Veterans' Justice Assurance Act of 2007

Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to comment on a bill I am introducing to help ensure the long-term ability of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims to promptly dispense justice in all veterans cases.

In 1988, Congress created this court to hear appeals from decisions of the Department of Veterans Affairs, most commonly on veterans' claims for disability compensation based on injuries or diseases they suffered during service. As was discussed at a hearing I called last year while serving as chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, the CAVC is facing some serious challenges, which may impede its ability to consistently provide timely decisions to our Nation's veterans.

In fact, between 2004 and 2006 the court experienced something akin to a ``perfect storm.'' The last four of the original judges, who were appointed when the court was created, all retired, taking 60 years of experience with them; the court's incoming caseload experienced a dramatic 67-percent increase; and the court was left with a single judge who had at least 2 years of experience deciding these often complex cases. As a consequence, the court received 30 percent more cases than it decided during that time and the number of pending cases doubled in less than 2 years. With over 6,000 cases still pending, almost 4,000 more than a decade ago, and with the court continuing to receive record levels of incoming cases, veterans seeking justice from the court may feel the effects of this ``perfect storm'' for many years to come, as the court struggles to eliminate the existing backlog and to keep up with new appeals.

For the men and women who have served, sacrificed, and suffered for our Nation, I believe we must take steps to ensure that they will receive timely decisions on their appeals, not just today but for many years to come. That is why I am introducing this bill to help the court deal with its existing caseload and to help ensure that, in the long term, the court will not face such a devastating combination of events.

As one means of helping with the current caseload, the bill would modify the rules that govern the recall of retired judges. Under current law, a retiring judge may opt to be recall eligible, which means the judge may be involuntarily called back to work for up to 90 days per year when needed and may voluntarily serve up to 180 days per year. For this court, like other Federal courts, the option of receiving help from retired judges can be an extremely important resource. In fact, last year, after the court began recalling retired judges to help with its caseload, the court's productivity rose over 19 percent in 3 months.

In view of the obvious value of having experienced retired judges continue to decide veterans' cases and the fact that they currently receive the same salary as active judges regardless of how much, if any, service they provide in a year, it would be a win-win situation for veterans, the court, and taxpayers if a retired judge opted to return to the bench more frequently or for longer periods than current law permits. To allow for that possibility, the bill would eliminate the 180-day cap and permit a retired judge to voluntarily serve in recall status as many days during a year as he or she wishes.

Also, because the court may need an unprecedented level of service from retired judges in the next several years to help deal with its caseload, the bill would provide an incentive for the current complement of recall-eligible judges to provide as much service as practical during that time. Specifically, the bill would provide that, once a recall-eligible judge has served an aggregate of 5 years of recall service, the judge will no longer be subject to involuntarily recall and will continue to receive the same salary, that of an active judge.

To put that into perspective, if a retired judge were to be recalled for 90 days each year, as current law permits, it would take 20 years to provide the equivalent of 5 years of recall service. In addition to allowing judges to accelerate their service into fewer years, at a time when it may be most beneficial to veterans, this change may also encourage retired judges to serve in recall status for longer periods of time. This should help minimize concerns expressed by the Chief Judge in recent years about how much retired judges would be able to accomplish in the limited 90 day recall period. With these changes, the court should have the judicial resources it needs to handle its caseload in the near term.

In addition, this bill would take steps to ensure that the court, in the long run, is not faced with a difficult transition like the one it experienced in recent years. By way of background, the original judges, except for one who died, all retired between 2000 and 2005, with four of those retirements occurring within a single 12-month period. Given the delays inherent in the appointment and confirmation process, this left the CAVC without a full complement of active judges for much of that 5-year period. As the Chief Judge testified in 2006, functioning with less than seven judges ``led to a backlog'' of cases at the court.

Perhaps more significantly, this cluster of retirements meant that, as of August 2005, the court had only one judge, the new Chief Judge, who had at least 2 years of experience on the bench. In the words of that Chief Judge, ``no other Federal court would be faced with the transition that we were faced with as of August 2005. Where else in the Federal judiciary system could I, the junior judge . . . suddenly become the senior judge, and have all of the experience of the court departing?'' The Chief Judge also opined that ``[t]his turnover on the Court has had great significance, particularly in the short term, on the Court's case management.''

The effects of this turnover may have been magnified by the fact that this court deals with a very specialized area of law, which by all accounts has become increasingly complex in recent years. In fact, the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States recently described veterans' law as ``a complex thicket of court decisions and statutory requirements.''

To further complicate the situation, the court experienced a dramatic rise in the number of incoming cases in recent years. In fact, in 2005 the court received 37 percent more cases than it had received in any prior year and, then, in 2006 the court received an even higher level of incoming cases. As I indicated earlier, the combined effect of these factors led the court to be ``in the red'' for several years, taking in almost 3,000 more cases than it decided.

Although some factors that have contributed to the court's challenges cannot be controlled, it seems clear that multiple retirements of experienced judges within a relatively short period of time can have a profound impact on the court's ability to decide veterans' cases. It is worth noting that Congress previously attempted to stagger the retirement dates of the judges by temporarily expanding the size of the court and by shortening the length of two judges' terms. Despite those efforts, it is possible that 6 of the 7 judges now on the bench will retire within a 4-year window, an even shorter period than the disruptive turnover between 2000 and 2005.

That is why I believe we need to try a completely new approach to help ensure that experienced judges will stay

on the bench for as long as practicable and will not retire in clusters as their terms expire. To that end, this bill would eliminate the term limits for any new judges appointed to the court and would provide those judges with full pay-of-the-office only when serving as an active judge or when providing service as a recalled retired judge. The combined effect of those provisions should encourage judges to stay on the bench longer before they retire and to regularly volunteer for recall service after they retire.

Yes, this represents a significant departure from the traditional model for article I courts. But as experience has shown, the current model is not adequate to consistently provide veterans with timely decisions on their claims and we simply cannot allow further disruptions in service to our Nation's heroes each time the court turns over. Once judges gain years of valuable experience in this complex, specialized area of law, we should not force them, and their experience, into retirement. Rather, we should take steps, as this bill would do, to permit veterans and the court to receive the maximum possible benefit from their years on the bench.

To avoid ``changing the rules'' on those judges who have already been appointed and confirmed, these changes would be prospective, applying only to judges appointed to the court on or after the date of enactment of this bill. In the meantime, I hope the changes to the current recall provisions that I mentioned earlier will help avoid a difficult transition when the current sitting judges retire.

