Southern Nevada Limited Transition Area Act

Mr. President, today I introduce the Homeownership Protection and Enhancement Act of 2007, HOPE Act. This legislation would reauthorize and amend Section 106 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, so that we can improve on Federal efforts to support and sustain homeownership.

As we all know, during the past several years, housing prices in cities and States around the country have far outpaced any increase in wages. Families have been stretching themselves financially to get into homeownership, and many families have started using alternative or exotic mortgages loan products to purchase their homes.

According to First American Loan Performance, in 2006, in my own State of Rhode Island, nearly 16 percent of all home-purchase loans were ``interest only.'' However, as home prices have declined, many people who took out these exotic loans are now finding they owe more than the value of their property.

The Center for Responsible Lending estimates that nationally one in five subprime loans originated during the prior 2 years will end in foreclosure, costing homeowners $164 billion, mostly in lost equity.

`It appears that we are just at the beginning of what could be a perfect storm, as many credit-stressed borrowers still face resets of these exotic adjustable-rate and payment option loans. There were 1.2 million foreclosures reported nationwide last year, up 42 percent from 2005, according to RealtyTrac, a database of foreclosed properties. RealtyTrac also reports 430,000 foreclosure filings in the first quarter of 2007, a 35 percent jump over the same period in 2006.

The increasing rate of foreclosures across the country is troubling. Not only are individual families losing their homes and their financial nest eggs, but there is a negative ripple effect across communities and the economy. That is why I am introducing the Homeownership Protection and Enhancement Act, or HOPE Act.

This bill seeks to help States establish and enhance outreach programs to proactively find homeowners at risk of losing their homes and help them avoid foreclosure. States will be rewarded for having set up effective programs to help curtail foreclosures with additional funding and resources. An incentive is provided for more States to follow suit and reach out to delinquent borrowers, offer them access to financial counseling, and, when appropriate, help them negotiate a plan to restructure their debt.

In particular, the HOPE Act provides $50 million for the creation and operation of State Homeownership Protection Centers. The centers can serve as a one-stop resource, offering consumers a broad range of services and assistance, such as financial assessments, counseling, or referrals to families in need. It authorizes $260 million in competitive grants to States who operate State Homeownership Protection Centers for revolving loan funds to offer one-time grants or subsidized loans to qualified families. It increases funding to $300 million for effective HUD-approved counseling agencies. Finally, it sets aside $5 million for the creation of a Federal database on defaults and foreclosures to improve oversight of public and private efforts to sustain homeownership.

In addition, to help prevent future borrowers from taking on unsustainable mortgages and falling into foreclosure, the HOPE Act would create an affirmative duty for lenders and servicers to engage in reasonable loss mitigation prior to foreclosure. It would also require notifications by lenders and servicers to borrowers regarding the full array of counseling services available in their State at every critical step, at application, at closing, and upon delinquency. Finally, if a State has a State Homeownership Protection Center, lenders and servicers would be required to refer borrowers who are 60 days or more delinquent to the center so that it can proactively attempt to reach distressed borrowers.

I am introducing the HOPE Act because when homes get foreclosed on, it is not just the borrowers and lenders who pay the price, whole neighborhoods suffer. Housing industry experts estimate that for every foreclosure within an eighth of a mile of a house, two and a half city blocks in every direction, the property value of surrounding homes drops by about 1 percent. I believe that the Federal Government has a responsibility to step in and ensure that millions of Americans, including neighbors who never took out a risky loan and have scrimped and saved to pay their bills on time, are not adversely affected by the subprime foreclosure crisis.

This legislation is targeted relief that will help more families keep their homes and save communities nationwide millions of dollars. We need to act swiftly before personal financial tragedies turn into a full blown national financial crisis.

The HOPE Act will set us on the path to meeting an important national goal, creating sustainable homeownership. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill and other foreclosure prevention efforts.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 20, 2007 at 9:55 a.m. in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in order to conduct a business meeting to consider several General Services Administration Resolutions and S. 589, a Bill to provide for the transfer of certain Federal property to the United States Paralympics, Incorporated, a subsidiary of the United States Olympic Committee, to be followed immediately with a hearing entitled, ``Oversight Hearing to Examine the Condition of our Nation's Bridges.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 20, 2007, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to hear testimony on ``Frozen Out: A Review of Bank Treatment of Social Security Benefits'' .

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet in order to conduct a markup on Thursday, September 20, 2007, at 10 a.m. in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226.

Agenda

I. Bills

S. 1845, A bill to provide for limitations in certain communications between the Department of Justice and the White House (Whitehouse, Leahy).

