessary hospitalization in order to receive coverage--raising costs for both beneficiaries and Medicare alike. Current Medicare regulations authorize payment for infusion drugs, but do not pay for the services, equipment, and supplies necessary to safely provide infusion therapy in the home. Not surprisingly, even though home infusion therapy may cost as little as $100 a day, too few seniors can bear that cost. The result is that patients are excessively hospitalized, producing costs of treatment as much as 10-20 times higher than treatment in the home. The process may even place the patient's health in jeopardy because unnecessary hospitalization places individuals at risk of exposure to a health care-acquired infection--which may be drug resistant and life-threatening. Private health plans have long understood that home infusion therapy is not only less costly, but safer as well. Thus, private insurance coverage for home infusion therapy is common. Private plans also recognize that patients benefit from avoiding hospitalization. At home they have a familiar, comfortable environment with their family conveniently at hand--no small concerns when fighting a serious illness. It is clear we must change the status quo, and achieve safer, more cost-effective treatment. By extending coverage of infusion therapy to the home, we will correct this inappropriate and unnecessary gap in Medicare coverage and take a significant step in reducing Medicare costs. This legislation offers an alternative to allowing our Medicare beneficiaries to be overcome with health care costs that are rising faster than inflation by reforming care delivery to emphasize high quality, lower cost services. I hope my colleagues will join us in support of this legislation so we may further the goals of improving patient safety and reducing our escalating health care costs. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill to be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Lincoln of Arkansas, to introduce the Medicare Home Infusion Coverage Act. As we do so, we recognize that Medicare has serious fiscal challenges. Currently, the Part A, Hospital, Trust Fund faces insolvency in 2019, when expenditures will exceed projected contributions and require additional taxpayer support to maintain the care required by our seniors and so many disabled Americans. At the same time, today Medicare beneficiaries struggle under the burden of paying nearly half of their health care costs. So the legislation we are re-introducing is vital to addressing the fiscal issues affecting Medicare. Many serious conditions--including some cancers and drug-resistant infections--require the use of infusion therapy. Such treatment involves the administration of medication directly into the bloodstream via a needle or catheter. Specialized equipment, supplies, and professional services--such as sterile drug compounding, care coordination, and patient education and monitoring--are components of such therapy. Infusion treatment is an extensive medical treatment often lasting for several hours per day over a 6-to-8 week period. The unfortunate fact is that under current Medicare rules, patients requiring infusion therapy must either bear that cost themselves or endure costly and unnecessary hospitalization in order to receive coverage--raising costs for both beneficiaries and Medicare alike. Current Medicare regulations authorize payment for infusion drugs, but do not pay for the services, equipment, and supplies necessary to safely provide infusion therapy in the home. Not surprisingly, even though home infusion therapy may cost as little as $100 a day, too few seniors can bear that cost. The result is that patients are excessively hospitalized, producing costs of treatment as much as 10-20 times higher than treatment in the home. The process may even place the patient's health in jeopardy because unnecessary hospitalization places individuals at risk of exposure to a health care-acquired infection--which may be drug resistant and life-threatening. Private health plans have long understood that home infusion therapy is not only less costly, but safer as well. Thus, private insurance coverage for home infusion therapy is common. Private plans also recognize that patients benefit from avoiding hospitalization. At home they have a familiar, comfortable environment with their family conveniently at hand--no small concerns when fighting a serious illness. It is clear we must change the status quo, and achieve safer, more cost-effective treatment. By extending coverage of infusion therapy to the home, we will correct this inappropriate and unnecessary gap in Medicare coverage and take a significant step in reducing Medicare costs. This legislation offers an alternative to allowing our Medicare beneficiaries to be overcome with health care costs that are rising faster than inflation by reforming care delivery to emphasize high quality, lower cost services. I hope my colleagues will join us in support of this legislation so we may further the goals of improving patient safety and reducing our escalating health care costs. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill to be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, there are many ways in which businesses can and do give back to their local communities. From companies whose employees volunteer at food pantries to firms that sponsor teams in their town's Little League program, America's small enterprises are magnanimous forces in the cities and towns where they operate. I rise today to highlight the tremendous gift of one business, Caldwell Auto Parts & Towing, to the town of Limestone, a small town of roughly 2,400 in far northern Maine. Caldwell Auto Parts & Towing has been in Limestone for the last 10 years, under the ownership of brothers Scott and Robbie Caldwell. Prior to that, the company was located in Caswell, one town north of Limestone, on the U.S. border with New Brunswick, Canada. A family- owned small business, the company is dedicated to providing quality auto parts to its clientele, as well as responsive and safe towing. Caldwell's has long been known for its generosity within town, but its latest act of kindness was a true surprise. Robbie and Scott Caldwell, wanting to celebrate the tenth year of their business' operation in town, decided to give back to the community in a unique and lasting manner. They determined that donating one of their vehicles--a 2006 Ford Explorer--to the Limestone Police Department would represent an unparalleled gift. After contacting the town manager and police chief to make the gift a reality, the Caldwells fitted the vehicle with a full police package, making it ready to use without any investments by the town. What makes the vehicle even more special is that it is replacing one of Limestone's police cruisers that suffered significant damage during whiteout conditions last winter. The new vehicle has four wheel drive and studded tires, making it more effective to drive during the long and snowy winter months in Aroostook County. People in Limestone have long known the Caldwells for their kindness and charity. Active members of their community and the local chamber of commerce, Caldwell's has been critical in assisting the town's recreation department, including sponsoring T-shirts for youth basketball teams. Additionally, Caldwell's has made significant donations to Project Graduation, a Maine-wide program that promotes safe, drug-free graduation parties, including contributing one of their vehicles for the group's use in the Limestone Fourth of July parade. Caldwell Auto Parts & Towing understands the meaning of being a good neighbor. Over the years, they have sought new and distinctive ways to make a difference in their community, and have garnered much good will. As Donna Bernier, Limestone's town manager, noted, ``The Caldwells have made significant impacts on the community and they continue to do so.'' I wish Scott and Robbie Caldwell and everyone at Caldwell Auto Parts & Towing the very best, and thank them for their contributions to a safer and stronger Limestone.