Disabled Veterans Transition Assistance Act of 2004

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that calls for a small Federal commitment that would make a huge impact on the daily lives of all Americans. This legislation, the Rush Hour Congestion Relief Act, authorizes $1 billion per year over the next 6 years, which can make a major dent in the amount of time we sit in traffic everyday.

In February, the Senate approved a six-year highway reauthorization bill, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2004, SAFETEA, which authorized $318 billion through 2009 for the Federal highway and transit program. I voted against the bill for many reasons, but the main reason I could not support the legislation is that the bill did not meet the funding levels identified by the U.S. Department of Transportation's needs assessment. The USDOT identified a $375 billion Federal commitment as necessary to maintain the current condition and level of congestion on our highways. Just maintain, not improve.

Additionally, SAFETEA did not contain any specific programs to target congestion relief. SAFETEA targets funding to construction to add highway capacity. Although adding capacity to our highway and transit system is very important, we will never build our way out of congestion. We must also look at ways to operate and manage the current system and use resources more efficiently. We must focus on managing the demand on our road network, especially in larger urban areas, through innovative approaches and use of new technology. A combination of operational improvements, including freeway ramp metering, traffic signal coordination, traveler information and incident management can accomplish major improvements in daily travel with a small price tag.

Now it looks as though a 6-year highway bill reauthorization will not be completed this year and the 109th Congress will have to start the process from scratch. This is a golden opportunity for the Senate to review the SAFETEA bill and support positive changes to target more funds to congestion relief.

Mr. President, according to the Texas Transportation Institute, TTI, at Texas A&M University, which conducts an annual Urban Mobility Report to study the state of America's urban transportation networks, gridlock cost Americans $63 billion in 2002 in wasted fuel and lost time. This is a significant loss that burdens families, individuals, and businesses. More than 2 in 5 adults report that congestion is a problem in their community. This number is even higher in major cities.

Such concern is not surprising, considering that the average resident of many cities in my state experience some of the worst congestion. Every year a typical resident of Miami and Orlando will lose over 51 hours stuck in traffic. Lost time and wasted fuel will cost each of these Floridians over $900. In 1982, only 11 hours were lost. This is not only a Florida problem. Nor is it only a problem here in Washington DC, or in New York City or Chicago. Even in small urban areas, delay during peak traveling hours grew 200 percent in the past 20 years. Across the country, residents of smaller cities like Pensacola, Charleston, and Colorado Springs could save hundreds of dollars by making our current road system more efficient.

The Rush Hour Congestion Relief Act of 2004 would establish a Federal incident management program to provide funding to states for regional projects to mitigate the effects of traffic congestion on our roads.

Incident management programs would save taxpayers money by allowing our roadways to operate at a more optimal level. When a stalled vehicle or traffic accident blocks a lane of traffic, our roads are not operating efficiently. The Federal Highway Administration estimates that every blocked lane creates an average of four minutes of traffic delay. Furthermore, up to one-third of traffic accidents are secondary to earlier incidents. What this means is that incidents that are not cleared quickly run a higher risk of causing more accidents and increasing delay even further. Results find that 55 percent of congestion in urban areas and 100 percent of congestion in rural areas are caused by incidents such as traffic accidents and stalled vehicles.

Incident management programs vary across the country, but include the cooperative effort of multiple agencies, such as city and county governments, regional planning councils, local police and firefighters, HAZMAT teams and

emergency medical services to detect and verify incidents, manage the scene, and clear the obstruction in a safe manner. In many cases the incident management patrols are the first to arrive on the scene of an accident, and they coordinate Emergency Medical Services, tow trucks, law enforcement and other service providers. Additionally, they are able to funnel information to a central traffic command, which can provide important real-time information to the traveling public.

Some incident management programs offer needed assistance to travelers by providing services such as a free gallon of gas, changing a flat tire, a cell phone call, water for an overheated radiator, and charging a dead battery. In Florida, one way that we have addressed incident management is through a program called Road Rangers. Road Ranger trucks continuously rove the expressways looking for stranded motorists, debris, traffic accidents or other incidents. In 2002, this program utilized 83 vehicles and performed 279,525 service assists.

