Mortgage and Rental Disaster Relief Act of 2007

Mr. President. I rise today to introduce a series of bills, S. 2386, S. 2387, S. 2388, and S. 2390, designed to better prepare for catastrophic wildfires like the ones that recently devastated Southern California.

The Nation watched as these fires swept, uncontrolled, through several counties.

They caused the evacuation of an estimated 750,000 people--the largest evacuation in California history.

They burned more than 500,000 acres. Destroyed more than 2,000 homes.

Killed 10 people. Injured 130.

The financial damage is estimated in the billions.

Simply put: This was a major disaster.

It was not the first. Southern California suffered similar wildfire losses just 4 years ago.

We must face the fact that catastrophic wildfires are in California's future, and the future of other states.

California is tinder-dry. Global warming is real, leading to extended droughts and longer fire seasons.

Fires are larger, and they burn hotter and with more intensity.

More and more people are living in areas at high risk of wildfire. There are more than 5 million homes in California alone in this high- threat ``wildland-urban interface.''

Across the rest of the country, there are nearly 40 million more homes in the wildland-urban interface.

So the question comes: What can be done?

There is no doubt that we cannot fully eliminate wildfires.

But I believe we can take steps now to better protect communities, to improve firefighting capabilities, and to improve relief and recovery aid.

The four bills introduced today will get this process started. They are the Fire Safe Community Act, which would establish new incentives for communities at risk of wildfires to adopt a new model Fire Safe ordinance; the Mortgage and Rental Disaster Relief Act, to make sure that qualified individuals, displaced by major disasters, can make their mortgage and rental payments; the Disaster Rebuilding Assistance Act, to increase the amount of Federal dollars available to homeowners whose rebuilding costs outstrip their insurance coverage; and the Managing Arson Through Criminal History, MATCH, Act, requiring states to create registries of convicted arsonists.

Let me go into greater detail on each of these bills.

Fire Safe Community Act

This bill will help protect our communities from the catastrophic effects of wildfires.

Most importantly, it does three key things: it instructs the National Institute of Standards and Technology to develop a model ordinance that will serve as a baseline for communities seeking to protect their homes and property from wildfire; it encourages local participation by allowing for greater Federal reimbursement of firefighting costs in communities that adopt the model ordinance; and it creates a grant program to encourage responsible development practices that meet model guidelines in the wildland-urban interface.

In effect, the Federal Government would become the partner to local governments as they seek to make their communities fire-safe.

As I have said, we can never stop wildfires. But we can take important

steps to make these fires less destructive.

This bill starts with the first step of creating a model ``Fire Safe'' ordinance--with clear, unambiguous language that sets a national standard for how to address all aspects of fire threat.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology would provide this standard guideline for communities, in conjunction with the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Fire Administration.

States are also encouraged to adopt model ordinances tailored to the needs of their own communities for fire-safe development.

These guidelines will address water supply, construction materials and techniques, defensible space, vegetation management, and infrastructure standards.

The next step is to put this model ordinance to use.

The bill authorizes a $25 million per year grant program, administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Office of Grants and Training.

It will help communities implement these standards, and bring the safest development practices to their neighborhoods.

This grant program will be available to local governments located in the wildlife-urban interface, and to high-threat regions that have adopted--or plan to adopt--the model ordinance.

They will have the option of adopting either the federal model ordinance, or one produced by their own state.

As further incentive, this bill would improve Fire Management Assistance Grants to communities adopting a model ordinance.

Today under the Fire Management Assistance Grant program, the Federal Government covers 75 percent of the cost of fighting wildfires.

Under this bill, communities adopting a model ordinance would be eligible for federal reimbursement of up to 90 percent of their firefighting costs.

The Fire Safe Community Act will also make grants available to States to help them compile their own fire maps.

The mapping grants will be matched 50-50 by State funds, and will encourage development of comprehensive fire hazard maps that indicate the exact locations of high-threat fire areas.

This vital information will aid firefighting efforts at all levels.

It's important to note that the model ordinances at the core of this bill are not mandatory--they would provide voluntary guidelines that communities can adopt, or not.

It does not step on the toes of local government. Rather, it would help all of us reach a common goal.