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor today on behalf of the millions of travelers throughout this country. Before I begin, I would like to take this opportunity to thank Senator Boxer for being such a fantastic partner in this effort; an effort that sets aside partisanship to protect America's traveling public. Her aggressive, heartfelt leadership on this issue has been so essential in moving this legislation forward and keeping it at the forefront of the public consciousness. To my regret, each one of us is far too familiar with horror stories of passengers stranded on airplanes for hours at a time with no access to food, water or even functional restrooms. Events like the unconscionable delays at JFK Airport in New York in February of 2007 are the most commonly referenced, but these sorts of events are occurring on a daily basis. Such dramatic incidents prompted calls for congressional action. That call was heard, and its answer is this Passenger Bill of Rights before us today. But as time went on, and this legislation before us today languished, the chorus for change grew quiet. The reasons why we first proposed the Passenger Bill of Rights have not dissipated; in fact, they have only increased. The 2008 Air Quality Rating report, which quantifies the performances of the various airlines when it comes to customer service, indicated it was ``the worst year for airlines Ever.'' Delays continue to escalate. In fact, despite nearly a 10 percent reduction in capacity last year, delays actually climbed to a record high; an average of nearly an hour per delay. At a time when airlines are grounding flights without notice and passengers face interminable waits in aircraft and on tarmacs with little or no idea as to when they might depart, there are no safeguards in place to protect the rights of America's travelers--the time is now for Congress to do the right thing and finally stand with America's passengers. The Federal court system agrees with us; in voiding New York State's own Passenger Bill of Rights, the Second United States Court of Appeals decision indicated that such a Bill of Rights required ``a Federal standard.'' The airlines declared victory as the New York law was overturned; according to the airlines, it would herald a jumble of changing regulations among different states, making it too difficult to navigate. However, when presented with the option of having a national standard by Senator Boxer and myself, they opposed that proposal as well. It seems the airlines want carte blanche to treat passengers as they wish, with no recourse for that individual. It is clear, Congress must take this matter in hand. Simply put, Congress has run out of excuses. The courts have definitively ruled that this is the Federal Government's responsibility. We have not just a right, but a responsibility to the American people to ensure that there is some level of accountability, some minimum standard. If a patron visits a restaurant that does not offer some modicum of working restrooms or provide adequate food and water, that customer can leave the restaurant and find another. For the airline passenger, that is not an option. They are trapped at the mercy of the airline; airlines whose only concern is the bottom line and getting that aircraft off the ground, however long that might take. Waiting for the airlines to alter their customer service model isn't going to work. Thanks to Congressional prodding, the airlines put into place their voluntary Customer Service Agreement in 1999. They have had almost a decade to follow through with establishing some basic commitment to customer service and failed miserably. That is not my conclusion; the Inspector General of the Department of Transportation agreed with that assessment. It is clear that after years of refusing to adopt a commitment to provide customer service to the American people, the airline industry will not take action unless Congress requires them to do so. This time, Congress needs to show it is serious about protecting passengers. By our actions, we can show the American people that we are on their side and are working to protect their interests. Never again, should a family be forced to sit on a tarmac for 10 hours, deprived of the most basic of necessities. Canada was able to pass their passenger bill of rights legislation, so if Canada can do it, then there is no reason that Congress cannot do the same. By acting swiftly, and with resolve, we can take up and pass an FAA Reauthorization that includes the Passenger Bill of Rights, we can restore America's trust in our airlines and guarantee them a standard of service we should all be entitled to.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor today on behalf of the millions of travelers throughout this country. Before I begin, I would like to take this opportunity to thank Senator Boxer for being such a fantastic partner in this effort; an effort that sets aside partisanship to protect America's traveling public. Her aggressive, heartfelt leadership on this issue has been so essential in moving this legislation forward and keeping it at the forefront of the public consciousness. To my regret, each one of us is far too familiar with horror stories of passengers stranded on airplanes for hours at a time with no access to food, water or even functional restrooms. Events like the unconscionable delays at JFK Airport in New York in February of 2007 are the most commonly referenced, but these sorts of events are occurring on a daily basis. Such dramatic incidents prompted calls for congressional action. That call was heard, and its answer is this Passenger Bill of Rights before us today. But as time went on, and this legislation before us today languished, the chorus for change grew quiet. The reasons why we first proposed the Passenger Bill of Rights have not dissipated; in fact, they have only increased. The 2008 Air Quality Rating report, which quantifies the performances of the various airlines when it comes to customer service, indicated it was ``the worst year for airlines Ever.'' Delays continue to escalate. In fact, despite nearly a 10 percent reduction in capacity last year, delays actually climbed to a record high; an average of nearly an hour per delay. At a time when airlines are grounding flights without notice and passengers face interminable waits in aircraft and on tarmacs with little or no idea as to when they might depart, there are no safeguards in place to protect the rights of America's travelers--the time is now for Congress to do the right thing and finally stand with America's passengers. The Federal court system agrees with us; in voiding New York State's own Passenger Bill of Rights, the Second United States Court of Appeals decision indicated that such a Bill of Rights required ``a Federal standard.'' The airlines declared victory as the New York law was overturned; according to the airlines, it would herald a jumble of changing regulations among different states, making it too difficult to navigate. However, when presented with the option of having a national standard by Senator Boxer and myself, they opposed that proposal as well. It seems the airlines want carte blanche to treat passengers as they wish, with no recourse for that individual. It is clear, Congress must take this matter in hand. Simply put, Congress has run out of excuses. The courts have definitively ruled that this is the Federal Government's responsibility. We have