This bill would authorize $1 billion per year through 2010, from the Highway Trust Fund to create and improve programs like Road Rangers. The funds would be distributed to the states based on their amount of urbanized areas with greater than 300,000 people. The state would then be required to allocate the funds to those targeted urban areas. There are roughly 100 urbanized areas with a population of 300,000 or higher in 42 states. Urban areas would be required to develop an incident management plan before receiving direct funding for their program. This way, all of the stakeholders in a region will have an opportunity to participate in the design and operation of the incident management program. The only way it can work is with regional cooperation. The Rush Hour Congestion Relief Act of 2004 would fund initiatives like the current pilot program in Orlando to provide radio and telecommunications equipment to enhance coordination between Florida Highway Patrol and Road Rangers. It will also provide needed funding for incident management training. In 2001, 59 percent of all police casualties occurred during a response to a traffic incident. Funding under this bill would give first responders the tools and training necessary to reduce that risk.

I am proud to introduce this bill today because incident management works. According to the TTI, incident management has already reduced delay on our roads by 170 million hours. Had we employed these programs to all of our congested highways, American would have spent 239 million less hours on the road. To put this into perspective, it would take the construction of over 200 miles of a six-lane highway to achieve the same level of time savings.

Not only are these programs effective, they save far more than they cost. In States like Minnesota, annual savings from incident management was estimated at $1.4 million, while program operations amounted to only $600,000. In Denver, their Courtesy Patrol program has been estimated to save 10.5 to 16.9 times more than it cost. Although adding capacity to our highway and transit network is important, it is very expensive and takes many years to complete. This approach provides a real solution, which will make a huge impact on congestion in a short amount of time.

Finally, the Rush Hour congestion Relief Act is supported by our nation's local governments, Metropolitan Planning Organizations, and transit providers, who are on the front lines of the daily congestion battle. The act has been endorsed by the National Association of Counties, National League of Cities, National Association of Regional Councils, Association for Commuter Transportation, and the Surface Transportation Policy Project.

I urge my colleagues to join us in this effort to ensure safe and open roads.

I ask unanimous consent, that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Paiute Land Adjustments Act. This bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey or transfer four small Paiute trust land parcels totaling about five acres. My introduction of this bill at the closing of the 108th Congress is to show my support to the Paiute Tribe, the city of Richfield, UT and to Congressman Chris Cannon's companion measure, H.R. 3982, which has passed the House and has been held at the desk in the Senate.

There are, however, some minor aspects of H.R. 3982 which I believe merit some clarification and may even require future technical amendments. The bill I am introducing today reflects some of the minor changes that have been requested by the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, and my introduction of the bill is also an effort to get those clarifications on record.

I do strongly support the passage of H.R. 3982, and I am working with Chairman Ben Nighthorse Campbell of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee and Senate leadership to secure its final passage before the close of this Congress.

The Paiute Land Adjustments Act would allow the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah to convey at fair market value three acres of trust land to the city of Richfield, UT. This land transfer would allow expansion of the Richfield Municipal Airport and provide the Tribe with proceeds to purchase land that has economic development potential.

The city of Richfield approached the tribe about acquiring this parcel of land adjacent to the airport runway. The tribe agreed and the Paiute Tribal Council passed Resolution 01-36, unanimously agreeing to the conveyance of this parcel of land to the city. In 1974, the private nonprofit Utah Paiute Tribal Corporation acquired the three-acre parcel of land in fee for the purpose of economic development. With the passage of the Paiute Indian Tribe Restoration Act in 1980, the land was placed into trust. The land has not been used by the tribe for more than 20 years. It is not contiguous to the Paiute's Reservation and for nearly 30 years now has had no economic development potential. The tribal resolution expresses the Paiute's desire to accept the city's offer to purchase the land at fair market value and serves as the request to the Secretary of the Interior to convey the trust land. However, only an act of Congress may authorize this land conveyance.