I come from local government--I'm 9 years a mayor, 9 years a county supervisor--and I recognize that zoning is the province of local government.

But we have a real problem here: We know that development in the wildland-urban interface is accelerating, making fires more costly.

So we need to take steps to improve fire safety in these areas.

This bill is an important step toward becoming better prepared.

Now I want to discuss two bills intended to improve recovery aid after disaster strikes.

Mortgage and Rental Disaster Relief Act

This bill will provide much-needed relief to families hit hard by disaster--including people displaced by the recent fires.

It would authorize FEMA to make mortgage and rental assistance available for qualified individuals in communities designated by the President as disaster areas.

It is based on an important point: While catastrophic wildfires and other disasters can destroy homes, they don't relieve people of the financial obligations that come with home ownership or lease agreements.

In most cases, these payments must still be made, even if the residence has been wiped out.

This burden is too much for many families. They incur additional expenses--such as hotel or lodging costs--that come with being displaced following a major disaster.

FEMA used to provide mortgage and rental assistance. But it was eliminated by the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000.

This bill would reauthorize the program, and make several changes to ensure that assistance is provided only to those most in need.

First, to qualify for assistance applicants must demonstrate that they face significant economic hardships and suffered disaster-related income loss.

The disaster-related income loss must fit into one of the following categories: Your employer, or your own business, must be located in the area declared a major disaster by the President; you lose your job because your employer or business has a significant business relationship with a company located within the Presidentially declared disaster area; or you live in a Presidentially declared disaster area, and have suffered financially due to travel restrictions and road closures post-disaster.

To qualify for this aid, applicants must also provide proof that their employment was discontinued as a result of disaster.

They must also show imminent delinquency, eviction, dispossession, or foreclosure.

Finally, this assistance is available only for up to 18 months, and is subject to income caps.

Only households with adjusted gross incomes of $100,000 or less, in high-cost States such as California, would be eligible.

Households in lower-cost States could be eligible if their annual adjusted gross incomes do not exceed $75,000.

disaster rebuilding assistance act

This second disaster relief bill would increase the amount of money FEMA can provide--for rebuilding and temporary housing--in high-cost States such as California.

It is designed to help disaster victims whose rebuilding costs exceed their insurance coverage.

Sadly, many Californians hit by the wildfires are now learning that their insurance coverage was insufficient.

This is a real problem in California; in fact, California Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner estimates that as many as 25 percent of the victims of the recent fires may be underinsured.

Let me be clear: This bill will not cover the full costs of rebuilding.

But it will help close the gap, for qualified households in areas declared by the President to be disaster areas.

Today, FEMA can provide up to roughly $28,000 to individuals and households whose rebuilding costs exceed their insurance coverage.

This assistance can be used for rebuilding costs, as well as temporary housing.

This bill would increase this amount to $50,000.

The legislation also gives the President the discretion to increase this cap, if necessary, to cover rebuilding expenses in high-cost States.

I believe this bill will provide an important step toward giving Americans the chance they need to rebuild their lives after suffering through a major disaster.

The last bill in this package takes aim at criminal arsonists.

managing arson through criminal history act

This bill--also known as the MATCH Act--is the Senate version of a bill introduced in the House by California Representatives Mary Bono and Adam Schiff.

It would establish Federal and State arson registries; require convicted arsonists to register and update certain specified information for 5 years after a first conviction, 10 years after a second conviction, and for life after a third conviction; and authorize grants and incentives so that these registries will be operational within 3 years.

It is important that we improve our ability to keep track of arsonists, because it is clear that some of these recent wildfires were no accident.

The Santiago Fire in Orange County--which burned at least 27,000 acres--has officially been declared an arson fire.

Would-be arsonists tried to start new fires as the wildfires raged.

In San Diego County, authorities arrested an adult and a juvenile suspected of starting a blaze in Vista.

In San Bernardino, a suspect was charged with setting a brush fire near Victorville.

There were several arson-related arrests in Los Angeles County--one suspect died in a gunfight with police.

The arsonist who started the Santiago fire remains at-large.

There is a reward--it now stands at $250,000--but law-enforcement officials

say an arrest will likely depend on a tip from the public.

It does not have to be that way.