not just a right, but a responsibility to the American people to ensure that there is some level of accountability, some minimum standard. If a patron visits a restaurant that does not offer some modicum of working restrooms or provide adequate food and water, that customer can leave the restaurant and find another. For the airline passenger, that is not an option. They are trapped at the mercy of the airline; airlines whose only concern is the bottom line and getting that aircraft off the ground, however long that might take. Waiting for the airlines to alter their customer service model isn't going to work. Thanks to Congressional prodding, the airlines put into place their voluntary Customer Service Agreement in 1999. They have had almost a decade to follow through with establishing some basic commitment to customer service and failed miserably. That is not my conclusion; the Inspector General of the Department of Transportation agreed with that assessment. It is clear that after years of refusing to adopt a commitment to provide customer service to the American people, the airline industry will not take action unless Congress requires them to do so. This time, Congress needs to show it is serious about protecting passengers. By our actions, we can show the American people that we are on their side and are working to protect their interests. Never again, should a family be forced to sit on a tarmac for 10 hours, deprived of the most basic of necessities. Canada was able to pass their passenger bill of rights legislation, so if Canada can do it, then there is no reason that Congress cannot do the same. By acting swiftly, and with resolve, we can take up and pass an FAA Reauthorization that includes the Passenger Bill of Rights, we can restore America's trust in our airlines and guarantee them a standard of service we should all be entitled to.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to support passage of S. 22, the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009. In particular, I wish to express my thanks to the bill's managers for including title XII, consisting of five critical oceans bills: the Coastal and Ocean Observation System Act, the NOAA Ocean Exploration and Undersea Research Program Act, the Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring Act, the Coastal and Estuarine Lands Protection Act, and the Ocean and Coastal Mapping Integration Act. Together, these will have a substantial positive impact on management of our Nation's ocean and coastal resources and will enhance the efficiency of maritime industries and our ocean conservation efforts. For over a decade, I have served as ranking member of the Senate subcommittee with jurisdiction over our oceans. In the 110th Congress, all five of these bills passed unanimously out of the Commerce Committee, but failed to pass the full Senate, despite the fact that their benefits will extend far beyond the coastal zone and accrue to the nation as a whole. From the enhanced weather and climate forecasting and efficiency of maritime transportation that will result from an improved ocean observing system to the discoveries waiting to be found in the depths of the world's seas, the programs authorized and enhanced by this legislation will deliver economic and scientific benefits for generations to come. Oceans cover nearly three-quarters of the Earth's surface, and have great influence over our lives. They shape our weather and climate systems, provide highways for international and domestic commerce, sustain rich living and nonliving resources on which many of our livelihoods are based, and provide our nation over 95,000 miles of shoreline which is the backbone of tourist and recreational activities in many coastal states. Despite the constant, intricate interaction between our lives on land and the natural systems of the ocean, we know woefully little about the physical properties of the enormous liquid surface of our planet. We literally know more about the landscape of the moon than we do about the oceans' depths. What lies over the horizon and beneath the waves remains, by most accounts, a mystery. And yet, the effects of those mysterious systems can be devastating. In recent years, hurricanes, tsunamis, and other natural disasters have devastated regions of our Nation, and other parts of the world. Today, we have the technology to monitor a wide range of ocean-based threats, from destructive storms to quieter dangers such as harmful algal blooms and man-made pollution. The purpose of the Coastal Ocean Observing System Act is to put that technology to work predicting these threats more accurately and, when possible, mitigating their effects. This bipartisan, science-based bill, derived from legislation I first introduced in 2003, would authorize the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, to coordinate an interagency network of ocean observing and communication systems around U.S. coastlines. This system would collect instantaneous data and information on ocean conditions--such as temperature, wave height, wind speed, currents, dissolved oxygen, salinity, contaminants, and other variables--that are essential to marine science and resource management and can be used to improve maritime safety, transportation, and commerce. Such data would improve both short-term forecasting that can mitigate the effects of major disasters, and prediction and scientific analysis of long-term ocean and climate trends. A 2004 study of the Gulf of Maine Ocean Observing System showed that six dollars returned to the regional economy for every dollar invested. Passage of this legislation would allow this system and the others like it around the country and the globe to continue to grow and provide vital services to the world's maritime community. Of course, the need to access this type of information is not limited to the Gulf of Maine. In June 2006, the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, made up of members from the Pew Ocean Commission and the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, presented to Congress a list of the ``top 10'' actions Congress should take to strengthen our ocean policy regime. One of those priorities was ``enact legislation to authorize and fund the Integrated Ocean Observing System.'' While my ocean observing legislation will greatly enhance our ability to analyze and disseminate oceanographic and meteorological data, we also face a shortfall in our Nation's ability to explore vast regions of our undersea territory. Nearly 3 years ago, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy released its longwaited report, which noted that approximately 95 percent of the ocean's floor remains uncharted territory. If past experience is any indication, fascinating discoveries await us in these vast unexplored areas. These regions are sure to include species of marine life that are currently unknown to science, archaeological and historical artifacts that can shed new light on our past, and marine resources that may support the ongoing quest for a sustainable future. In 2004, the U.S. Ocean Policy Commissioners called for enhanced, comprehensive national programs in ocean exploration, undersea research, and ocean and coastal mapping. The vision of the Commissioners, one that I share, is for well-funded and interdisciplinary programs. Such programs are currently being led by NOAA, with significant input from partners in other agencies, academia, and industry, but currently they lack formal Congressional authorization. This legislation would establish those programs, and provide a strong foundation upon which we can continue to expand the quest for knowledge to areas of the planet that have literally never been seen by human eyes. I look forward to seeing these efforts enhanced under this legislation. I would also like to acknowledge my support for three other oceans bills included in this package: the Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring Act, the Coastal and Estuarine Lands Protection Act, and the Ocean and Coastal Mapping and Integration Act. All will be integral to enhancing our Nation's coasts and oceans. Once more, I would like to thank Senator Bingaman for agreeing to include these bills in this package, and Senate leadership for bringing this vital package to the floor to give us the opportunity to pass these bills so critical to the future of our oceans.