In addition to these changes to the term limits and recall rules, the bill would require the Chief Judge, in conjunction with the court's stakeholders, to set guidelines for when recall would be appropriate, taking into account such factors as the number of active judges, temporary or prolonged increases or decreases in caseload, and the complexity of the caseload. It would also require the court to submit annual performance reports to Congress including information on the court's workload during the prior year, as well as an analysis of whether the standards for recalling judges were met and what service, if any, was performed by retired judges. Such guidelines should aid the court, retired judges, and Congress in planning for periods when recall will likely be used and when it will not.

More importantly, the number of recall-eligible judges and their level of activity are important factors that must be considered in determining whether the court has sufficient judicial resources. If current caseload trends continue and the court, even fully utilizing the services of recalled judges, is unable to provide veterans with the level of service they deserve, the addition of judgeships may need to be considered. These guidelines and reports will allow Congress to closely monitor that situation to ensure that the court has the necessary capacity.

Finally, the bill would recognize the critical and increasingly demanding role of the Chief Judge by allowing the salary of the Chief Judge to be increased by $7,000 per year, and the bill would direct the General Services Administration to provide Congress with a report as to the feasibility and desirability of converting the court's current location into a dedicated Veterans Courthouse and Justice Center.

It is my sincere hope that the fundamental changes in this bill will help ensure that the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims is able to consistently provide veterans with timely decisions, now and for many years to come. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to comment on a bill I am introducing to ensure that veterans and their families have access to educational assistance benefits unimpeded by layers of bureaucracy and inflexible legal requirements.

Each year, the Department of Veterans Affairs provides educational assistance benefits to veterans, servicemembers, reservists, and their families to pursue a wide array of educational opportunities, including traditional college degrees, vocational training, apprenticeships, and on-the-job training programs. VA contracts with entities called ``State approving agencies,'' SAAs, to assess whether schools and training programs are of sufficient quality for individuals to receive VA education benefits while pursuing their programs. That SAA approval process was originally instituted after World War II to help stem abuses of veterans' education benefits, such as scam vocational and business schools profiting from those education benefits and then not providing veterans with an education of any value.

Today, unlike 60 years ago, schools and educational programs of all types may be scrutinized by a number of different entities, including the Department of Education, the Department of Labor, various national and regional accrediting bodies, and state licensing agencies. In fact, in 1995 the Government Accountability Office found that a substantial portion of the approval activities performed by SAAs overlapped with work done by others. Several years later, the Commission on Servicemembers and Veterans Transition Assistance concluded that veterans should be ``the primary judge of the appropriateness of accredited courses to their plans for the future'' and that ``[a]pproval of institutions accredited by accrediting bodies recognized by the Department of Education should suffice for veterans' training approval.''

In the years since those findings, Congress has altered the responsibilities of SAAs by requiring them to perform additional functions, such as promoting the development of apprenticeships and on- the-job training programs, conducting outreach services, and approving licensing tests. However, the traditional approval functions performed by SAAs, which are specifically required by statute, have not been significantly modified.

Last year, in order to assess whether veterans face unnecessary or inefficient barriers in accessing VA education benefits under the current system, I asked GAO to evaluate the extent to which SAA approval activities currently overlap with functions performed by the Departments of Labor and Education and what value is added by the services performed by SAAs. Let me give you a few examples of GAO's recent findings:

Many education and training programs approved by SAAs have

also been approved by the Departments of Education or Labor

and VA and SAAs have taken few steps to coordinate approval

activities with those Departments.

To streamline approval processes, VA should collaborate

with other agencies but, according to VA, that may be

difficult because of the specific approval requirements in

law.

VA does not require SAAs to track the amount of resources

they spend on specific duties and functions, including those

that may be performed by other agencies, and thus does not

have all relevant information to make resource allocation

decisions or to determine whether it is spending federal

funds efficiently and effectively.

It is difficult to assess the effectiveness and progress of

SAAs because VA does not have outcome-oriented performance

measures in place to fully evaluate their performance.

Although I have no doubts about the dedication and sincerity of SAA personnel in the field, I believe GAO's findings demonstrate that we do not have a systematic or objective way to determine whether the current mix of services provided by SAAs, which are mandated by statute, are either necessary or beneficial to the veterans and their families who participate in VA's education programs. That is why I believe we should overhaul the entire statutory scheme regarding SAAs, as this bill would do, to help eliminate redundant administrative procedures, increase VA's flexibility in determining the nature and extent of services that should be performed by SAAs, and improve accountability for any activities they undertake.

Specifically, this bill would strike statutory provisions that mandate what activities SAAs must perform, how those functions must be carried out, and how VA must pay for them. Instead, VA would have authority to contract with SAAs for services that it deems valuable and to determine how those services should be performed, evaluated, and compensated. The bill would also require VA to coordinate approval activities performed by State approving agencies, the Department of Labor, the Department of Education, and other entities to reduce overlapping and unnecessary layers of bureaucracy. To ensure that VA, Congress, and other stakeholders will be able to objectively assess the effectiveness of any functions performed by SAAs, VA would be required to establish outcome-oriented performance measures and SAAs would be required to track and report information on the resources expended on all activities they perform.

Finally, the bill includes a provision, similar to legislation that the Senate passed last year, that would provide a $19 million spending authorization for SAAs effective at the start of the upcoming fiscal year and would allow, for the first time, SAA funding to be drawn from both mandatory spending accounts and discretionary accounts. By way of background, since 1988 VA payment for the services of SAAs has been made only out of funds available for ``readjustment benefits'', a VA account funded through mandatory appropriations, and has been subject to annual funding caps.

For the current fiscal year, SAA funding from this entitlement account is capped at $19 million, but under current law there will be a $6 million reduction in authorized spending, to $13 million, for every fiscal year thereafter. Although the provisions of this bill would maintain a $19 million funding level in future years, it is important to note that that level is a ceiling, not a floor. As with any private- sector business or good-government business model, budgeting and funding decisions should be linked to performance and VA should contract only for those services that are necessary and valuable.

In sum, this bill would provide VA with the flexibility to streamline approval processes, eliminate redundant bureaucratic procedures, focus resources on services that will meet the current needs of education program participants, and ensure that veterans and their families will not confront layers of bureaucracy and inflexible legal requirements in accessing their educational assistance benefits. I ask my colleagues to support this measure.

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

Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to comment on a bill I am introducing to enhance educational assistance benefits provided to active duty servicemembers, veterans, members of the Guard and Reserve, and their survivors and dependents by the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, and the Department of Defense.

