Climate Change Education Act

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the U.S. Attorney Local Residency Restoration Act along with Senators Schumer, Baucus, and Tester.

Simply put, this legislation would eliminate the other language that the Department of Justice had inserted into the PATRIOT Act reauthorization dealing with U.S. attorneys.

The first provision added allowed the Attorney General to appoint interim U.S. attorneys to vacancies indefinitely without Senate confirmation, and I authored a bill to restore the law to require interim appointments by the Attorney General for only 120 days, and then the district courts can appoint the interim U.S. attorney if a permanent replacement has not been nominated and confirmed.

This bill has passed this body, and I hope will be signed into law soon.

Today, I am offering this legislation to restore the residency requirement for sitting U.S. attorneys.

Before the change, the law required that U.S. attorneys live within his district while serving. It seems logical that the U.S. attorney should live in the district that he is heading.

However, the Department of Justice added language in the PATRIOT Act reauthorization that allows a U.S. attorney to live outside of his district if the Attorney General assigns dual or additional responsibilities to him.

While U.S. attorneys in both Democratic and Republican administrations have served dual roles in the past, this administration has once again abused its new authority--this time by placing numerous U.S. attorneys in full-time positions throughout the Department of Justice, at times in a manner that allows the Department to avoid Senate confirmation.

In fact, Dennis Boyd, executive director of the National Association of Assistant U.S. Attorneys, which represents current Federal prosecutors, has said, ``I can't think of a time when there's been this many U.S. attorneys doing double duty at one time.''

Currently, there are several U.S. attorneys, that we know about, who are serving in a second full-time position here in Washington, while still retaining their responsibilities back in their districts. For example, Michael J. Sullivan, the U.S. attorney in Boston, has been serving as the Acting Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in Washington for the past 6 months, a position that requires Senate confirmation;

Mary Beth Buchanan, U.S. attorney in Pittsburgh, is also the acting director of the Office of Violence Against Women, a position that requires Senate confirmation, and prior to that she served as Director of the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys; and Kevin O'Connor, U.S. attorney in Connecticut, is also serving as an Associate Deputy Attorney General coordinating antigang policies.

Of course, the most well-known example is William Mercer, U.S. attorney in Montana. Mr. Mercer has been effectively absent for nearly 2 years from his State. First, serving as Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General, and now working as Acting Associate Attorney General, another position that requires Senate confirmation. In fact, through staff interviews we have learned that he is only in his State 3 or 4 days a month.

Moreover, his consistent absenteeism was having such a negative effect on the district that it led to the point where U.S. District Chief Judge Donald Molloy of Billings, MT, felt compelled to write to the Attorney General on October 20, 2005, to complain. In that letter, Chief Judge Molloy wrote that Mr. Mercer's dual roles have led to ``a lack of leadership'' in the Montana office and created ``untoward difficulties for the court'' and for career prosecutors. Chief Judge Molloy also wrote that Mr. Mercer was violating Federal law because he ``no longer resides in Montana'' and instead was living with his family in the Washington, DC, area.

These facts on their own are cause for alarm.

However, what is even more disconcerting is the way that Mr. Mercer and the Department of Justice have handled this situation.

We know that the Attorney General responded to Chief Judge Molloy in a letter on November 10, 2005, stating that Mr. Mercer ``is in compliance with the residency requirement'' under Federal law because he ``is domiciled in Montana, returns there on a regular basis, and will live there full-time as soon as his temporary assignment is completed.''

We also know through interviews of DOJ staff that Mr. Mercer worked with Will Moschella and Senate staff during November 2005 to insert the residency exemption language into the PATRIOT Act reauthorization.

In fact, according to the Washington Post, the response from the Attorney General to Chief Judge Molloy occurred on the very same day that DOJ asked for the language to be inserted into the PATRIOT Act.

All this resulted in a change in the law, thus eviscerating the conflict.

However, even beyond this turn of events, what is truly breathtaking about this administration's actions with regard to Mr. Mercer is that in trying to defend its actions to force numerous U.S. attorneys to resign from office, this same Justice Department criticized David Iglesias for being ``an absentee landlord.''