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Coastal and Ocean Observation System Act of 2009 and the NOAA Undersea Research Program Act of 2009. These bills will greatly enhance our nation's existing ocean observation and research capabilities and drastically improve our understanding of the marine environment. Oceans cover nearly three quarters of the Earth's surface, and have great influence over our lives. They shape our weather and climate systems, provide highways for international and domestic commerce, sustain rich living and non-living resources on which many of our livelihoods are based, and provide our nation over 95,000 miles of shoreline which is the backbone of tourist and recreational activities in many of our coastal states. Despite the constant, intricate interaction between our lives on land and the natural systems of the ocean, we know woefully little about the physical properties of the overwhelming majority of our planet. What lies over the horizon remains, by most accounts, a mystery. Yet, the effects of those mysterious systems can be devastating. In recent years, hurricanes, tsunamis, and other natural disasters have devastated regions of our nation, and other parts of the world. Today, we have the technology to monitor a wide range of ocean-based threats, from destructive storms to quieter dangers such as harmful algal blooms and man-made pollution. The purpose of the Coastal Ocean Observing System Act is to put that technology to work predicting these threats more accurately and, when possible, mitigating their impacts. This bipartisan, science-based bill would authorize the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, to coordinate an interagency network of ocean observing and communication systems around our nation's coastlines. This system would collect instantaneous data and information on ocean conditions--such as temperature, wave height, wind speed, currents, dissolved oxygen, salinity, contaminants, and other variables-- that are essential to marine science and resource management and can be used to improve maritime transportation, safety, and commerce. Such data would improve both short-term forecasting that can mitigate impacts of major disasters, and prediction and scientific analysis of long-term ocean and climate trends. My home State of Maine currently participates in an innovative partnership known as the Gulf of Maine Ocean Observing System, or GoMOOS. Launched in 2001, GoMOOS takes ocean and surface condition measurements on a hourly basis through a network of linked buoys. These data are subsequently made available via the GoMOOS website to scientists, students, vessel captains, fishermen, and anyone else with an interest in our oceans. The vast geographic range and frequency of measurements has led to unprecedented developments in scientific analysis of ocean conditions in the Gulf of Maine. It has also contributed invaluable information to our region's assessments of fisheries, weather conditions, and predictions of other ocean phenomena. Unfortunately, due to recent budget cuts within NOAA, in 2008 GoMOOS was forced to remove several buoys from the water, compromising the integrity of the system and reducing the quality of data available to system users. The funding levels authorized in this bill will ensure that this system, which has been shown to return $6 to the regional economy for every dollar invested, will continue to grow and provide its vital services to our maritime community. Of course, the need to access this type of information is not limited to the Gulf of Maine. In June 2006, the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, made up of members from the Pew Ocean Commission and the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, presented to Congress a list of the ``top ten'' actions Congress should take to strengthen our ocean policy regime. One of those priorities was ``enact legislation to authorize and fund the Integrated Ocean Observing System.'' Ocean and coastal observations are a cornerstone of sound marine science, management, and commerce. This bill will save lives by allowing seafarers to better monitor ocean conditions and providing timelier and more accurate predictions of potentially catastrophic weather and seismic phenomena. It will save taxpayers' dollars by reducing the emergency spending that comes in the wake of unanticipated storms, and it will enhance the appreciation and understanding of our oceans and coastal regions to benefit all Americans. I am very proud to introduce this bill, and I would like to thank my cosponsors, Senators Cantwell, Inouye, Rockefeller, Landrieu, Kerry, Boxer, Reed, Collins, and Bill Nelson for contributing to this legislation and supporting this national initiative. Of course, our current and expanding ocean observation and communication system would not be possible without the work of dedicated professionals in the ocean and coastal science, management, and research communities--they have taken the initiative to develop the grassroots regional observation systems as well as contribute to this legislation. Thanks to their ongoing efforts, ocean observations will continue to provide a tremendous service to the American public. While my ocean observing legislation will greatly enhance our ability to analyze and disseminate oceanographic and meteorological data, we also face a shortfall in our Nation's ability to explore vast regions of our undersea territory. Nearly 3 years ago the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy released its long-awaited report, which noted that approximately 95 percent of the ocean's floor remains uncharted territory. If past experience is any indication, fascinating discoveries await us in these vast unexplored areas. These regions are sure to include species of marine life that are currently unknown to science, archaeological and historical artifacts that can shed new light on our past, and marine resources that may support our ongoing quest for a sustainable future. In 2004 the U.S. Ocean Policy Commissioners called for enhanced, comprehensive national programs in ocean exploration, undersea research, and ocean and coastal mapping. The vision of the Commissioners, one that I share, is for well-funded and interdisciplinary programs. Such programs are being led by NOAA, with significant input from partners in other agencies, academia, and industry, but currently they lack formal Congressional authorization. This legislation would establish those programs, and provide a strong foundation upon which we can continue to expand the quest for knowledge to areas of the planet that have literally never been seen by human eyes. I look forward to seeing these efforts enhanced under this legislation. I am proud to introduce this legislation today as well, and I thank my cosponsors on this bill, Senators Inouye, and Rockefeller for their support. I would also like to acknowledge my support for three other oceans bills being introduced by my colleagues simultaneously with these two bills: the Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring Act, the Coastal and Estuarine Lands Protection Act, and the Ocean and Coastal Mapping