In recent years, many veterans' organizations, members of Congress, and others have highlighted the need to modernize these education programs to support emerging and alternative education opportunities and to recognize that the role of Guard and Reserve members has been transformed since September 11, 2001. This bill would take significant steps in that direction by providing greater flexibility in the use of these education benefits, revising eligibility criteria to reflect current mobilization strategies for Guard and Reserve units, and enhancing the education program for our ``citizen soldiers'' who have been called up to serve in the war on terror.

First, this bill would provide veterans, Guard and Reserve members, and their spouses and dependents with additional flexibility in using existing education benefits. Traditionally, educational assistance benefits have been paid in equal monthly allotments throughout a semester or term. For veterans, the maximum basic rate is now $1,075 per month, which means a veteran may receive at least $9,675 over the course of an average school year and almost $39,000 during a 4-year college program.

This system works well for veterans attending a traditional four-year college. But, as the Commission on Servicemembers and Veterans Transition Assistance reported in 1999, the existing payment structure ``constrains veterans and servicemembers desiring to enroll in short- term career-focused technical courses,'' a problem that is ``especially acute if the cost of the course dramatically exceeds the benefits payable for the few months' duration of the course.''

That is why in 2001 I cosponsored legislation to establish an ``accelerated'' payment option for veterans' education benefits. With that program now in place, a veteran may receive an up-front, lump-sum payment of up to 60 percent of the cost of certain high-tech, high-cost programs. Since that option was made available, many veterans have used that additional flexibility to train for jobs in high technology sectors of the economy, such as the computer and telecommunications industry, the aerospace industry, and the electronics industry.

Then last year, as chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I supported legislation that would have expanded this option to allow accelerated payments for short-term, high-cost education programs leading to jobs in any high growth sectors of the economy. Although VA also supported that legislation, VA testified that ``implementation would be challenging'' and that ``[i]t would be cleaner and more direct if the bill simply stated that all high-cost short-term courses were eligible for accelerated payments.''

Having taken those concerns into account, this bill would allow veterans to receive accelerated payments for any short-term, high-cost education programs, and it would authorize VA to spend up to $3 million for those payments in each fiscal year from 2009 to 2012. Not only would this provide veterans with the flexibility to pursue nontraditional or technical educational opportunities, but it may help veterans quickly obtain job skills that currently are in high demand.

For example, the trucking industry is now experiencing a critical shortage of trained drivers, but the GI Bill, as currently structured, may pay only a fraction of the cost for a veteran to take the 6 to 8 week training course, about $2,000 of a total $6,000 bill. With the availability of accelerated payments for those and other short-term, high-cost training programs, veterans may be able to obtain the skills needed

to thrive in sectors of the economy that, today, are growing rapidly and can provide them with lucrative, rewarding career opportunities.

In addition, the bill would, for the first time, provide Guard and Reserve members with the option of receiving accelerated payment of their education benefits. They, too, would be eligible to receive up- front, lump-sum payments of up to 60 percent of the cost of any short- term, high-cost education program. For fiscal years 2009 to 2012, the bill would authorize $2 million per year for the Montgomery GI bill, Selected Reserve program and $1 million per year for the smaller Reserve Educational Assistance Program to make these payments.

To ensure that the families of veterans also have flexibility in the use of their education benefits, the bill would extend the same accelerated payment option to participants in the Survivors' and Dependents' Educational Assistance program. It would authorize VA to spend up to $1 million per year for those payments in fiscal years 2009 to 2012.

The second principal goal of the bill is to update and enhance the education program for members of the Guard and Reserve who are called to active duty. In 2004, recognizing the increased sacrifices being made by our ``citizen soldiers'' who are fighting in the War on Terror, Congress created the Reserve Educational Assistance Program for Guard and Reserve members who are activated for at least 90 days after September 11, 2001. This program was a significant step in the right direction, providing a maximum benefit of $860 per month for 36 months, a total possible benefit of over $30,000.

However, the maximum monthly benefit requires a deployment of 2 continuous years or more of active duty, and the Secretary of Defense has recently announced that ``from this point forward, members of the Reserves will be involuntarily mobilized for a maximum of one year at any one time, in contrast to the current practice of sixteen to twenty- four months.'' To bring those eligibility criteria in line with current practice, this bill would allow members of the Guard or Reserve to receive the maximum benefits if they are deployed for an aggregate period of 3 or more years.

Finally, the bill would provide these ``citizen soldiers'' with access to a valuable option now available only under the Montgomery GI bill program for active duty servicemembers. Specifically, it would allow members of the Guard or Reserve to contribute up to $600 in order to receive an additional $150 per month in education benefits, which amounts to an additional $5,400 in benefits over the course of 36 months. Under this bill, Guard and Reserve members would, for the first time, have access to this valuable opportunity.

With these modifications, we can take significant strides towards ensuring that current education programs are up-to-date and flexible and that they provide members of the Guard and Reserve with benefits commensurate with the level of service they are now performing on behalf of the entire Nation. I urge 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 to introduce the bipartisan Methamphetamine Production Prevention Act of 2007. I am pleased to have the support and cosponsorship of Senator Grassley for this important legislation, and I look forward to working closely with Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Specter to advance the bill through the judiciary Committee and to secure its enactment into law.

The Methamphetamine Production Prevention Act will take the next step toward wiping out the domestic production of methamphetamine, or ``meth.'' The bill will make it easier to use electronic logbook systems in order to monitor sales of meth precursor drugs and notify enforcement agencies when individuals illegally stockpile these precursors by traveling from pharmacy to pharmacy.

This legislation is endorsed by the National Alliance of State Drug Enforcement Agencies, the National Narcotics Officers' Associations' Coalition, the National Criminal Justice Association, the National Sheriffs' Association, the Major County Sheriffs' Association, the National Troopers Coalition, the National District Attorneys Association, the National Association of Counties, and the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America. I also want to commend and thank Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan and her staff for their assistance in preparing this legislation.

For years, the manufacture and use of methamphetamine have plagued communities in Illinois and throughout the Nation. Meth is unique among illegal drugs in that its harms stem not only from its distribution and use, but also from the clandestine manufacturing labs that meth ``cooks'' use to make meth. These labs pose serious dangers to those who live nearby and to the surrounding environment. Law enforcement agencies in Illinois and elsewhere are forced to devote a significant percentage of their time to locating, busting, and cleaning up meth labs.

The Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act, ``Combat Meth Act,'' enacted in 2006, took several important steps to reduce domestic meth manufacturing. These steps included limiting the amount of meth precursor drug products that a purchaser can buy, such as pseudoephedrine, and requiring pharmacies to keep written or electronic logbooks recording each precursor purchase. The Combat Meth Act has led to a drop in the number of meth labs discovered in many States.

However, domestic meth cooks have begun adapting to the Combat Meth Act. They have figured out how to circumvent the act's restrictions by ``smurfing,'' or purchasing illegal amounts of meth precursor drugs by traveling to multiple pharmacies that keep written logbooks and buying legal quantities at each one. According to Illinois law enforcement authorities, smurfing now accounts for at least 90 percent of the pseudoephedrine used to make meth in Illinois.

The next step in combating domestic meth production is to promote the use of effective electronic logbook systems. Law enforcement experts agree that if pharmacies maintain electronic logbook information and share that information with appropriate law enforcement and regulatory agencies, this information can be used to prevent the sale of meth precursor drugs in excess of legal limits, and to identify and prosecute ``smurfs'' and meth cooks.

This legislation, the Methamphetamine Production Prevention Act, facilitates and encourages the use of meth precursor electronic logbook systems in several ways.

First, the bill revises the technical logbook requirements in the Combat Meth Act. While the Combat Meth Act provides for the use of electronic logbook systems, several of the act's requirements are not tailored for logbooks kept in electronic form. For example, under the act, a prospective purchaser must ``enter[] into the logbook his or her name, address, and the date and time of the sale.'' This requirement is unwieldy for retailers who use electronic logbook systems, because many purchasers cannot type quickly or accurately. The Methamphetamine Production Prevention Act would permit retailers' employees to type the name and address of a purchaser into an electronic logbook system, and would allow retailers to use software programs that automatically record the date and time of each sale. Under the bill, a retail employee would have to ensure that the name the employee types into the system matches the name on the ID that the purchaser is currently required to present.

Also, the Combat Meth Act requires purchasers to sign a logbook at the time of sale, regardless of whether the seller uses a paper or electronic logbook. Collecting and retaining electronic signatures requires a large amount of computer memory, and the transmission of these electronic signature files to law enforcement agencies does not provide a significant law enforcement benefit. Sellers who use electronic logbook systems should be given the option of collecting signatures on paper, as long as those signatures are stored for the requisite 2-year retention period, and as long as the signatures are clearly linked to the electronically-captured sale information.

The Methamphetamine Production Prevention Act would permit a seller who uses an electronic logbook to collect purchaser signatures through any of three different methods: (1) having the purchaser sign an electronic signature device; (2) having the purchaser sigh a bound paper book in which the signature is placed adjacent to a unique identifier number, or a printed sticker that clearly links the signature to the purchaser's logbook information; or (3) having the purchaser sign a document that the seller prints out at the time of sale that displays the required logbook information and contains a signature line. These options ensure that each purchaser's signature will be collected, but they give sellers flexibility in developing cost-effective electronic logbook systems.

The Methamphetamine Production Prevention Act would also create a small but important Federal grant program to help States plan, create or enhance electronic logbook systems. Several States, including Oklahoma, Arkansas, West Virginia and Kentucky, have already begun developing electronic logbook systems, and many other States are considering them. The Methamphetamine Production Prevention Act authorizes $3 million in grants

to States and localities, with grants capped at a maximum of $300,000. The bill imposes a 25-percent State matching requirement, to ensure that States have, invested in their logbook systems and have a stake in ensuring the successful operation of these systems.

Instead of mandating how States design their electronic logbook systems, the bill provides incentives for States to design effective logbook systems. Because meth smurfs frequently travel across State lines to stockpile meth precursors, State efforts to develop electronic logbook systems will be more successful if those efforts are coordinated with the activities of other states. The bill would therefore give priority to grant applicants whose logbook systems are developed in consultation with a working group of key Federal, State and private stakeholders spearheaded by the National Alliance for Model State Drug Laws. This working group will advise States on best practices in developing logbook systems and will help States develop logbook systems that are compatible and interoperable with other systems across the country.

The bill also gives a grantmaking preference to applicants whose logbook systems are statewide, are capable of sharing information in real time, and are designed to share information across jurisdictional boundaries. At the same time, the bill preserves the privacy safeguards currently established under the Combat Meth Act and State law. To promote accountability, the bill requires the Attorney General to provide an annual report to Congress that evaluates the grant program and its effectiveness in curtailing meth production.

The Methamphetamine Production Prevention Act does not mandate the use of electronic logbook systems, nor does it mandate the features that an electronic logbook system must possess. The bill respects the fact that States have enacted various types of anti-meth restrictions above the Federal Combat Meth Act baseline, and that pharmacies and retailers in different States have different capabilities with regard to electronic tracking. At the same time, we want to encourage States to coordinate their development of methamphetamine precursor electronic logbook systems so that smurfs will not be able to supply their meth labs by hopping across State lines. Our bill aims to strike a balance by coordinating the various State efforts, while still allowing States the flexibility to innovate and to respond to their specific State needs.

There are many actions besides promoting electronic logbook systems that we must take to address the scourge of methamphetamine. For example, we must provide for the prevention and treatment of meth use, and we must also prevent the illegal distribution of meth and its precursors over the Internet and from other countries. However, law enforcement experts agree that electronic logbook systems are an important tool in our effort to combat meth, particularly domestic meth labs. We can, and should, do more to help make these logbook systems work.

By facilitating and encouraging the use of electronic logbook systems, the Methamphetamine Production Prevention Act will help wipe out domestic meth labs and the environmental and social harms they cause. The bill will also help free up law enforcement resources from meth lab busts and cleanup, allowing our law enforcement agencies to focus on other crime prevention and enforcement efforts. The production of methamphetamine has plagued our communities for far too long, and this legislation takes a critical step to stop it. I urge the Senate to pass this important bill.

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 text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the Homeland Security Education Act. This bill encourages initiatives to increase the number of Americans trained in science, technology, engineering, math, and foreign languages.

More than a century ago, Henry Ford revolutionized transportation and industry with the creation of the Model T. This car and the process designed to create it were so innovative that it was copied by every other company. The Model T became the base model for all cars that followed. This is a classic American story. Some of the most important scientific breakthroughs in modern history have occurred in the labs, workshops, and classrooms of America. We take pride in our Nation's ability to meet any challenge and solve any problem with innovation and discovery. But we are falling behind. Today's innovations in the auto industry come not from Detroit but from Japan. Engineers in Asia are designing tomorrow's hybrid car while Henry Ford's company and other American companies are just trying to keep up.