I firmly believe, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. You can't one day try to change the law to make it easier for U.S. attorneys to serve in 2 full-time jobs at the same time and then the next day fire someone for not being fully present in his job, especially when the absence is much more limited and based on service to the country in the naval reserves.

While there are times when U.S. attorneys may be relied upon to fill in temporarily, changing the law to ensure that they can hold two full- time jobs is unacceptable.

Serving as U.S. attorney is a full-time job, and each district throughout this country deserves to have the best qualified person in the district focused on the tasks at hand.

I am quite certain that there are many fine first assistant U.S. attorneys capable of stepping up to fill the shoes of an absent U.S. attorney; however, these are not the individuals the President has nominated and the Senate has confirmed to serve those positions.

These districts deserve nothing less than the undivided attention of their Senate-confirmed U.S. attorneys.

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

Mr. President, I rise to join with my senior colleague from Maine in sponsoring the Commercial Truck Highway Safety Demonstration Program Act, an important bill that addresses a significant safety problem in our State.

Under current law, trucks weighing 100,000 pounds are allowed to travel on the portion of Interstate 95 designated as the Maine Turnpike, which runs from Maine's border with New Hampshire to Augusta, our capital city. At Augusta, the turnpike designation ends, but I-95 proceeds another 200 miles north to Houlton. At Augusta, however, heavy trucks must exit the modern four-lane, limited-access highway and are forced onto smaller, two-lane secondary roads that pass through cities, towns, and villages.

Trucks weighing up to 100,000 pounds are permitted on interstate highways in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and New York as well as the Canadian Provinces of New Brunswick and Quebec. The weight limit disparity on various segments of Maine's Interstate Highway System is a significant impediment to commerce, increases wear-and-tear on our secondary roads, and, most important, puts our people needlessly at risk.

Senator Snowe and I have introduced this legislation several times in recent years. We do so this year with a renewed sense of urgency, and in sorrow. Just last week, Susan Abraham, a bright and talented 17- year-old high school student from Hampden, ME, lost her life when her car was struck by a heavy truck on Route 9. The truck driver could not see Susan's small car turning onto that two-lane road as he rounded a corner. It was an accident but one that would have been avoided had the truck remained on the interstate highway. Interstate 95 runs less than three-quarters of a mile away, but Federal law prevented the truck from using that modern, divided highway, a highway that was designed to provide ample views of the road ahead.

That preventable tragedy took place almost 1 year to the day after Lena Gray, an 80-year-old resident of Bangor, was struck and killed by a tractor-trailer as she was crossing a downtown street. Again, that accident would not have occurred had that truck been allowed to use I- 95, which runs directly through Bangor.

The problem Maine faces due to the disparity in truck weight limits affects many communities, but it is clearly evident in the eastern Maine cites of Bangor and Brewer. In this region, a 2-mile stretch of Interstate 395 connects two major state highways that carry significant truck traffic across Maine. I-395 affords direct and safe access between these major corridors, but because of the existing Federal truck weight limit, many heavy trucks are prohibited from using this multilane, limited access highway.

Instead, these trucks, which sometimes carry hazardous materials, are required to maneuver through the downtown portions of Bangor and Brewer on two-lane roadways. Truckers are faced with two options; the first is a 3.5 mile diversion through downtown Bangor that requires several very difficult and dangerous turns. The second route is a 7.5 mile diversion that includes 20 traffic lights and requires travel through portions of downtown Bangor as well. Congestion is a significant issue, and safety is seriously compromised as a result of these required diversions.

In June 2004, Wilbur Smiths Associates, a nationally recognized transportation consulting firm, completed a study to examine the impact a Federal weight exemption on nonexempt portions of Maine's Interstate Highway System would have on safety, pavement, and bridges. The study found that extending the current truck weight exemption on the Maine Turnpike to all interstate highways in Maine would result in a decrease of 3.2 fatal crashes per year. A uniform truck weight limit of 100,000 pounds on Maine's interstate highways would reduce highway miles, as well as the travel times necessary to transport freight through Maine, resulting in safety, economic, and environmental benefits. Moreover, Maine's extensive network of local roads would be better preserved without the wear and tear of heavy truck traffic.