and Integration Act. All will be integral to enhancing our nation's coasts and oceans and I am pleased to support my colleagues' efforts by offering my cosponsorship of these three pieces of legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I join my colleague, Senator Stabenow of Michigan, to introduce the Health Information Technology Act of 2009 to improve the quality of health care through the implementation of information technology, IT, in hospitals, health centers and physician practices throughout the country. Our legislation will help us address two critical issues. The first is the serious patient safety problem facing our Nation. Indeed, if most Americans were told today that 98,000 lives were lost needlessly last year--and a cure was available--they would undoubtedly call for action. Yet the Institute of Medicine, IOM, has reported that medical errors inflict that terrible toll every year, even though the technology is at our disposal to dramatically reduce those deaths. A second major problem is the escalating cost of health care. Health spending now comprises over 16 percent of GNP--$2.2 trillion last year--and the price of a health plan has grown so high that 70 million Americans today are either underinsured or lack any coverage whatsoever. That group expands as unemployment rates increase and individuals and families lose health insurance tied to employment. A recent Urban Institute study found that for each 1 percentage point increase in unemployment 1 million Americans are added to the rolls of the uninsured. However, simply expanding government subsidies or entitlements alone is not the answer, because on our current trajectory, escalating costs will erode our ability to maintain such supports. It is clear that some fundamental changes must be made in health care to combat rising health care costs. Bold changes and innovations are necessary to address both medical errors and escalating costs. One of those changes must be the application of modern data technology. Most of us have been told at one time or another, ``we're waiting to get the test results mailed'' or ``we're still waiting for your chart.'' Consider the savings we realize when a physician can locate information efficiently so that tests don't have to be repeated and data isn't delayed. A patient obtains faster, higher quality care when multiple practitioners can review diagnostic test results right at their desktops. The fact is the health care industry is one of the last sectors where information flows so slowly. Indeed, it is often easier to track the service history on one's automobile than to see your own health history. In an age where millions of Americans share family pictures over the Internet in seconds, isn't it long past time that a physician should be able to retrieve an x-ray just as easily? Today, the technological tools are at hand to dramatically reduce medical errors and save lives. Many of us have heard about how drug interactions can be avoided by software systems which check a patient's prescriptions for hazards, and there are so many other applications which can also improve health. For example, by reviewing and analyzing information, a health provider can help a patient better manage chronic diseases such as diabetes and heart disease to reduce avoidable adverse outcomes. The unfortunate reality is that the cost of new systems and a lack of standards have prevented us from reaping the benefits of new technologies. While the current economic crisis has surely put a focus on addressing the inefficiencies and high costs of health care, I have long shared a determination to modernize health information with my colleagues. In 2003, I joined with Senator Bob Graham to introduce the ``Medication Errors Reduction Act of 2003'' to make grants of up to $750,000 available to hospitals and nursing facilities to aid in implementation of health IT infrastructure. In 2005, Senator Stabenow and I offered our bill to create a $4 billion competitive grant program and tax incentives to enable hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, community health centers and physicians to invest in health IT. The President-elect shares our recognition of the critical role which information technology must play in transforming health care. In his campaign, he acknowledged the critical need to make technology implementation a priority. A lack of standards to ensure interoperability has been a factor in slowing IT adoption by many health care providers. One must know that a system purchased will be compatible with others, and that--no matter what may happen in the future to a vendor--the investment one makes in building an electronic medical record won't be wasted. In other words, your system must be able to communicate with other systems, and your investment in building electronic medical records must be preserved. When a patient moves, their electronic ``chart'' should be able to move right along with them to prevent disruption in the continuity of their care--in other words ``we must have interoperability.'' Yet standards alone are not sufficient, as there are fiscal hurdles to implementing health IT. Today, many providers are struggling to adopt new technology, and for those who serve beneficiaries of Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP, it can be exceedingly difficult. Our physicians, for example, have seen recent Medicare payment updates which have not even kept pace with inflation--even as we expect them to make a major investment in health IT. We must also recognize there is a misalignment of fiscal incentives for health IT. The benefits to patients are evident--in fewer delays, in better outcomes, in lives saved. Modern information technology reduces costs as well, but primarily to those who pay for services--not for the healthcare providers who must bear the burden of implementation. Indeed, it has been estimated that 89 percent of cost savings accrue to those who pay for services. It should be obvious then that the federal government would invest in health IT to both improve health outcomes and to reduce its expenditures on Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP. That is precisely the type of investment the Health Information Technology Act of 2009 would achieve. Because as we look to the many studies and reports on health IT, it is clear that annual cost savings can actually exceed the price of implementation. With that kind of return, it is indisputable that the federal government must employ health IT to see not only the savings in lives, but also better management of our health care spending. Our legislation spurs adoption by providing grants to physicians, hospitals, long term care facilities and both federally-qualified health centers and community mental health centers. These grants are targeted to help provide the health IT resources providers need to serve our federal beneficiaries. In fact, the size of an allowable grant for each provider is keyed to the proportion of the patient care which they deliver to federal beneficiaries. This will help providers deliver better care to those on Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP while we also see costs reduced in those programs. That is simple common sense. The legislation supports reasonable expenditures for a variety of costs required to implement health care information technology. These include such components as computer hardware and software in combination with installation and training. In addition for a system to be suitable for support under this legislation, we require that it must meet the HHS Secretary's interoperability standards. Our new legislation even provides an alternative to those for-profit providers who do not wish to apply for a grant. Under this bill, such providers will be able