America's colleges and universities can play an important role in reversing the decline in American innovation. The United States graduates some of the world's best engineers, scientists, and mathematicians, but a far higher proportion of the students in China, India, South Korea, and Japan are focusing on these fields. The National Academies of Science reports that in 2004, only 32 percent of the undergraduate degrees awarded in the United States were in science or engineering compared to 59 percent in China and 66 percent in Japan. If we do not address this crisis soon, China, India, and Japan will become the new centers for scientific and technological innovation, while American workers scramble to keep up. We must act now to ensure that America remains the world's economic, scientific, and technological leader.

American workers are also increasingly finding themselves at a disadvantage in a multilingual global community. In our increasingly global economy and with a heightened concern for security in the post- 911 world, we need Americans who can speak a foreign language. Only 9 percent of American students enroll in a foreign language course in college. We especially need to focus on less commonly taught languages, including Arabic, Farsi, Chinese, and Korean, and other languages that are of particular value in the world today.

The best place to address both of these concerns is in the classroom. We must adapt our educational system by providing the teachers and resources needed to encourage students to study science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and foreign languages. The Homeland Security Education Act is an important step in the right direction.

This bill would encourage students to pursue math, science, technology, engineering, and critical foreign languages by providing them with $5,000 scholarships. Scientists, engineers, technology professionals, and those fluent in foreign languages would be encouraged to return to the classroom and use their career experiences to inspire students in high-need or low-income schools. New grant programs would encourage educational institutions, public entities, and businesses to enter into partnerships that improve math and science curricula, establish programs that promote students' foreign language proficiency along with their science and technological knowledge, and create and establish foreign language pathways from elementary school through college. Finally, the bill would fund a student loan repayment program for qualified individuals trained in science, technology, engineering, math, and foreign languages who join the Federal workforce.

Our country is quickly approaching a crisis of competitiveness. To avoid falling behind our international competitors in science and innovation, we must confront this problem immediately in our schools. We need to strengthen our students' proficiency in science, technology, engineering, math, and foreign languages and provide them with the incentives necessary to pursue careers in those fields. Today's students are tomorrow's innovators, scientists, and technology leaders, and we can't afford not to invest in them. I encourage my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring the Homeland Security Education Act.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Keeping Parents and Communities Engaged or Keeping PACE Act, to foster greater involvement of parents in their children's education, engage community partners in supporting the comprehensive learning needs of students in school, as well as to address our Nation's high dropout rate.

It is clear that engaged parents can make a positive difference in students' achievement. Parents are their children's first teachers, and they have immense influence over their children's attitudes, focus, priorities and goals. Well-informed parents are more likely to be involved, to ask questions, to suggest constructive changes and to make a difference in their child's education. They deserve to know what their children are learning and being tested on, what their children's grades and assessment scores mean, and how assessment data may be used for improvement. Informed and engaged parents can help turn around struggling schools.

We crafted the No Child Left Behind Act to recognize parents as full partners in their children's education. The Act includes essential requirements to develop parent involvement policies and programs, develop and release school report cards, and to establish a team of parents and community representatives to construct a plan to improve schools if they are identified as struggling. We should build on these important reforms. But in the upcoming reauthorization of the law, we must also explore new and innovative strategies to engage parents and communities in helping kids succeed in school.

Better coordination among parents, schools, and the community can also help create a network that enables and empowers students to take advantage of every opportunity to learn. That's particularly important for students needing the greatest help and attention in their learning and those who need more challenging schoolwork to keep them engaged and progressing, as well as students at risk of dropping out of school. Today, more than one million students who enter the ninth grade fail to receive a high school diploma 4 years later and approximately 7,000 students drop out of school every day. We've made great advances in recent years to improve the education of every student, but it remains clear that more must be done to respond to this challenge.

We must support and strengthen our elementary and secondary schools and do more to attend to the learning and nonacademic needs of our most at-risk students, which make such a difference in how well they master their subjects. That means support for community programs to meet children's social, intellectual, emotional, and physical needs. It means making parent involvement a top priority, and offering support to schools to involve parents and families more effectively in their children's education, including postsecondary education planning.

The Keeping PACE Act will address these fundamental issues. This bill amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to encourage and support parent, family, and community involvement in schools, to provide needed supports and services to children, and to ensure that schools are centers of communities.

Educators recognize, on the basis of abundant research and common experience, that parental involvement is a critical element in children's academic and social development. Unfortunately, as noted in a recent report by Appleseed, too often, schools and districts continue to face challenges that impede efforts to effectively advance parental involvement. My bill enables States to award grants to local education agencies to assist schools in hiring and maintaining Parent and Community Outreach Coordinators. These coordinators will build critical partnerships among families, schools, and the community. They'll work with school principals, teachers, and staff to encourage parents to become more involved in their child's education and give them the tools necessary to become successful advocates for their children.

Last year, a Massachusetts pilot initiative placed 17 full-time Family and Community Outreach Coordinators in Boston Public Schools. The Coordinators were responsible for supporting families, teachers, and the community in a common effort to help students excel academically and socially.

Their efforts have worked. The Family and Community Outreach Coordinator at the Condon School in Boston, Massachusetts, has offered workshops for parents on middle school transition and math curriculum; coordinated parent participation on the School Climate Committee, an anti-bullying initiative at the school; helped teachers and parents make connections for parent-teacher conferences; and brought in over 200 parents to participate in the fall open house, where some teachers reported having contact with over 80 percent of their students' families. The Coordinator has also leveraged donations to the school through the generosity of local businesses.

The success of the coordinators led the Boston School Committee to approve its budget for the next school year with the addition of 14 more full-time Family and Community Outreach Coordinators. All together this means that almost 22 percent of Boston Public Schools will have a coordinator by September 2007-2008.

The director of the Harvard Family Research Project notes that many years of research confirm that ``now is the time . . . for action. The question we must ask is, in addition to quality schools, what non- school learning resources should we invest in and scale up to improve educational outcomes, narrow achievement gaps, and equip our children with the knowledge and skills needed to succeed in the complex and global 21st century.''

The bill answers that question and responds directly to these needs by creating new grants for community-based organizations to work in partnership with schools to bring essential comprehensive and integrated services to children in need. These support services may include health care, counseling, social services, enrichment, mentorship, and tutoring, services that can often spell the difference between a dropout and a graduate.