The Paiute Land Adjustments Act would also transfer three trust land parcels, each an acre or less in size, from the tribe to its Kanosh and Shivwits Bands. All parcels would remain in trust status. The first parcel of one acre would be transferred from land held in trust by the United States for the Paiute Tribe to land held in trust for the Kanosh Band. This parcel is surrounded by 279 acres of land that is either owned by the Konosh Band or held in trust for the Konosh Band. For more than 20 years, the sole use of this land has been for the Kanosh Band Community Center. The second parcel, two-thirds of an acre in size, would also be transferred from the tribe to the Kanosh Band. The land has been used exclusively by the Kanosh Band. It was originally intended that the land be taken in trust for the Kanosh Band in 1981 under the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah Restoration Act. However, through an administrative error, the land was mistakenly placed in trust for the tribe. By way of several Band resolutions, the Kanosh Band has formally requested correction of this error.

The third parcel of land, less than an acre in size, would be transferred from the tribe to be held in trust for the Shivwits Band. The land already is surrounded by several thousand acres of land held in trust for the Shivwits Band, and its sole use has been for the Shivwits Band Community Center.

Finally, the bill would eliminate the word ``city'' from the current official name of the ``Cedar City Band of Paiute Indians,'' a name which has never been used by the Band or residents of southwestern Utah. Thus, the bill makes clear that any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United States to the ``Cedar City Band of Paiute Indians'' shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Cedar Band of Paiute Indians.''

I would like to make part of the record some clarifications with regard to this bill. This bill has language that would allow the city of Richfield to purchase land from the tribe and direct the payment directly to the tribe without the funds being funneled through the Department of the Interior. I support that provision. The bill also has a provision that would make land acquired by the tribe after February 17, 1984, be made part of the reservation. This is an effort to clarify that lands already in possession of the tribe should be part of the reservation. It is not an effort to ensure that every parcel of land purchased by the tribe in the future be made part of the reservation without regard to the parcel's location or proximity to the existing reservation. I would also like to clarify that nothing in this legislation authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to make land conveyances for any tribe or band without their official consent to such a conveyance.

This bill will cost U.S. taxpayers nothing, but it will solve the dilemma that the City of Richfield faces as it works to make its airport meet the needs of the citizens of southwestern Utah. Equally important is the fact that this bill will allow the Paiute Tribe to use the proceeds from the land sale to acquire land with economic development potential to facilitate the self-determination of the tribe. The bill also takes care of non-controversial land adjustments and technical corrections. The bill is supported by the Paiute Tribe, its Bands, and the people of southwestern Utah residing nearby. That is why I am introducing this legislation that would convey or transfer these four small Paiute trust land parcels.

Finally, I offer my congratulations and best wishes to the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah. At the tribe's Annual Restoration Gathering over the weekend of June 12, the Paiutes celebrated the 24th anniversary of their restoration as a tribe. The Federal trust relationship with the tribe was restored in 1980 upon enaction of the Paiute Indian Tribe Restoration Act, which I sponsored.

I thank the Senate for the opportunity to address this issue today, and I urge my colleagues to support the passage of H.R. 3982 during the 108th Congress.

Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator Lautenberg, to introduce legislation to help ensure that convicted felons are not permitted to legally possess dangerous weapons. The bill would eliminate a discredited program under which convicted felons can apply to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, ATF, to seek a waiver that allows them to possess firearms or explosives.

Under Federal law, those convicted of felonies generally are prohibited from possessing firearms. However, ATF is authorized to grant a waiver from this prohibition if it believes that an individual is not likely to act in a manner that threatens public safety.

Interestingly, this waiver authority was enacted not to permit common criminals to obtain guns, but to assist a company called Winchester, which manufactures firearms. Winchester's parent company, Olin Mathieson Chemical Corporation, had been convicted of a felony involving a kickback scheme. As a result, Winchester was legally prohibited from shipping firearms in interstate commerce. The provision was approved to allow Winchester to stay in business.

Because the provision was drafted broadly, however, the waiver provision applied to common criminals. Originally, waivers could not be granted to those convicted of firearms offenses. But in 1986, Congress expanded the law to allow even persons convicted of firearms offenses, and those involuntarily committed to a mental institution, to apply for a waiver.