S. 772, Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2007 (Kohl, Coleman, Feingold).

S. 1267, Free Flow of Information Act of 2007 (Lugar, Dodd, Graham).

S. 1703, Trafficking in Persons Accountability Act of 2007 (Durbin, Coburn).

II. Nominations

Jennifer Walker Elrod to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit.

Patrick Shen, Special Counsel for Immigration Related Unfair Employment Practices.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Expanding Opportunities for Women Entrepreneurs: The Future of Women's Small Business Programs:'' on Thursday, September 20, 2007, beginning at 10 a.m. in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the Committee on Veterans' Affairs to be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 20, 2007, in order to conduct a Joint Hearing to receive the 2007 legislative presentation by the American Legion. The Committee will meet in 345 Cannon House Office Building, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 20, 2007 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, September 20, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. for a hearing entitled ``High Risk IT Investments: Is Poor Management Leading to Billions in Waste.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 20, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 1377, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey to the city of Henderson, NV, certain Federal land located in the city, and for other purposes; S. 1433, to amend the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act to provide competitive status to certain Federal employees in the State of Alaska; S. 1608 and H.R. 815, to provide for the conveyance of certain land in Clark County, NV, for use by the Nevada National Guard; S. 1740, to amend the act of February 22, 1990, and the act of July 2, 1862, to provide for the management of public land trust funds in the State of North Dakota; S. 1802, to adjust the boundaries of the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness in the State of Idaho; S. 1939, to provide for the conveyance of certain land in the Santa Fe National Forest, NM; and S. 1940, to reauthorize the Rio Puerco Watershed Management Program, and for other purposes.

And to receive testimony on two additional bills added to the hearing: S. 1143, to designate the Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse and the surrounding Federal land in the State of Florida as an Outstanding Natural Area and as a unit of the National Landscape System, and for other purposes; and S. 2034, to amend the Oregon Wilderness Act of 1984 to designate the Copper Salmon Wilderness and to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate segments of the North and South Forks of the Elk River in the State of Oregon as wild or scenic rivers, and for other purposes.

Mr. President, I seek recognition today to introduce the Attorney-Client Privilege Protection Act of 2008, which is a modified version of my earlier legislation by the same name. This legislation, which adds original cosponsors, continues to address the Department of Justice's corporate prosecution guidelines. Those guidelines, last revised by former Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty in December 2006, erode the attorney-client relationship by allowing prosecutors to request privileged information backed by the hammer of prosecution if the request is denied.

Like my previous bill, S. 186, this bill will protect the sanctity of the attorney-client relationship by prohibiting federal prosecutors and investigators from requesting waiver of attorney-client privilege and attorney work product protections in corporate investigations. The bill would similarly prohibit the government from conditioning charging decisions or any adverse treatment on an organization's payment of employee legal fees, invocation

of the attorney-client privilege, or agreement to a joint defense agreement.

The new version of the bill makes many subtle improvements, including defining ``organization'' to make clear that continuing criminal enterprises and terrorist organizations will not benefit from the bill's protections. The bill also clarifies language that the Department of Justice had previously criticized as ambiguous. The bill also makes clear in its findings that its prohibition on informal privilege waiver demands is far from unprecedented. The bill states: ``Congress recognized that law enforcement can effectively investigate without attorney-client privileged information when it banned Attorney General demands for privileged materials in the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. See 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1968(c)(2).''

There is no need to wait to see how the McNulty memorandum will operate in practice. There is similarly no need to wait for another internal Department of Justice reform that will likely fall short and be the fifth policy in the last 10 years. Any such internal reform will not address the privilege waiver policies of other government agencies that refer matters to the Department of Justice and allow in through the window what isn't allowed through the door.

As I said when I introduced S. 186, the right to counsel is too important to be passed over for prosecutorial convenience. It has been engrained in American jurisprudence since the 18th century when the Bill of Rights was adopted. The 6th Amendment is a fundamental right afforded to individuals charged with a crime and guarantees proper representation by counsel throughout a prosecution. However, the right to counsel is largely ineffective unless the confidential communications made by a client to his or her lawyer are protected by law. As the Supreme Court observed in Upjohn Co. v. United States, ``the attorney-client privilege is the oldest of the privileges for confidential communications known to the common law.'' When the Upjohn Court affirmed that attorney-client privilege protections apply to corporate internal legal dialogue, the Court manifested in the law the importance of the attorney-client privilege in encouraging full and frank communication between attorneys and their clients, as well as the broader public interests the privilege serves in fostering the observance of law and the administration of justice. The Upjohn Court also made clear that the value of legal advice and advocacy depends on the lawyer having been fully informed by the client.