to expense the cost of a qualified system. We will thus assure that every type of provider has a meaningful opportunity to invest in moving their health care practice into the new millennium. With the development of a 21st century health technology system, we will ensure that providers have the appropriate tools to effectively provide the best quality health care at reasonable cost. As the current Congress struggles with matters related to the ailing economy, many Americans are finding it exceedingly difficult to access health care which they find to be both expensive and inefficient. While it is clear that health IT alone will not reduce all excessive costs or address every inefficiency, one must understand that the only way to achieve either goal is to have access to the type of coordinated information that a fully integrated health care system would provide. In fact, the information we will obtain through health IT is essential to achieve such goals as improving quality and reforming provider payment. This is the foundation for our work on health reform. When the Medicare and Medicaid programs began, we could have only dreamed about computerized clinical information systems. Today, we have this technology at our disposal, and I strongly believe that we cannot afford to delay implementation. In fact, as we face challenges in the financing of these vital federal programs, this is exactly the sort of initiative which will enable us to achieve the fundamental improvements to make our health entitlements more fiscally secure. I hope my colleagues will join us in support of this legislation so we may soon achieve the goals of improving patient safety and reducing our escalating health care costs.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Coastal and Ocean Observation System Act of 2009 and the NOAA Undersea Research Program Act of 2009. These bills will greatly enhance our nation's existing ocean observation and research capabilities and drastically improve our understanding of the marine environment. Oceans cover nearly three quarters of the Earth's surface, and have great influence over our lives. They shape our weather and climate systems, provide highways for international and domestic commerce, sustain rich living and non-living resources on which many of our livelihoods are based, and provide our nation over 95,000 miles of shoreline which is the backbone of tourist and recreational activities in many of our coastal states. Despite the constant, intricate interaction between our lives on land and the natural systems of the ocean, we know woefully little about the physical properties of the overwhelming majority of our planet. What lies over the horizon remains, by most accounts, a mystery. Yet, the effects of those mysterious systems can be devastating. In recent years, hurricanes, tsunamis, and other natural disasters have devastated regions of our nation, and other parts of the world. Today, we have the technology to monitor a wide range of ocean-based threats, from destructive storms to quieter dangers such as harmful algal blooms and man-made pollution. The purpose of the Coastal Ocean Observing System Act is to put that technology to work predicting these threats more accurately and, when possible, mitigating their impacts. This bipartisan, science-based bill would authorize the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, to coordinate an interagency network of ocean observing and communication systems around our nation's coastlines. This system would collect instantaneous data and information on ocean conditions--such as temperature, wave height, wind speed, currents, dissolved oxygen, salinity, contaminants, and other variables-- that are essential to marine science and resource management and can be used to improve maritime transportation, safety, and commerce. Such data would improve both short-term forecasting that can mitigate impacts of major disasters, and prediction and scientific analysis of long-term ocean and climate trends. My home State of Maine currently participates in an innovative partnership known as the Gulf of Maine Ocean Observing System, or GoMOOS. Launched in 2001, GoMOOS takes ocean and surface condition measurements on a hourly basis through a network of linked buoys. These data are subsequently made available via the GoMOOS website to scientists, students, vessel captains, fishermen, and anyone else with an interest in our oceans. The vast geographic range and frequency of measurements has led to unprecedented developments in scientific analysis of ocean conditions in the Gulf of Maine. It has also contributed invaluable information to our region's assessments of fisheries, weather conditions, and predictions of other ocean phenomena. Unfortunately, due to recent budget cuts within NOAA, in 2008 GoMOOS was forced to remove several buoys from the water, compromising the integrity of the system and reducing the quality of data available to system users. The funding levels authorized in this bill will ensure that this system, which has been shown to return $6 to the regional economy for every dollar invested, will continue to grow and provide its vital services to our maritime community. Of course, the need to access this type of information is not limited to the Gulf of Maine. In June 2006, the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, made up of members from the Pew Ocean Commission and the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, presented to Congress a list of the ``top ten'' actions Congress should take to strengthen our ocean policy regime. One of those priorities was ``enact legislation to authorize and fund the Integrated Ocean Observing System.'' Ocean and coastal observations are a cornerstone of sound marine science, management, and commerce. This bill will save lives by allowing seafarers to better monitor ocean conditions and providing timelier and more accurate predictions of potentially catastrophic weather and seismic phenomena. It will save taxpayers' dollars by reducing the emergency spending that comes in the wake of unanticipated storms, and it will enhance the appreciation and understanding of our oceans and coastal regions to benefit all Americans. I am very proud to introduce this bill, and I would like to thank my cosponsors, Senators Cantwell, Inouye, Rockefeller, Landrieu, Kerry, Boxer, Reed, Collins, and Bill Nelson for contributing to this legislation and supporting this national initiative. Of course, our current and expanding ocean observation and communication system would not be possible without the work of dedicated professionals in the ocean and coastal science, management, and research communities--they have taken the initiative to develop the grassroots regional observation systems as well as contribute to this legislation. Thanks to their ongoing efforts, ocean observations will continue to provide a tremendous service to the American public. While my ocean observing legislation will greatly enhance our ability to analyze and disseminate oceanographic and meteorological data, we also face a shortfall in our Nation's ability to explore vast regions of our undersea territory. Nearly 3 years ago the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy released its long-awaited report, which noted that approximately 95 percent of the ocean's floor remains uncharted territory. If past experience is any indication, fascinating discoveries await us in these vast unexplored areas. These regions are sure to include species of marine life that are currently unknown to science, archaeological and historical artifacts that can shed new light on our past, and marine resources that may support our ongoing quest for a sustainable future. In 2004 the U.S. Ocean Policy Commissioners called for