This bill would give fire investigators and law-enforcement officials up-to-date information on potential arsonists.

This is common-sense legislation. It will provide a readily accessible database, and help investigators rule out persons of interest and zero in on arson suspects.

We owe it to our brave firefighters to give fire investigators this important new tool, so they can help bring arsonists to justice.

Catastrophic wildfires are not going away. In fact, the evidence strongly suggests they will occur with greater frequency and ferocity.

But we can take important steps--now--to make our communities safer.

To strengthen our firefighting capabilities.

To ensure that more relief and recovery aid is provided to victims, so they can get back on their feet as soon as possible.

These bills are not a panacea. But they are an important first step. I urge my colleagues to vote for them.

Mr. President, today I join with Senators Rockefeller, Lott, and Kennedy to introduce the Medicare Quality Improvement Modernization Act of 2007, S. 2396.

As background for my colleagues, Medicare's Quality Improvement Organization, QIO, program has been in existence for 35 years. The program's intent has always been to assure that Medicare's beneficiaries receive high quality medical care. The program has undergone a steady evolution. What began as a program that called attention to hospitals and physicians whose care deviated from the norms of medical practice has morphed into one that seeks to help physicians, hospitals, nursing homes and other providers develop systems to improve their quality of care.

The program has changed as the definition of quality changed. When Medicare's peer review program was initiated, high quality care for a Medicare beneficiary was simply not to be among the unfortunate few whose medical care deviated from the norms of local medical practice. Fortunate for them, however, quality today is the routine adherence of providers to nationally accepted standards of care.

The legislative changes we propose for the QIO program reflects an ever-advancing definition of quality medical care and a focus on helping providers obtain it.

The QIO program has three functions. First, the program reviews the medical care of beneficiaries who have complaints about their care and provides the beneficiaries opinions. Second, the program supports intensive work with practitioners, nursing homes, managed care plans and hospitals to develop delivery systems that improve the quality of their care. Third the program publicly reports system-level performance measures.

The bill I introduce today is faithful to the results of a congressionally-mandated review of the QIO program reported in February, 2006. In that review, the IOM concluded ``The QIO program provides a potentially valuable nationwide infrastructure dedicated to promoting quality health care.'' For example, the QIO program is responsible for a substantial part of the National Healthcare Quality Report published by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

The IOM report called for changes in the QIO program. Its principal findings and recommendations were that the local QIO boards are heavily physician-dominated with little consumer representation. Existing legislation requires specific levels of physician involvement, an outmoded board structure.

Also, the QIO functions should be harmonized with other federal quality Initiatives.

It found that the QIOs were ``. . . restricted from contracting with health care providers in its state for technical assistance or review services similar to those covered by its core Medicare contract.'' The IOM committee concluded that QIOs would be able to serve more providers and expand their function beyond Medicare beneficiaries to the entire healthcare system if they could contract for services to supplement their CMS funds.

The Committee also recommended removal of restrictions on public access to the QIO's findings. For instance, beneficiaries have been unable to review the results of investigations that they requested.

The IOM recommended that beneficiary reviews be removed from the local QIOs.

The IOM committee concluded that Congress and the secretary of DHHS and CMS should improve program management by enhancing the contracting process and improving communication with the QIOs.

The legislation I propose seeks to strengthen the QIO's infrastructure to fit with an ever-tightening standard of quality in medicine, believing that doctors and hospitals want to do the right thing but also that patients should have their say.

Many of the changes recommended by the Institute of Medicine's experts and accepted by the experts at CMS do not require statutory change, but some do. Some program modifications are sufficiently critical to Medicare's beneficiaries, that while statutory language may not be required to affect them, a Congressional mandate is needed to assure them.

First, the Quality Improvement Organization Modernization Act of 2007 specifies that the Quality Improvement Organizations offer education, instruction, and technical assistance to providers, practitioners, and Medicare Advantage plans. It incorporates plans and providers in urban, rural, and frontier areas and providers that treat racial and ethnic minorities.

Second, our bill strengthens the review process for individual Medicare beneficiaries. The QIOs must actively educate beneficiaries of their right to bring any concerns to the QIOs. The QIOs must work with providers who are reviewed to correct deficiencies where they exist and to improve communication with patients where they do not.