In addition to the importance of the right to counsel, it is also fundamental that the Government has the burden of investigating and proving its own case. Privilege waiver tends to transfer this burden to the organization under investigation. As a former prosecutor, I am well aware of the enormous power and tools a prosecutor has at his or her disposal. The prosecutor has enough power without the coercive tools of the privilege waiver, whether that waiver policy is embodied in the Holder, Thompson, McCallum, McNulty--or a future Filip--memorandum.

As in S. 186, this bill amends title 18 of the United States Code by adding a new section, Sec. 3014, that would prohibit any agent or attorney of the U.S. Government in any criminal or civil case to demand or request the disclosure of any communication protected by the attorney-client privilege or attorney work product. The bill would also prohibit government lawyers and agents from basing any charge or adverse treatment on whether an organization pays attorneys' fees for its employees or signs a joint defense agreement.

This legislation is needed to ensure that basic protections of the attorney-client relationship are preserved in Federal prosecutions and investigations.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with my colleague from South Dakota, Senator Thune, designed to address the growing burden faced by this Nation's health care safety net institutions in being able to provide adequate pharmaceutical care to the most vulnerable patient populations.

Communities across the country rely on public and nonprofit hospitals to serve as the health care ``safety net'' for low-income, uninsured, and underinsured patients. With the ever-increasing cost of pharmaceuticals, these institutions are struggling more and more to provide basic pharmaceutical care to those least able to afford it.

Fortunately, many safety net hospitals are currently able to participate in the Federal 340B Drug Discount Program, which enables them to purchase outpatient drugs for their patients at discounted prices. These hospitals, known as ``covered entities'' under the 340B statute, include high-Medicaid disproportionate share hospitals, DSH, large and small urban hospitals, and certain rural hospitals.

I am introducing legislation today, the 340B Program Improvement and Integrity Act of 2007, which would extend discounted drug prices currently mandated only for outpatient drugs to inpatient drugs purchased by covered entities under the 340B program. Although the Medicare Modernization Act, MMA, of 2003 permitted pharmaceutical manufacturers to offer 340B drug discounts to covered entities, this legislation did not include a mandate. Without a mandate we have seen very little willingness on the part of manufactures to offer 340B drug discounts for inpatient drugs. As the prices of pharmaceutical drugs continue to increase sharply, the need for these inpatient discounts grows more and more acute.

My legislation would also expand participation in the program to a subset of rural hospitals that, for a variety of reasons, cannot currently access 340B discounts. These newly eligible rural hospitals include critical access hospitals, sole community hospitals, and rural referral centers. In proposing this modest expansion to the program, we have struck an important balance between ensuring a close nexus with low-income and indigent care, ensured that a significant portion of savings is passed on to the Medicaid Program, and strengthened the integrity of the program.

Specifically, newly eligible rural hospitals would have to meet appropriate standards demonstrating their ``safety net'' status, as do all hospitals that currently participate in the program. For example, sole community hospitals and rural referral centers, all of which are paid under the prospective payment system, would be required under this legislation to serve a significant percentage of low-income and indigent patients, have public or nonprofit status, and, if privately owned and operated, to have a contract with State or local government to provide a significant level of indigent care. All standards are designed to reinforce the obligation of these covered entities to continue serving low-income and uninsured patients.

This legislation would also generate savings for the Medicaid Program by requiring participating hospitals to credit to their Medicaid agencies a significant percentage of their savings on inpatient drugs. It would address the overall efficiency and integrity of the 340B program through improved enforcement and compliance measures with respect to manufacturers and covered entities. This is designed to improve program administration and to prevent and remedy instances of program abuse.

In the end, this legislation would accomplish several important goals. It would help safety net providers stretch their already limited resources through increased access to discounted pharmaceuticals; it would enhance 340B program integrity by making sure participants are complying with program rules; and it would help to improve the care provided to this Nation's most vulnerable populations.

I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, Senator Collins, to introduce legislation that will rectify an impediment to international commerce flowing through Maine, but more importantly, will offer a measure of protection that many of my constituents in Maine do not currently possess.

As many of our colleagues know, expanding upon the current Federal truck weight limitation of 80,000 pounds is often looked upon as dangerous, flaunting the safety of drivers who may be faced with a truck weighing as much as 143,000 pounds, the limit on Interstates in Massachusetts and New York. While I certainly concur that safety of drivers is very important, and I have the record to prove it, I ask you do not overlook the safety of pedestrians as well.