enhanced, comprehensive national programs in ocean exploration, undersea research, and ocean and coastal mapping. The vision of the Commissioners, one that I share, is for well-funded and interdisciplinary programs. Such programs are being led by NOAA, with significant input from partners in other agencies, academia, and industry, but currently they lack formal Congressional authorization. This legislation would establish those programs, and provide a strong foundation upon which we can continue to expand the quest for knowledge to areas of the planet that have literally never been seen by human eyes. I look forward to seeing these efforts enhanced under this legislation. I am proud to introduce this legislation today as well, and I thank my cosponsors on this bill, Senators Inouye, and Rockefeller for their support. I would also like to acknowledge my support for three other oceans bills being introduced by my colleagues simultaneously with these two bills: the Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring Act, the Coastal and Estuarine Lands Protection Act, and the Ocean and Coastal Mapping and Integration Act. All will be integral to enhancing our nation's coasts and oceans and I am pleased to support my colleagues' efforts by offering my cosponsorship of these three pieces of legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, yesterday, I joined Senator Lincoln to introduce legislation to make permanent the tremendous change Congress enacted last October to enhance the refundable child tax credit. To assist working families, Congress reduced the amount of earnings a family must have to qualify for the refundable child tax credit to $8,500 for 2008 from the $12,050 that prevailed prior to passage of the Act. Unfortunately, because Congress did not make the incentive permanent, families will have to earn at least $12,550--$4,050 more-- this year to take advantage of the incentive. At a time in which the economy is in recession and many have to work two or even three jobs to put food on the table, it would be unconscionable to make families toil even harder to provide their children with life's necessities. That is why I am so proud to introduce the Working Family Child Assistance Act to permanently set the amount of earnings necessary to qualify for the refundable child tax credit at $8,500. Last October's change to boost the refundable child tax credit took a significant time to materialize, and although the road was long, it was a worthwhile journey. Indeed, our work began in 2001 when I pushed to make the child tax credit refundable for workers making around the minimum wage. As enacted in 2001, a portion of a taxpayer's child tax credit would be refundable--up to 10 percent of earnings above $10,000. Not resting on our victory in 2001, in 2004, Congress passed the Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004, which increased from 10 percent to 15 percent the portion of the child tax credit that is refundable. Although the legislation increased the amount of the refundable child credit, it failed to increase the number of families eligible for the benefit. The reason was that it did not reduce the amount of earnings a family must have to qualify for the incentive. Worse still, the earnings threshold rose each year because it was adjusted for inflation. The consequences were serious for low-income Americans living paycheck-to-paycheck because it meant that tens of thousands of low-income families were left completely ineligible for a credit they should receive. To ensure that low-income families could get the benefits that they so rightly deserve, I worked with my colleagues to introduce legislation in both 2005 and 2007 to reduce the earnings threshold for the refundable child tax credit to $10,000 and to de-index that amount for inflation. As I mentioned, we were more successful than that last year when Congress lowered the earnings threshold for 2008 to $8,500. Unfortunately, we cannot rest on our laurels and must get right back to work. This year, because the incentive we passed last October was effective for just 2008, only taxpayers earning over $12,550 are eligible to receive the refundable portion of the child tax credit. Low-income families earning less than that amount are shut out of the child tax credit completely. As an example of how crucial it is to enact our legislation to permanently set the threshold for the refundable credit at $8,500, let's look at the following example. A single mother who earns the current minimum wage of $6.55 per hour and works a 40 hour week for all 52 weeks of the year would earn $13,264. Accordingly, under the law effective for 2009, her refundable child tax credit would be $161. In contrast, if the earnings threshold were set at $8,500, her refundable child tax credit would jump to $715. Thus, if Congress does not change the law, that mother will have 554 fewer dollars in her pocket this year than she did last year. Put another way, she won't have the money that is so necessary for her to clothe her child and put gas in the car. What is even more regrettable is that the $554 amount will only grow next year because the $12,550 she needed to earn this year is adjusted for inflation and will increase. Let's do the right thing and make permanent the sensible change Congress made last year to set the earnings threshold for the refundable child tax credit at $8,500. Our families and our country are better off when Government lets people keep more of what they earn, particularly the most vulnerable among us. Parents deserve their per- child tax credit, and this bill rewards families for work. In conclusion, I would note that President-elect Obama was a stalwart supporter of our efforts as a Member of the Senate, and I hope that he will work with Congress so we can help an additional 1 million children, whose parents and guardians struggle every day to take care of them.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, while many hold an idyllic notion of Maine in the winter as a haven for skiers and snow enthusiasts, Mainers know that the cold winter months bring with them many dangers, particularly when it comes to heating homes. That is why I wish to recognize Maine Energy Systems of Bethel, a small business that is using technology and innovative thinking to help solve our Nation's energy crisis and keep Mainers warm during the State's lengthy winter. Maine Energy Systems is the product of three men: Les Otten, Dr. Harry ``Dutch'' Dressler, and William Strauss. They came together in 2007 to brainstorm a way to reduce energy costs for Mainers and for the Nation. When the trio formed Maine Energy Systems they agreed that any solution had to: Reduce dependency on foreign oil; be environmentally sensitive; be renewable; and be affordable. With these goals in mind, they spent 14 months researching every aspect of energy delivery and production. These efforts eventually bore fruit when they partnered with German manufacturer Bosch to create a wood pellet fueled boiler system suitable for sale in America. Bosch created a boiler fueled by high-grade wood pellets that are pumped through an automatic feeder into the boiler itself. The wood pellets are made directly from trees or from the byproducts of other wood manufacturing processes before undergoing a unique and exciting process. The wood is first dried, pulverized and forced under high pressure through the holes in a die, a specialized manufacturing tool. The holes force the wood into a tightly compact pellet shape that stores energy without wasting space. These pellets are extremely versatile and can be made from either hardwood or softwood. Once inside the boiler, the pellets are fanned in order to ensure maximum combustibility. Finally, the pellets are burned, generating heat that can