The bill specifies that the findings of the review must be disclosed to the beneficiary requesting the review but not before giving the provider an opportunity to respond to the findings. The review functions are left with the local QIOs and not delegated to other entities to perform.

The bill specifies that the findings of reviews may not be used in medical malpractice litigation, otherwise the QIOs would serve more to screen cases for litigation than they would to improve the quality of care.

Third, in order to be certain that the QIOs are appropriately judging the severity of the errors they find and appropriately recommending sanctions to the Secretary, the Office of Inspector General will contract for an audit of 10 percent of one year's QIO reviews during each 5-year contract period.

Fourth, program administration is strengthened and its goals focused. The program's scope of work must incorporate the priorities of local stakeholders.

A strategic advisory committee will advise the Secretary on program goals, on program performance, and on harmonization of the QIO's quality functions with other federal and non-federal quality initiatives.

The GAO is instructed to report on implementation of program changes 1 year after the first 5-year contract period following enactment of this legislation. The adequacy of funding allocated to the QIOs for local initiatives has been in dispute among the QIOs. Congress is to receive an independent report about the adequacy of QIO financing before the initiation of each contract period.

The contracting process is strengthened by mandating timely contracting with the QIOs by CMS and by lengthening the contract period from 3 to 5 years. All QIOs must bid competitively every 5 years.

Fifth, local boards have been physician-dominated with little consumer representation. Our bill eliminates the requirement that QIOs must be physician sponsored organizations. Our bill improves local QIO accountability by strengthening the authority of the Secretary over board structure and function. It authorizes the Secretary to ensure that non-physician quality experts and qualified consumers are given appropriate representation on state QIO boards. It authorizes the Secretary to ensure that the board structure is appropriate, that the compensation of board members and executives is market-based and that conflict of interest among board members is mitigated.

Sixth, as the QIOs focus more of their energies on working with providers to improve quality the demand for their services in this endeavor exceed their resources. For example, the number of doctors requesting help from the Utah QIO in selecting information technology for their offices far exceeds the resources available to it from its CMS contract.

Our bill allows a QIO to contract with a provider or organization if it meets one of several requirements. Among them are that the QIO must receive no more than 5 percent of its revenue from a single provider or organization, or if the contracting organization is subject to review by the QIO, conflict of interest must be mitigated by using an out-of- state QIO to perform the reviews that the local QIO would otherwise perform.

The QIO program differs from other Federal health care quality programs in that it does not just measure quality; it works with providers to attain it. The Medicare Quality Improvement Organization Act of 2007 strengthens the rights of beneficiaries, strengthens the administration of the program and the contracting process, provides for more accountability of contractors, and focuses the program on creating quality systems.

I urge my colleagues to join with me in strengthening the QIO program. It is one of the cornerstones of the quality initiative not just for Medicare but for all Americans.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Fountain Creek Feasibility Study Act of 2007. This bill is an important piece of a larger vision to transform and restore the Fountain Creek watershed, which lies in the Arkansas River Valley between the cities of Pueblo and Colorado Springs in my State of Colorado.

The Fountain Creek watershed is a major tributary to the Arkansas River and is home to a wide variety of plants and wildlife. Anyone who has traveled the 1-25 corridor between Colorado Springs and Pueblo can attest to the natural beauty of this region. The watershed itself comprises 927 square miles, but the impact of its waterflow extends far beyond its strict boundaries. According to the 2000 census, more than 500,000 people live in the watershed's boundaries. Water from the watershed serves municipal, industrial and agricultural uses. Creeks within the watershed contribute about 15 percent of the drinking water for Colorado Springs and are a source of irrigation for over 100 farms and ranches. The fertile farmland there produces wheat, com, hay, oats, and vegetable crops; there are also many working livestock ranches along Fountain Creek.