Most important, however, a uniform truck weight limit will keep trucks on the interstate where they belong, rather than on roads and highways that pass through Maine's cities, towns, and neighborhoods.

In addition to the safety of motorists and pedestrians, there is a homeland security aspect to this as well. An accident or attack involving a heavy truck carrying explosive fuel or a hazardous chemical on a congested city street would have devastating consequences. That risk can be alleviated substantially by allowing those trucks to stay on the open highway.

The legislation that Senator Snowe and I are introducing addresses the safety issues we face in Maine because of the disparities in truck weight limits. The legislation directs the Secretary of Transportation to establish a commercial truck safety pilot program in Maine. Under the pilot program, the truck weight limit on all Maine highways that are part of the interstate highway system would be set at 100,000 pounds for three years. During the waiver period, the Secretary would study the impact of the pilot program on safety and would receive the input of a panel on which State officials, and representatives from safety organizations, municipalities, and the commercial trucking industry would serve. The waiver would become permanent if the panel determined that motorists were safer as a result of a uniform truck weight limit on Maine's Interstate Highway System.

Maine's citizens and motorists are needlessly at risk because too many heavy trucks are forced off the interstate and onto local roads. The legislation Senator Snowe and I are introducing is a commonsense approach to a significant safety problem in my State. Our efforts are widely supported by public officials throughout Maine, including the Governor, the Maine Department of Transportation, the Maine Secretary of State, and the Maine State Police. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

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 rise to introduce the ALS Registry Act.

Lou Gehrig brought Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, ALS, to the public's attention more than 65 years ago and his courage put a human face' on this terrible disease. Each of us has a Lou Gehrig back in our home State, someone who shows great tremendous courage and grace as they wrestle with ALS.

Over the years, I have worked closely with the Nevada ALS Association and have met with many Nevadans who have been touched by this devastating illness. One of these Nevadans was a man by the name of Steve Rigazio who was invited to testify before the Labor/HHS/Education Appropriations Subcommittee in May of 2000. Steve was at the height of his career when he was diagnosed with ALS. He worked through the ranks of the Nevada Power Company, the largest utility company in the State, for 16 years until he became president. He played semi-professional baseball. He also played and coached recreational hockey.

After his diagnosis, Steve continued to show up for work at 6 a.m. for as long as he could. Sadly just 20 months after he testified so movingly before Congress, Steve Rigazio died of ALS on December 27, 2001 at the age of 47. He left behind a family that included a wife, two children and hundreds of friends. The ALS Steve Rigazio Voice of Courage Award was named in his honor as a living testimony to the life of this special man.

Every year approximately 5,600 Americans will learn they have ALS. There is no cure for ALS and there is only one FDA approved drug to specifically treat ALS. That drug only works for 20 percent of patients, and even for them, it merely extends life for a few months.

ALS has proven particularly hard for scientists and doctors to tackle for a number of reasons. One of those reasons is there is not a centralized place where data on the disease is collected. Currently, there is only a patchwork of data about ALS that does not include the entire U.S. population and only includes limited data for specific purposes, such as to determine the relationship between military service and the disease. Perhaps the most obvious example of the limitations of current surveillance systems and registries is that we do not know with certainty how many people are living with ALS in the United States today. Over 136 years after the discovery of ALS, estimates on its prevalence still vary by as much as 100 percent, from a low of about 15,000 patients to as many as thirty 30,000.

The legislation I am introducing today would create an ALS registry at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, and will aid in the search for a cure to this devastating disease. The registry will collect data concerning: the incidence and prevalence of ALS in the U.S.; the environmental and occupational factors that may contribute to the disease; the age, race or ethnicity, gender and family history of individuals diagnosed; and other information essential to the study of

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 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.