Between 1981 and 1991, ATF processed more than 13,000 applications. These applications required some of ATF's best agents to abandon their law enforcement responsibilities and instead conduct extensive investigations on behalf of convicted felons. In the late 1980's, the cost of handling these petitions worked out to about $10,000 for each waiver granted--costs borne by ordinary taxpayers.

The Violence Policy Center investigated 100 cases in which a convicted felon had been allowed to legally possess firearms. In 41 percent of those cases, the felon had been convicted of a crime of violence, or a drug or firearms offense. The crimes of violence included several homicides, sexual assaults and armed robberies.

Between 1981 and 1991, 5600 waivers were granted. In many cases, those who regained their gun privileges later used their guns to commit serious crimes, such as attempted murder, rape, kidnapping, and child molestation.

This program makes no sense. It is not fair to taxpayers, who must foot the bill for ATF investigations. It is not fair to ATF agents, who have much more important things to do. And, most importantly, it is not fair to the public, whose safety is put at risk when convicted felons are allowed to carry guns.

Fortunately, there has long been bipartisan support for blocking the program. Since 1992, Congress has prohibited the use of appropriated funds to implement it, and President Bush's budget proposes that the prohibition be retained. Yet funding bans in appropriations bills are stopgap measures that are effective for only a single fiscal year. It is time to eliminate the waiver program permanently.

I urge my colleagues to support the legislation and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to close a gaping loophole in the Medicaid law that allows pharmacies to double bill the Medicaid program for prescription drugs.

As you may know, many States are now encouraging or requiring health care facilities to return unused prescription drugs for Medicaid patients to pharmacies for re-dispensing as a way to save money. These drugs go unused because a nursing home patient has died, the prescription was incorrect, or the patient no longer needs the drugs.

Certainly, we should encourage states and pharmacies to re-dispense rather than simply discard these prescription drugs. However, while some States, including Connecticut, Missouri, and Texas, have laws that require pharmacies that re-stock drugs for re-dispensing to credit the State Medicaid program, many, including New Jersey, do not. This has resulted in pharmacy companies double charging Medicaid--for the sale and resale--of the restocked drugs.

We have an obligation to close this loophole. At a time in which all 50 States are proposing cuts to their Medicaid programs because of skyrocketing costs and the burden of these costs on the Federal Government continues to grow, we must eliminate such wasteful spending.

The absence of any Federal or State law or regulation prohibiting this practice has left our courts with no option but to allow this practice to continue. For example, a recent Third Circuit Court of Appeals decision found that a New Jersey pharmacy company, Omnicare, had indeed double charged the State's Medicaid program when it charged Medicaid twice for the sale and resale of restocked drugs. Because there was no State or Federal law prohibiting such double charges, however, the court could not assess penalties against the company. Writing for the court, Judge Jane Roth said, ``We are constrained by a lack of a regulation. We believe that Congress and/or the New Jersey legislature might serve Medicaid well if this lack of regulation were corrected.''

My legislation will close this loophole by prohibiting federal reimbursement for any prescription drugs that have been re-stocked. Recognizing that pharmacies that restock prescription drugs incur costs in verifying the integrity of the drugs and placing them back into the pharmacy's inventory, my legislation allows states to provide reasonable reimbursements to pharmacies for these costs.

In closing, I want to state that I am open to working with the Administration to close this loophole. I think that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid have the authority to close this loophole and I hope that they will take immediate action to address this problem. This practice of double billing is nothing short of fraud. Congress and the Administration have a duty to safeguard the Medicaid program from such fraud, waste, and abuse. I urge my colleagues to join me in the effort to do just that.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Taxpayer Abuse Prevention Act. Earned income tax credit (EITC) benefits intended for working families are increasingly being reduced by the growing use of refund anticipation loans, which typically carry triple digit interest rates. According to the Brookings Institution, an estimated $1.9 billion intended to assist low-income families was received by commercial tax preparers and affiliated national banks to pay for tax assistance, electronic filing of returns, and high-cost refund loans in 2002. The interest rates and fees charged on refund anticipation loans (RALs) are not justified

for the short length of time that these loans cover and the minimal risk they present. These loans carry little risk because of the Debt Indicator program. The Debt Indicator (DI) is a service provided by the Internal Revenue Service that informs the lender whether or not an applicant owes Federal or State taxes, child support, student loans, or other government obligations, which assists the tax preparer in ascertaining the applicant's ability to obtain their full refund so that the RAL is repaid. The Department of the Treasury should not be facilitating these predatory loans that allow tax preparers to reap outrageous profits by exploiting working families.