Today there are major problems with Fountain Creek. In recent years, instead of serving as an important link for commerce and recreation, the Fountain has divided the area. Decades of neglect, increased waterflows in the Fountain as a result of major urban development in the north half of the watershed, increased stormwater discharges, and sewage spills have all harmed the region. The watershed is subject to frequent flood damage, erosion, and sedimentation. In 1999 a major flood caused millions of dollars of damage to public and private property, and destroyed the foundations of numerous homes and roads. Indeed, just this spring there was minor flooding from the Fountain in the Pueblo area. Farmers and ranchers near the downstream end of the watershed in particular have suffered substantial losses of productive farmland. Degradation of the water quality and thus aquatic and wetland habitats is accelerating due to wastewater spills, loss of natural vegetation, and high water volume. Simply put, Fountain Creek watershed's ecological conditions are unstable and under constant threat.

This bill is a foundation stone for the idea of restoring Fountain Creek and turning the corridor between Colorado Springs and Pueblo into an environmental, agricultural, and recreational ``crown jewel'' for my State.

This bill would task the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct a study of the feasibility of constructing one or more dams and reservoirs to provide more reliable flood and sediment control, to conserve fish and wildlife and preserve their ecosystem, and to improve the water quality throughout the watershed. The Corps' expertise and experience will be critical to determining the options for restoring the health and stability of the Fountain Creek watershed.

The idea of such a multipurpose project on the Fountain is not new. It was first proposed in 1970 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers after the 1965 flood that inundated communities along the Fountain Creek, including particularly the city of Pueblo. The proposal was supported by the States of Colorado and Kansas and local officials, and was even the preferred option of the Army Corps for addressing flooding in the Fountain. I believe a similar proposal should be evaluated again, in light of changed conditions and increased flows in Fountain Creek resulting from urban development in the Colorado Springs metro area. Because the Fountain contributes a significant amount of water to the Arkansas River Valley below the confluence of the Fountain Creek and Arkansas River in Pueblo, this project may very well help address the various concerns of residents and communities of the Arkansas River Valley from Pueblo to the Kansas State line.

Last year I laid out a vision to revitalize Fountain Creek and connect the communities along its bank in a regional project. My plan involves the cleanup and revitalization of Fountain Creek; creating a linear state park along the river corridor with camping facilities, hundreds of miles of new trails, restored wildlife and natural habitat and new flat water recreation opportunities; protecting farms and ranches along the creek and in the lower Arkansas Valley; and ensuring a greenbelt separator between the communities of Colorado Springs and Pueblo.

My vision is to restore and transform this vital watershed. I hope that all levels of Government can work together to bring unmatched recreational opportunities, create an environment for plants and wildlife to flourish, ensure that agricultural lands remain productive, and address the flood control and water quality issues on Fountain Creek. This bill is an essential step towards achieving this goal.

Mr. President, I am here today to introduce legislation in honor of National Adoption Day that will address the needs of children waiting to be adopted from our Nation's foster care system. These are children who are unable to return home to their natural parents and are in need of permanent, loving, adoptive homes. In recent years, Congress has acted to implement supports for this population by creating programs that allow states to pursue creative and innovative methods for increasing foster care adoptions. However, today, tens of thousands of children are still waiting for families. There is still more work to be done.

According to current federal estimates, there are 114,000 children in foster care with the goal of adoption. Of these, only 13 percent are living in a pre-adoptive home. Moreover, each year in the public child welfare system, more children are made eligible for adoption than find permanent adoptive homes. For example, in fiscal year 2005--the most recent year for which statistics are available--states finalized 15,000 more terminations of parental rights than adoptions. Taken together, these statistics describe a tremendous pool of children lingering in foster care, waiting for a ``forever family.'' We know the longer children languish in foster care, the more they are at risk for developing a range of psychological, behavioral, and educational problems. Therefore, permanence for these children is essential.

Child welfare professionals across the country lament a lack of adoptive families for children in foster care. However, an untapped resource exists. A recent study conducted by the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute in collaboration with Harvard University and the Urban Institute notes that, in a given year, 240,000 people will call for information about adopting a child from foster care, but only a fraction will see the process through to adoption. This research states that prospective parents are often alienated from the adoption process at an early stage; these individuals experience unpleasant initial contacts and report difficulty in navigating the adoption process. Out of frustration, they abandon their pursuit of bringing a foster child permanently into their home.