In Maine, where we currently have a limited exemption along the Maine Turnpike, many trucks traveling to or from the Canadian border or into upstate Maine are not able to travel on our Interstates as a result of the 80,000 pound weight limit. This forces many of them onto secondary roads, many of which are two-lane roads running through small towns and villages in Maine. Tanker trucks carrying fuel are passing elementary schools, libraries, and weaving through traffic to reach our Air National Guard station. Not only is this an inefficient method of bringing necessary fuel guardsmen that provide our national security, but imagine if you will one of those tanker trucks rupturing on Main Street, potentially causing serious damage to property, causing traffic chaos, and most importantly, killing or injuring drivers and pedestrians.

This is not a far-fetched scenario. In fact, two pedestrians were killed in the past year in Maine as a result of overweight trucks on local roadways, one tragic instance occurring within sight of the nearby Interstate.

What is the result of such traffic? According to study conducted by the Maine Department of Transportation, traffic fatalities involving trucks weighing 100,000 pounds are 10 times greater on secondary roads in Maine than on the exempted interstates. Serious injuries are seven times more likely. Not to mention the exorbitant cost of maintaining these secondary roads, forced to handle these massive trucks. These roads were not designed to handle this kind of traffic. Our interstates were, yet these trucks are consistently prevented from traveling on them.

The argument against such trucks is that it is a ``slippery slope'' that if you allow one State to have such an exemption, pretty soon you'll have to give every State such an exemption. Well, I would like to remind the opponents of this amendment that we are halfway there already. A total of 27 States already have some type of exemption, and 47 States allow trucks weighing over 80,000 pounds on some roads within their State. To offer a clear picture of this, if you are driving a truck weighing 100,000 pounds, you can leave Gary, IN, just outside of Chicago, and can operate that vehicle all the way to Portland, ME. There, of course, they have to unload the additional weight to continue on the Interstate, or travel the remainder of the way through the State on these local roads, endangering the populace and other drivers.

Conversely, you can operate a truck weighing 90,000 pounds from Kansas City, MO, and travel to Seattle, WA. So I ask you, is this truly a legitimate reason for opposition while my constituents are taking their lives in their hands when merely crossing Main Street?

I would especially like to thank Senator Collins for her steadfast effort as, side-by-side, we continue to seek a resolution to this issue.

Mr. President, today I introduce legislation that would enhance and improve services for homeless veterans administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs. This bill addresses a number of areas related to care and benefits for homeless veterans. It would modify the funding mechanism for community-based services to homeless veterans, expand capacity of services for women veterans, and improve outreach to servicemembers who are at risk of becoming homeless.

First, this legislation would lift a number of restrictions on VA's grant and per diem program. This program compensates community shelters for the services they provide to homeless veterans. VA currently pays $27 per day to community shelters for each veteran served. However, $27 is barely sufficient to cover existing costs, and rising energy prices are stretching resources even more.

To meet the needs of their clients, many shelters seek additional sources of funding, but their per diem payments from VA are in turn offset by the amount of this additional funding. By eliminating this offset, the bill would enable providers to expand their services to veterans, and to receive funding from other sources to accomplish these expansions.

This legislation would also address the gap in domiciliary care for homeless women veterans. Women veterans are a growing proportion of the active duty force and overall veteran population. Homelessness among female veterans is a serious problem, and many facilities do not yet have the capacity to meet this demand. Domiciliary care is an essential component of treatment and rehabilitation, especially for mental health and substance abuse conditions which afflict many homeless veterans.

This bill would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to ensure that domiciliary programs have the capacity to accommodate women veterans, and that their specific safety and security concerns are addressed. As women become a larger proportion of the homeless veteran population, VA must have the capacity to meet their needs.

Finally, this legislation would increase efforts to identify and assist servicemembers who are at risk of becoming homeless. It would make permanent an already established and successful program to aid incarcerated veterans in their transition back to civilian life. The program identifies at risk individuals and refers them to counseling and services, including health care, job training and placement, and housing.

Building on the success of that program, the bill would also create a similar program to identify and support at risk individuals in their transition from military to civilian life. It has been proven through smaller scale efforts that this process can reduce the incidence of homelessness and other problems among new veterans who are being separated from military service.