Unfortunately too many working families are susceptible to predatory lending because they are left out of the financial mainstream. Between 25 and 56 million adults are unbanked, or not using mainstream, insured financial institutions. The unbanked rely on alternative financial service providers to obtain cash from checks, pay bills, send remittances, utilize payday loans, and obtain credit. Many of the unbanked are low- and moderate-income families that can ill afford to have their earnings unnecessarily diminished by their reliance on these high-cost and often predatory financial services. In addition, the unbanked are unable to save securely to prepare for the loss of a job, a family illness, a down payment on a first home, or education expenses.

My bill will protect consumers against predatory loans, reduce the involvement of the Department of the Treasury in facilitating the exploitation of taxpayers, and expand access to opportunities for saving and lending at mainstream financial services.

My bill prohibits refund anticipation loans that utilize EITC benefits. Other Federal benefits, such as Social Security, have similar restrictions to ensure that the beneficiaries receive the intended benefit.

My bill also limits several of the objectionable practices of RAL providers. My legislation will prohibit lenders from using tax refunds to collect outstanding obligations for previous RALs. In addition, mandatory arbitration clauses for RALs that utilize federal tax refunds would be prohibited to ensure that consumers have the ability to take future legal action if necessary in the future.

I am deeply troubled that the Department of the Treasury plays such a prominent role in the facilitation and subsequent promotion of refund anticipation loans. In 1995, the use of the DI was suspended because of massive fraud in e-filed returns with RALs. After the program was discontinued, RAL participation declined. The use of the DI was reinstated in 1999, according to H&R Block, to ``assist with screening for electronic filing fraud and is also expected to substantially reduce refund anticipation loan pricing.'' Although RAL prices were expected go down as a result of the reinstatement of the DI, this has not occurred. The Debt Indicator should once again be stopped. The DI is helping tax preparers make excessive profits of low- and moderate- income taxpayers who utilize the service. If the Debt Indicator is removed, then the loans become riskier and the tax preparers may not aggressively market them among EITC filers. The IRS should not be aiding efforts that take the earned benefit away from low-income families and allow unscrupulous preparers to take advantage of low- income taxpayers. My bill terminates the DI program. In addition, my bill removes the incentive to meet Congressionally mandated electronic filing goals by facilitating the exploitation of taxpayers. My bill would prevent any electronically filed tax returns that resulted in tax refunds that were distributed by refund anticipation loans from being counted towards the goal established by the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 that the IRS have at least 80 percent of all returns filed electronically by 2007.

My bill also expands access to mainstream financial services. Electronic Transfer Accounts (ETA) are low-cost accounts at banks and credit unions that are intended for recipients of certain Federal benefit payments. Currently, ETAs are provided for recipients of other federal benefits such as Social Security payments. My bill expands the eligibility for ETAs to include EITC benefits. These accounts will allow taxpayers to receive direct deposit refunds into an account without the need for a RAL.

Furthermore, my bill would mandate that low- and moderate-income taxpayers be provided opportunities to open low-cost accounts at federally insured banks or credit unions via appropriate tax forms. Providing taxpayers with the option of opening a bank or credit union account through the use of tax forms provides an alternative to RALs and provides immediate access to the opportunities found at banks and credit unions.

I want to thank my colleagues, Senator Bingaman and Senator Durbin for cosponsoring the legislation. I also thank Representative Jan Schakowsky for introducing the companion legislation in the other body. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Taxpayer Abuse Prevention Act be printed following my remarks. I also ask unanimous consent that the text of a support letter from the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, the Children's Defense Fund, the Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, and the National Consumer Law Center, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Jack Reed in introducing the ``Emergency Flu Response Act of 2004.'' I commend him for his leadership on this important issue. I also commend our colleagues, Senator Bayh and Senator Craig, for their thoughtful proposal.