Rather than giving teachers, counselors, and principals more to do as they address the non-classroom needs

of students, every school should have a resource they can turn to for help with identifying student needs and leveraging community services to help all students succeed. We know that comprehensive, integrated supportive services increase graduation rates and improve student achievement. In one national report: 82 percent of tracked students improved their attendance in school; 86 percent of tracked students had fewer behavior incidents; 89 percent of tracked students had fewer suspensions. In addition, 98 percent of tracked students stayed in school and 85 percent of eligible seniors graduated. Students who are identified as needing these services, but do not receive them are more likely to drop out of school.

The Lucy Stone School in Boston, Massachusetts, demonstrates the effectiveness of student supports on learning. The once failing school took action and focused on improving core learning skills, a broad array of enrichment activities and health and social supports. Lucy Stone is making strong progress. Students in Grades 3 and 4 are passing the literacy MCAS at rates well above the Boston Public School average percentages, and are approaching State averages. Grade 4 math MCAS passing rates are approaching Boston and State averages as well.

In other communities, diverse community partners have played an important role in providing accelerated learning and mentoring opportunities that have made all the difference for students.

For example, a comprehensive evaluation of nine schools in New England found that classroom participation in community service outdoor learning projects increased student engagement and retention of science knowledge. And the ``Being Enthusiastic about Math and Science'' (BEAMS) enrichment program at the Jefferson National Lab in Virginia, which serves 1,800 inner-city students and their teachers, has resulted in increased achievement and attendance rates, and a better understanding of academic subjects, careers and applications among participating students.

The National Commission on Service Learning found that mentorships and internships with caring adults in a workplace resulted in higher grade point averages and better attendance than for students who spend less time with adult mentors.

There is one particular organization that has a demonstrated track record in helping leverage the integrated services and supports that students need to succeed in school. Communities in Schools (CIS) is the Nation's largest dropout prevention organization, and has a nearly 30- year track record of helping connect students, families and schools with supportive services to help them graduate and prepare for life. With affiliates operating in 27 States and the District of Columbia, Communities in Schools helps about 2 million students every year.

Community involvement means real help for children in need, and the evidence shows. For instance:

In Georgia, CIS currently supports graduation coaches directly serving approximately 37,000 high school students who are at risk of dropping out.

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, CIS stepped in to provide morning classes and afternoon activities for students whose parents had lost their social support systems after they were forced to relocate to Houston, Texas.

There are also countless individual stories of community-based integrated services making a difference. In Texas, CIS helped 14-year- old Yeana Carbajal, who was born with cerebral palsy, to obtain proper medical attention and social services, enabling her to return to school after hip surgery when her doctors had told her that would be impossible. Yeana is now back in school and thriving academically and socially.

Another student, who at 14 became the primary caregiver of a mother who eventually died with AIDS, overcame homelessness and became the first in her family to graduate high school. A turning point for her came when she participated in a career exploration program coordinated through the community-based program office at her school. She discovered her special talents in the culinary arts, and is now an honor student at Johnson and Wales University.

Finally, a growing body of educational research suggests that student achievement improves in environments where learning is a community value, and where schools have the ability to address a broad range of educational needs. Many school districts have gone even further to respond to this research, by establishing full-service community schools that directly involve parents, families, and the entire community in education.

The Keeping PACE Act also responds to this research by providing new avenues to establish and support full-service community schools. These efforts have wide-ranging positive impacts, including ``better family functioning and parental involvement, healthy youth development and improved social behavior, improved academic achievement and learning outcomes, and enhanced community life.'' Two prominent researchers in the field further note, ``In community schools . . . schools are transformed into much more than just a portfolio of programs and services. They become a powerful agent for change in the lives of young people and their families and improve the climate of the entire school.''

This bill enables States to provide incentives to local education agencies that coordinate with mayors, community-based organizations, for-profit organizations and other community partners to re-design and modernize their current school plans and facilities to better link students with community resources. School districts across the country are beginning to recognize the benefits of planning a school not only as an academic center for students, but also as a neighborhood center that serves the entire community. Designing schools from the onset to leverage integrated services to students helps meet multiple local needs such as educational, health, social service, and recreational needs.

It's time for America to make a real commitment, and give real opportunity and real fairness to address the comprehensive learning needs of children and families, guarantee a place for parents and families in schools, and provide real hope to our students most at-risk of dropping out. Engaging parents and communities in the success of students enrolled in our public schools is critical to the future and prosperity of our entire Nation.

This bill is supported by 15 organizations representing education communities. I ask unanimous consent that their letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to comment on a bill I am introducing to help ensure the long-term ability of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims to promptly dispense justice in all veterans cases.

In 1988, Congress created this court to hear appeals from decisions of the Department of Veterans Affairs, most commonly on veterans' claims for disability compensation based on injuries or diseases they suffered during service. As was discussed at a hearing I called last year while serving as chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, the CAVC is facing some serious challenges, which may impede its ability to consistently provide timely decisions to our Nation's veterans.

In fact, between 2004 and 2006 the court experienced something akin to a ``perfect storm.'' The last four of the original judges, who were appointed when the court was created, all retired, taking 60 years of experience with them; the court's incoming caseload experienced a dramatic 67-percent increase; and the court was left with a single judge who had at least 2 years of experience deciding these often complex cases. As a consequence, the court received 30 percent more cases than it decided during that time and the number of pending cases doubled in less than 2 years. With over 6,000 cases still pending, almost 4,000 more than a decade ago, and with the court continuing to receive record levels of incoming cases, veterans seeking justice from the court may feel the effects of this ``perfect storm'' for many years to come, as the court struggles to eliminate the existing backlog and to keep up with new appeals.

For the men and women who have served, sacrificed, and suffered for our Nation, I believe we must take steps to ensure that they will receive timely decisions on their appeals, not just today but for many years to come. That is why I am introducing this bill to help the court deal with its existing caseload and to help ensure that, in the long term, the court will not face such a devastating combination of events.

As one means of helping with the current caseload, the bill would modify the rules that govern the recall of retired judges. Under current law, a retiring judge may opt to be recall eligible, which means the judge may be involuntarily called back to work for up to 90 days per year when needed and may voluntarily serve up to 180 days per year. For this court, like other Federal courts, the option of receiving help from retired judges can be an extremely important resource. In fact, last year, after the court began recalling retired judges to help with its caseload, the court's productivity rose over 19 percent in 3 months.

In view of the obvious value of having experienced retired judges continue to decide veterans' cases and the fact that they currently receive the same salary as active judges regardless of how much, if any, service they provide in a year, it would be a win-win situation for veterans, the court, and taxpayers if a retired judge opted to return to the bench more frequently or for longer periods than current law permits. To allow for that possibility, the bill would eliminate the 180-day cap and permit a retired judge to voluntarily serve in recall status as many days during a year as he or she wishes.