Over 1 million servicemembers have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, and as they transition from military service to civilian life some will be at risk of homelessness. Any effort VA can make to assist these servicemembers will improve lives and reduce the demand for VA homeless services in the years to come. We have all heard the sad and shocking statistic that one out of every three homeless persons on the street at any given time is a veteran. This bill is another step in attempting to address and solve this shameful problem.

I believe that this bill adjusts existing programs to take full advantage of existing resources and effective initiatives. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today for myself and Senator Ensign to introduce the Southern Nevada Limited Transition Area Act. This bill will allow one of Nevada's fastest growing communities to diversify its economy, to create space for important small businesses and parks, and to encourage appropriate development around an urban airport.

This legislation was first introduced in the 108th Congress. Its purpose is to convey approximately 502 acres of land from the Bureau of Land Management to the city of Henderson, NV, for the development of an employment and business center and urban green spaces. The parcels are located just west and south of the Henderson Executive Airport.

The Bureau of Land Management has designated these parcels for disposal because of the urban surroundings, which renders them difficult for the agency to manage.

This legislation will enhance the ability of a rapidly growing community to diversify its economy, gainfully employ its residents, and encourage proper land use. The parcels are located in a fast growing area of the city, but are impacted by aircraft noise and overflights from the nearby Henderson Executive Airport. This makes the property unsuitable for residential use. But rather than shying away from it because of the limitations on its use, the city of Henderson has put together a forward-looking plan that will turn the area into a bustling business center.

Once the Bureau of Land Management conveys the land to Henderson, the city would then sell, lease or otherwise convey subdivided lots at fair market value. Consistent with the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act, 85 percent of the proceeds would then return to the BLM's Special Account for a variety of conservation purposes in Nevada, 10 percent will go towards community water developments, and 5 percent will support the State of Nevada's general education program.

The city of Henderson's leaders are dedicated to making the city a national model of logical development, diversified employment, and fiscal sustainability. This bill helps establish the conditions needed to realize that vision. In addition to productively diversifying the land use pattern in the Las Vegas Valley, the proposed development of this land will encourage a broad range of employment opportunities for the region, while also helping to pay for public infrastructure in nearby residential areas.

I greatly appreciated the hearing that the Energy and Natural Resources Committee had on this bill last Congress. At that hearing, the Department of the Interior and others expressed strong support for our legislation. A few minor revisions were requested by the administration, and I have incorporated those changes into the bill we are introducing today. I look forward to working with the committee to move this legislation in an expeditious manner during this Congress.

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

Mr. President, I have introduced a bill that will honor one of Florida's great jurists, the Honorable C. Clyde Atkins, by naming the Federal building at 301 North Miami Avenue in Miami, FL, the ``C. Clyde Atkins United States Courthouse.'' This is a fitting tribute to Judge Atkins. His public service provides a model for members of the legal profession, indeed, for all Americans, who respect the rule of law and believe in equal justice under law.

Before becoming a judge, Judge Atkins, who earned his law degree at the University of Florida, already had distinguished himself in private practice. He served as the president of both the Florida bar and the Dade County Bar Association. In 1966, President Johnson appointed Judge Atkins to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. He served until his death in 1999 at the age of 84. From 1977 until 1982, Judge Atkins was the chief judge for the Southern District, and his leadership ensured that the court remained effective through a period when Miami confronted serious problems involving refugees, violence, and drug smuggling.

Judge Atkins rendered important decisions in the areas of civil rights and civil liberties. By the luck of the draw, he was assigned to many controversial cases, earning him the nickname ``Hard Luck Clyde,'' and it was for those rulings, often involving important civil rights and civil liberties issues, that he will be best remembered.

For example, in a decision involving Miami's homeless population, he ordered the creation of ``safe zones'' where the homeless could congregate without fear of arrest. This important decision had a ripple effect, helping to give rise to efforts throughout the Nation to rehabilitate the homeless through training and the creation of shelters. He also ruled in support of Cuban and Haitian refugees who were held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and against the government's repatriation policy. And finally, he presided over the desegregation of Dade County's public schools for more than 20 years.

Judge Atkins was a person of faith. He was the first Catholic appointed to the bench in the Southern District, and Pope Benedict VI named him a Knight of St. Gregory. Judge Atkins also earned recognition from the National Conference of Christians and Jews, the Anti- Defamation League, and the American Judicature Society, to name a few.

The proposal to name the courthouse in Miami after Judge Atkins has been supported by leaders of the bar in the Southern District, including the Dade County Bar Association. Passage of my bill will ensure that the C. Clyde Atkins Courthouse will stand as an enduring tribute to an admired and respected Federal judge and the principles for which he stood for generations to come.