Therefore, I am pleased to introduce the Adoption Improvement Act of 2007. This legislation establishes funding for a demonstration project aimed at reducing the attrition of prospective parents from the adoption process. Participating states will implement a rigorous program that strengthens the first contact prospective adopters have when they make that critical, initial inquiry into adopting a child. The bill calls on programs to include a specialized adoption hotline; hire employees who are trained to respond to callers' requests sensitively and efficiently; and incorporate the input of parents who have already adopted children from foster care. In addition, programs will provide explicit information to parents about how to make their way through the various adoption procedures; describe the rewards and challenges of the adoption process; and establish a buddy system that partners prospective parents with those who have already adopted foster children successfully. Finally, all agencies in the demonstration project will participate in a thorough program evaluation.

This month is National Adoption Month, and tomorrow, November 17, 2007, is National Adoption Day--a day to celebrate the families that have already been joined through adoption, and to call attention to the thousands of children still waiting for permanent homes. I am delighted to join Senators Landrieu and Coleman in their forthcoming resolution acknowledging the importance of National Adoption Month and National Adoption Day. I encourage my colleagues in Congress to take the messages of this resolution and my bill with them, beyond just this November, into the future.

The national data compel us to take action. Too many children in our Nation's foster care system are in desperate need of stable, loving homes, and there are thousands of potential parents out there yearning to provide them. I would like to thank my colleague Senator Rockefeller for joining me in this important effort. Please join me in bringing these groups together so that children in foster care can find the families they deserve.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Good Government Contractor Act of 2007.

This legislation represents my continuing efforts targeting federal contractors with tax debt. For several years, as Chair and now as Ranking Member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, I have led a bipartisan Subcommittee effort, with the assistance of the Government Accountability Office, that has uncovered tens of thousands of deadbeat civilian and defense contractors.

What we are dealing with here are not everyday tax delinquents, but rather federal contractors who do not pay their fair share of taxes-- despite receiving billions of dollars from American taxpayers each year. So far, since PSI began this effort, we have learned that 27,000 Federal contractors at the Department of Defense owed about $3 billion in unpaid taxes; 33,000 Federal contractors at civilian agencies owed back taxes amounting to $3.3 billion; 3,800 Federal contractors who contract with the General Services Administration owe back taxes amount to $1.4 billion.

These contractors are not just cheating the American taxpayer but in many cases cheating their own employees by using payroll taxes for their business or personal use. The Subcommittee has learned of contractors who have bought luxury cars, boats, and multi-million dollar properties, even though they owed hundreds of thousands of dollars in unpaid taxes.

At the end of the day, these contractors are not only shifting the burden to honest taxpayers but also depriving the Treasury of funds that could be used to address critical priorities from education to health care to the fight against terrorism. Accordingly, as part of my on-going effort to safeguard the interest of the American taxpayer and honest federal contractors, I am introducing legislation to better target tax cheating contractors.

More specifically, my legislation will amend the Federal Acquisition Regulations to consider a responsible contractor as one without any tax debt; require the Department of Defense, GSA and NASA to issue a final rule relating to tax delinquency; establish a national electronic tax lien filing system; create a Federal tax conviction database for the purposes of verifying contractor tax information; and establish as cause for debarment or suspension for knowingly making false statements regarding Federal tax information or prior convictions or civil judgments for Federal tax evasion or other Federal Tax offenses.

My bill will also repeal the indiscriminant three percent tax withholding requirement on all contractors, something which the vast majority of responsible, tax-paying government contractors, as well as State and local units of government, will appreciate. Last year, Congress passed into law a well-intentioned but highly problematic measure establishing a three percent withholding tax on all government contractors. Section 511 of the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 will impose a 3 percent withholding tax on Federal, State and local payments for goods and services beginning in 2011, except for local governments with annual spending of less than $100 million for goods and services. While this measure will obviously capture the bad apples, it unfortunately will also hit honest contractors--some of whose business livelihoods could well be jeopardized as a result. Another serious side effect will be the administrative burden on State and local governments, which could ultimately heighten the cost of doing business in a much larger sense.

Rather than this broad and cumbersome approach, my Good Government Contractor Act of 2007 will replace the blanket three percent withholding requirement with measures focused on just the bad actors. In closing, my bill will protect taxpayers, State and local governments, and law-abiding government contractors by holding deadbeat contractors accountable in a strict but fair way.

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