be used as a home heating source. The boiler has already been approved by the Underwriters Laboratories and proven reliable by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. In addition to their dependability, wood pellets are also environmentally friendly. The wood pellets have very little ash content. Unlike traditional log fires, burning pellets do not appear to create chimney deposits and in fact, burning wood pellets creates no visible smoke. The only byproduct left after burning is wood ash, which is actually beneficial to garden and lawn soil. Wood pellets are a local renewable resource, and many of the pellets used by Maine Energy Systems come from trees in the small Maine town of Athens. In this way, Maine's abundant forests can help reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign sources of energy, in particular Middle Eastern oil. The carbon footprint created by wood pellet burning stoves is only 28.6 lbs. per million British thermal units, which ranks as one of the most efficient ways to heat a home. Maine Energy Systems is at the vanguard of the ``green'' product revolution, creating a product that is beneficial to the environment, saves consumers money, and produces profits and jobs. Entrepreneurs in the purest sense of the word, Maine Energy Systems' founders have provided our country a tremendous opportunity for a better future. I wish Les Otten, Dr. Harry ``Dutch'' Dressler, William Strauss, and Maine Energy Systems continued success as they help Mainers save money, energy, and the environment.

Ms. SNOWE

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce a bill I offered last December that will provide much-needed relief to struggling families across America. The Unemployment Benefit Tax Suspension Act of 2009 is a critical piece of legislation, which should be considered as part of any stimulus package, that would suspend the collection of Federal income tax on unemployment benefits for 2008 and 2009. This bill would ensure that as individuals sit down in the next couple months to complete their 2008 tax bills, they will not have to worry about paying taxes on the unemployment benefits they received last year or can get refunds of taxes withheld. It also means that the unemployed would not be concerned with taxes on benefits paid this year. I thank Senators Lincoln and Bunning for joining me to introduce this legislation. In light of the calamitous labor market, Congress must act to ensure that workers who lose their jobs do not also lose their livelihoods. In December, the Labor Department released sobering statistics that demonstrated the gravity of the situation we face. In November, the economy shed 533,000 jobs, the largest monthly job loss since December 1974. Our unemployment rate now stands at a perilous 6.7 percent, a 15- year high. We have lost 1.9 million jobs since the beginning of our present recession in December 2007--including two-thirds of those jobs in the last 3 months alone--and the number of unemployed stands at a whopping 10.3 million. Suspending the Federal income tax on unemployment benefits is a simple way to assist our Nation's unemployed workers and families. In fact, the CBO has estimated that in 2005, of the 8.1 million recipients of unemployment compensation benefits, 7.5 million had incomes of under $100,000. As such, most of the benefits of suspending this tax are likely to go to lower- and middle-income families, those struggling harder than ever just to make ends meet. During these challenging times, taxes on unemployment compensation represents a burden that unemployed members of our society simply cannot afford. Working families are already suffering, with the high cost of groceries, an unstable energy market, and the outrageous pricetag for health care. My bill offers a means to help stimulate the economy by making unemployed workers' benefits stretch farther. While it is certainly not a solution to the problem, it is a step in the right direction. President-elect Obama has voiced his support for this general idea, calling it ``a way of giving more relief to families,'' and I believe that is the ultimate goal we must pursue in these trying times. I look forward to seeing this bill is passed in a timely manner, so that the impact can be immediate. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation to offer expanded relief to retirees who are forced to take so-called required minimum distributions from their retirement accounts. After a year in which the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell a staggering 34 percent, Congress rightly suspended required minimum distribution rules for 2009 as part of the Worker, Retiree, and Employer Recovery Act of 2008. Unfortunately, Congress did not act to suspend the rules for 2008 or 2010 as I had previously proposed. Consequently, we now find ourselves in a situation in which 1 year of relief is insufficient to enable retirees to recoup their losses, and I am, therefore, introducing the Retirement Account Distribution Improvement Act of 2009 to allow amounts required to have been distributed in 2008 to be re- contributed and to waive the rules for 2010. I would like to thank Senator Lincoln for cosponsoring this legislation. Under current law, individuals who have reached age 70.5 generally must begin to withdraw funds from their IRAs or defined contribution retirement plans, including 401(k), 403(b), 457, and TSP plans. The withdrawals must begin by April 1 of the year after which an individual attains age 70.5. Failure to take a required minimum distribution may result in a 50 percent excise tax on the difference between what must be withdrawn and the amount actually distributed. In times that equities markets are rising and retirement account balances are growing, required minimum distribution rules are sensible. Indeed, they ensure the Government gains revenue after years of tax- deferred growth. Unfortunately, we are now witnessing unprecedented losses in equities markets that have caused many individuals to suffer steep losses in their retirement account balances. Notably, the American Association of Retired Persons has said that retirement accounts have lost as much as $2.3 trillion between September 30, 2007, and October 16, 2008. Forcing individuals to prematurely liquidate accounts and pay income taxes on the proceeds, as is required under current law, instead of allowing them to wait until the market recovers and continue to defer tax, simply adds insult to injury. Moreover, mandating withdrawals may cause stock prices to fall, hurting other investors. It is for these reasons that I am today introducing legislation to allow individuals who were forced to withdraw funds in 2008 to re- contribute that money into their accounts by July 1, 2009. Any amounts erroneously distributed in early 2009 could also be re-contributed by July 1, 2009. Finally, my bill would also waive minimum required distributions for 2010. Although Congress took a solid first step by suspending minimum required distributions for 2009, we must do more. With many predicting a multi-year recession, Congress must adopt a longer-term approach to helping individuals protect their retirement assets and weather the current economic storm. Individuals may require several years to recoup losses they have sustained, and by enabling them to keep assets in their retirement accounts until 2011, this bill offers them that opportunity. At that point, Congress can reevaluate whether the waiver of current-law rules should be further extended. I urge all Senators to consider the benefits this legislation will provide to millions of retirees all across the United States, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact it in a timely manner. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.