Also, because the court may need an unprecedented level of service from retired judges in the next several years to help deal with its caseload, the bill would provide an incentive for the current complement of recall-eligible judges to provide as much service as practical during that time. Specifically, the bill would provide that, once a recall-eligible judge has served an aggregate of 5 years of recall service, the judge will no longer be subject to involuntarily recall and will continue to receive the same salary, that of an active judge.

To put that into perspective, if a retired judge were to be recalled for 90 days each year, as current law permits, it would take 20 years to provide the equivalent of 5 years of recall service. In addition to allowing judges to accelerate their service into fewer years, at a time when it may be most beneficial to veterans, this change may also encourage retired judges to serve in recall status for longer periods of time. This should help minimize concerns expressed by the Chief Judge in recent years about how much retired judges would be able to accomplish in the limited 90 day recall period. With these changes, the court should have the judicial resources it needs to handle its caseload in the near term.

In addition, this bill would take steps to ensure that the court, in the long run, is not faced with a difficult transition like the one it experienced in recent years. By way of background, the original judges, except for one who died, all retired between 2000 and 2005, with four of those retirements occurring within a single 12-month period. Given the delays inherent in the appointment and confirmation process, this left the CAVC without a full complement of active judges for much of that 5-year period. As the Chief Judge testified in 2006, functioning with less than seven judges ``led to a backlog'' of cases at the court.

Perhaps more significantly, this cluster of retirements meant that, as of August 2005, the court had only one judge, the new Chief Judge, who had at least 2 years of experience on the bench. In the words of that Chief Judge, ``no other Federal court would be faced with the transition that we were faced with as of August 2005. Where else in the Federal judiciary system could I, the junior judge . . . suddenly become the senior judge, and have all of the experience of the court departing?'' The Chief Judge also opined that ``[t]his turnover on the Court has had great significance, particularly in the short term, on the Court's case management.''

The effects of this turnover may have been magnified by the fact that this court deals with a very specialized area of law, which by all accounts has become increasingly complex in recent years. In fact, the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States recently described veterans' law as ``a complex thicket of court decisions and statutory requirements.''

To further complicate the situation, the court experienced a dramatic rise in the number of incoming cases in recent years. In fact, in 2005 the court received 37 percent more cases than it had received in any prior year and, then, in 2006 the court received an even higher level of incoming cases. As I indicated earlier, the combined effect of these factors led the court to be ``in the red'' for several years, taking in almost 3,000 more cases than it decided.

Although some factors that have contributed to the court's challenges cannot be controlled, it seems clear that multiple retirements of experienced judges within a relatively short period of time can have a profound impact on the court's ability to decide veterans' cases. It is worth noting that Congress previously attempted to stagger the retirement dates of the judges by temporarily expanding the size of the court and by shortening the length of two judges' terms. Despite those efforts, it is possible that 6 of the 7 judges now on the bench will retire within a 4-year window, an even shorter period than the disruptive turnover between 2000 and 2005.

That is why I believe we need to try a completely new approach to help ensure that experienced judges will stay

on the bench for as long as practicable and will not retire in clusters as their terms expire. To that end, this bill would eliminate the term limits for any new judges appointed to the court and would provide those judges with full pay-of-the-office only when serving as an active judge or when providing service as a recalled retired judge. The combined effect of those provisions should encourage judges to stay on the bench longer before they retire and to regularly volunteer for recall service after they retire.

Yes, this represents a significant departure from the traditional model for article I courts. But as experience has shown, the current model is not adequate to consistently provide veterans with timely decisions on their claims and we simply cannot allow further disruptions in service to our Nation's heroes each time the court turns over. Once judges gain years of valuable experience in this complex, specialized area of law, we should not force them, and their experience, into retirement. Rather, we should take steps, as this bill would do, to permit veterans and the court to receive the maximum possible benefit from their years on the bench.

To avoid ``changing the rules'' on those judges who have already been appointed and confirmed, these changes would be prospective, applying only to judges appointed to the court on or after the date of enactment of this bill. In the meantime, I hope the changes to the current recall provisions that I mentioned earlier will help avoid a difficult transition when the current sitting judges retire.

In addition to these changes to the term limits and recall rules, the bill would require the Chief Judge, in conjunction with the court's stakeholders, to set guidelines for when recall would be appropriate, taking into account such factors as the number of active judges, temporary or prolonged increases or decreases in caseload, and the complexity of the caseload. It would also require the court to submit annual performance reports to Congress including information on the court's workload during the prior year, as well as an analysis of whether the standards for recalling judges were met and what service, if any, was performed by retired judges. Such guidelines should aid the court, retired judges, and Congress in planning for periods when recall will likely be used and when it will not.

More importantly, the number of recall-eligible judges and their level of activity are important factors that must be considered in determining whether the court has sufficient judicial resources. If current caseload trends continue and the court, even fully utilizing the services of recalled judges, is unable to provide veterans with the level of service they deserve, the addition of judgeships may need to be considered. These guidelines and reports will allow Congress to closely monitor that situation to ensure that the court has the necessary capacity.

Finally, the bill would recognize the critical and increasingly demanding role of the Chief Judge by allowing the salary of the Chief Judge to be increased by $7,000 per year, and the bill would direct the General Services Administration to provide Congress with a report as to the feasibility and desirability of converting the court's current location into a dedicated Veterans Courthouse and Justice Center.

It is my sincere hope that the fundamental changes in this bill will help ensure that the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims is able to consistently provide veterans with timely decisions, now and for many years to come. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Medicare Provider Accountability Act on behalf of myself, and my colleagues Senator Levin and Senator McCaskill. This bill is a direct result of the recent bipartisan investigation by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations exposing Medicare physicians and related providers who cheat on their taxes. At our March 20 hearing, entitled ``Medicare Doctors Who Cheat On Their Taxes,'' the Subcommittee presented evidence that more than 21,000 physicians and other providers received millions of dollars through the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, under Medicare Part B, even though they collectively owe more than $1.3 billion in undisputed Federal taxes as of September 30, 2006.

I think it is important to note that the vast majority of physicians are working hard to provide services to Medicare beneficiaries. In fact, I know that many doctors struggle with on-going reductions in payments under the so-called Sustainable Growth Rate.