The Emergency Flu Response Act gives the nation's health agencies the tools they need to respond to the current shortage of flu vaccine, to protect the public health from the danger of influenza and to maximize the value of our reduced vaccine stocks.

During last year's flu season, we experienced unprecedented public demand for the flu vaccine. Fears that last year's flu strain was more virulent than those of previous years fueled the public's demand and resulted in the administration of all 87 million doses produced. Anticipating a similar demand for this upcoming flu season, the two companies that manufacture the flu vaccine planned to produce 100 million doses for the United States.

On Tuesday, one of those companies lost its license due to manufacturing concerns and is unable to ship approximately 48 million doses. In one day, America lost about half the country's supply of the flu vaccine--and fifteen States have lost their entire supply of influenza vaccine for adults.

Clearly, Congress should take action to strengthen the Nation's supply of flu vaccine. My colleagues, Senator Bayh and Senator Craig, have offered thoughtful proposals on strengthening the flu vaccine supply in future years, and these proposals merit careful consideration by Congress. Many members of our Health committee have also shown great leadership on vaccine issues.

Due to the long period of time necessary to produce more vaccine, however, measures to increase the supply of new vaccine will have little effect on the current shortage.

We must make every effort to see whether additional flu vaccine can be found. The bill requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to seek to purchase additional vaccines available in Europe, Canada or Japan, and directs the FDA to review those vaccines using the flexible and expedited review process provided under the Project BioShield legislation. We should also provide NIH with the resources and the clear direction to determine whether existing flu vaccine stocks can be diluted and still retain their effectiveness. NIH provided a valuable service to the nation by conducting similar studies with smallpox vaccine.

These measures may increase the effective supply of vaccine available to the nation, but even these measures may not be sufficient to meet the nation's needs. With flu season imminent, Congress must take steps immediately to give our health agencies the resources and authority they need to make best use of the supply currently available.

Our health professionals should make sure that those most at risk for complications from flu get vaccinated first. We must learn from the lessons from last year's flu season and use that knowledge to ensure that at Americans at highest risk have priority access to the flu shot.

We must act quickly. We know that there are 54 million doses available and we need to ensure that every one of them reaches those at highest risk of complications from flu. The bill provides funding for states to develop plans to effectively distribute vaccines to high priority groups. It also requires the tracking of available vaccines, so that doses can be directed to those who need it most.

Many employers contract directly with vaccine manufacturers to provide a supply of vaccines for their workforce. Our bill establishes a vaccine clearinghouse to facilitate the voluntary donation of vaccine from individuals or companies with employees at low risk of infection to individuals at high risk. Further, this bill gives HHS the ability to purchase vaccine back from employers and wholesalers for redistribution.

The Federal government should set an example of good vaccination practices. Our bill requires Federal Departments and the Attending Physician of the Capitol to abide by CDC recommendations on who should receive vaccine. If Members of Congress and their staffs cannot reserve flu vaccine for those most in need, how can we ask the American public to do so?

We must also learn from Canada's experience with the SARS outbreak in Toronto last year. During that outbreak, many people were forced to remain home from work to prevent the spread of SARS. Some lost their wages during that time, and some even lost their jobs. Even more worrisome is that some people ignored the quarantine orders out of fear of repercussions at work. Our bill will assure that those who lose wages in complying with a Federal or State quarantine order will be fully compensated, and will be protected from losing their employment or related benefits.

Finally, we must recognize that voluntary measures may not be enough to

avert a crisis. For this reason, the legislation gives HHS emergency authority to require that vaccine supplies be administered to those in highest need if it determines that voluntary measures have failed, and that to do otherwise would pose a significant danger to the public health.

Let's not let history repeat itself. We need to be prepared for flu vaccine shortages and influenza pandemics in the future, and we need to respond effectively to the current shortage. I urge my colleagues to support the ``Emergency Flu Response Act of 2004.'' We face a crisis, and Congress should not delay in enacting this needed legislation.