The focus of PSI's ongoing investigations has been tax fraud and government contractors. CMS is the only Federal agency of considerable size that has resisted participating in the Federal Payment Levy Program that I will describe later. As we looked into CMS, we found that there were physicians receiving payments from the government while they simultaneously withheld money from the government by cheating on taxes, and failing to pay child support or student loan debts. Through their actions, these ``bad apples'' are hurting efforts to promote the longterm sustainability of the Medicare Program.

What is disturbing is that the delinquent doctors identified by our investigation were not hardship cases but rather folks living the ``good life.'' This minority of physicians live in multi-million-dollar homes, own luxury vehicles and pleasure boats, and gamble with millions of dollars, yet still cheat the government.

Some of the most egregious examples that GAO discovered include the following:

An ambulance company received more than $1 million from Medicare in just the first 9 months of 2005, although it owed more than $11 million in back taxes.

One doctor has refused to pay Federal income taxes since the 1970s and now owes more than $3 million in unpaid Federal taxes, and more than $1 million to another Federal agency. He was paid approximately $100,000 by Medicare in the first 9 months of 2005. He tried to hide his assets by attempting to transfer property to his children.

Another physician who owes more than $1 million, primarily as payroll taxes withheld from his employees, received more than $1 million from Medicare between January and September 2005. He was flaunting his illegally gained windfall with a million-dollar home, 58-foot yacht, and ownership of several night clubs. His recently reported income is half a million dollars, but the compromise offer he made to the IRS only covers the penalty for nonpayment and not the overdue taxes themselves.

Another physician whose medical license is on probation owes more than $400,000 in unpaid Federal taxes. Despite this debt, he purchased a luxury vehicle predominantly with cash, deposited tens of thousands of dollars in cash in such a way as to avoid mandatory reporting to the IRS, and gambled away millions of dollars. Although he did report more than $600,000 in net profits for 2 recent years, he still managed to fall behind in his child support payments by tens of thousands of dollars and to default on his installment agreement with the IRS.

Unfortunately, the list goes on and on. Worse, as if failing to pay their taxes was not a sufficient insult to American taxpayers, Medicare providers also owed $33 million in child support, $27 million in unpaid student loans, $114 million owed to other Federal agencies, and $22 million in unpaid state income taxes.

While these figures and case studies are obviously disturbing, the good news is that the Federal Government has two marvelous programs for recovering Federal debt from Federal payments, the Federal Payment Levy Program, FPLP, for tax debt, and the Treasury Offset Program, TOP, for non-tax debt, such as delinquent student loans, child support, and money owed Federal agencies. The Financial Management Service, FMS, handles both of these programs and matches pending payments from the Federal Government against outstanding Federal tax debt in the case of FPLP, and against other outstanding federal debt in TOP. If such debt exists, a levy of 15 percent or more is imposed upon each payment made to the delinquent taxpayer until that debt is recovered. FMS currently screens most Federal payments for unpaid taxes, including salaries and payments to contractors and vendors.

The Government Accountability Office specifically recommended that CMS confer with the IRS and FMS to figure out how to get Medicare payments into the levy program. That recommendation came in six years ago, in 2001, so it is clear that CMS and the other agencies have been ``on notice'' about this very issue for years. In fact, although CMS has been sending information on payments to Medicare Part C and D providers to FMS for matching in FPLP, it has failed to include the more than $300 billion in payments to Part A and B providers.

As a result, the Federal Government has lost countless opportunities to levy Medicare payments made to tax-delinquent doctors and other suppliers. The GAO estimated that, if CMS had participated in the levy program, the government could have recouped anywhere between $50 million and $140 million of unpaid Federal taxes from these Medicare tax-cheats in just the first nine months of 2005 alone. That does not include potential millions recouped for delinquent student loans, unpaid child support, and back-taxes owed to States.

But we are not in the blame business, we are in the problem-solving business. So, the paramount question is how to fix this mess. Make no mistake: these are complex problems, but I am confident that we can fix them. This legislation is a good start.

The bill, entitled the Medicare Provider Accountability Act, has three prongs to assist the Federal government with the collection of these outstanding debts. It establishes a timetable for CMS to join the Federal Payment Levy Program for all payments to Medicare providers, and expressly authorizes CMS to participate in the Treasury Offset Program to collect nontax debt. Finally, it enables the IRS to begin levying payments earlier in the notice process.

First, this bill sets a deadline by which CMS must fully participate in the FPLP. Fifty percent of the payments to Part A and B providers must be sent to FMS for matching tax debt under FPLP within 1 year of enactment. Within 2 years of enactment, every Medicare provider payment, regardless of Part, will be checked by FMS under FPLP for outstanding Federal tax debt.

Second, this bill gives CMS the authority to submit payments to its providers to TOP, which it had previously been unable to do. CMS and FMS testified at the hearing that CMS cannot legally participate in TOP as a Federal disbursing authority, and that to do so will require a Legislative fix. This bill explicitly includes payments to Medicare providers as disbursements that can be offset, allowing for the recovery of delinquent student loans, overdue child support, debts owed to other federal agencies and state taxes.

In addition, this legislation enables IRS to levy Federal payments to recover delinquent tax debt earlier in the process. Currently, only about half of the $140 billion in tax debt eligible for

matching is ``turned on'' to allow FMS to begin levying payments through FPLP. This is a result of IRS's current procedure, sending four computer-generated notices followed by a Collection Due Process, CDP, notice. Although the delinquent taxpayer can enter a payment plan or challenge the amount throughout the process, the formal appeals process begins only after all of those notices are issued. This protracted process allows a delinquent taxpayer to drag out the process and prevent automatic levies anywhere from months to years. An additional problem beyond the delay is that by the time the appeals process concludes, the contractor may no longer be receiving Federal payments. This provision of the bill accelerates the collection process, enabling a postlevy appeals process, whereby the IRS can begin to levy Federal payments prior to the CDP notice. To be clear, this would permit the Government to begin levying payments earlier, while still preserving the taxpayer's right to appeal. This will not affect levies on third parties.

Congress has spent much of this session focusing on health care. We all know that we have a crisis looming with Medicare. In order to ensure the long term sustainability of the program, we need to be sure that the money that is going out through this program is being spent efficiently and effectively. We also need to be sure that the money that is coming into this program through our taxes is being collected efficiently and effectively. They are part and parcel of the same problem. As we look for money to spend on programs to benefit our most vulnerable, this legislation can go a long way to identifying possible sources.

I would especially like to thank Chairman Levin for his ongoing support of our efforts to address those who receive Federal payments without paying their taxes. This is truly a bipartisan effort and a bipartisan bill in its writing and its sponsorship.

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