[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 47 (Wednesday, April 10, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2565-S2568]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. WYDEN:
  S. 693. A bill to amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater 
Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to 
participate in the City of Hermiston, Oregon, water recycling and reuse 
project, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I rise to reintroduce legislation 
that will authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to share in the cost of 
the construction of a new wastewater treatment plant for Hermiston, 
Oregon. This is the same bill that was passed by the House of 
Representatives, by voice vote, in the 111th Congress and reported by 
the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee without opposition 
that Congress as well. I look forward to working with supporters of 
this bill to advance this important reclamation project.
  The city of Hermiston will be responsible for the lion's share of 
this project. CBO has estimated that the Federal share of the $26 
million project would be $7 million or just over \1/4\ of the cost. 
Once constructed, the plant will provide the Bureau of Reclamation-
authorized West Extension Irrigation District with enough additional 
high-quality water per year to irrigate approximately 600 acres of high 
value crops. This will have a significant, long-term benefit to the 
farming industry in the Hermiston area.
  The Hermiston project has gotten the sign-off at every level from the 
local irrigation district to Federal agencies. The city and the bureau 
have completed the required feasibility report and the bureau of 
reclamation has formally concluded that the project meets the 
requirements of the Title XVI cost-sharing program. The regional office 
of the National Marine Fisheries Service at NOAA has completed a 
biological opinion approving the project. The city and the West 
Extension Irrigation District have signed a memorandum of understanding 
to work together to develop the project. The bureau has concluded its 
environmental review of the authorization to transfer the water to they 
district and issued a finding of no significant impact, or FONSI.
  The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation have also 
recognized the benefits of the project and support it. These benefits 
include a significant improvement in the quality of water discharged to 
the Umatilla River in winter and protection of sensitive fish habitat 
during summer. These benefits have led the tribe to endorse 
construction of the Hermiston Water Recycling System Improvement 
Project and the city's effort to obtain Federal funding.
  This project will increase agricultural production while improving 
the local economy, the environment and habitat for endangered fish. I 
intend to

[[Page S2566]]

work with colleagues to complete action on legislation that has 
advanced so far in previous Congresses.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BOOZMAN (for himself and Mr. Begich):
  S. 695. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the 
authorization of appropriations for the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
to pay a monthly assistance allowance to disabled veterans training or 
competing for the Paralympic Team and the authorization of 
appropriations for the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide 
assistance to United States Paralympics, Inc., and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, physical activity offers injured members 
of the Armed Forces and veterans additional opportunities for 
rehabilitation for both physical and mental health. Using the expertise 
of the United States Olympic Committee to work with local programs is a 
great tool to help our veterans improve their quality of life. The U.S. 
Paralympic Integrated Adaptive Sports Program partners with local 
organizations to develop programs and skills that meet the needs of our 
wounded warriors. As a result of this legislation, the program has 
reached more than 5,000 participants in more than 150 communities in 46 
States and has successfully collaborated with 85 VA Medical Centers in 
39 States to provide adaptive sports programs to veterans in their 
local communities through outreach programs, training, practices, 
camps, clinics, and competitions. For this reason, Senator Begich and I 
are introducing Veterans Paralympic Act of 2013, which would extend the 
authorization for the U.S. Paralympic Integrated Adaptive Sports 
Program through 2018.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 695

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Veterans Paralympic Act of 
     2013''.

     SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR 
                   PAYMENT OF A MONTHLY ASSISTANCE ALLOWANCE TO 
                   DISABLED VETERANS TRAINING OR COMPETING FOR THE 
                   PARALYMPIC TEAM.

       Section 322(d)(4) of title 38, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``2013'' and inserting ``2018''.

     SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR 
                   ASSISTANCE TO UNITED STATES PARALYMPICS, INC.

       Section 521A of title 38, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (g), by striking ``2013'' and inserting 
     ``2018''; and
       (2) in subsection (l), by striking ``2013'' and inserting 
     ``2018''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Sessions, Mr. 
        Graham, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Lee, Mr. Cruz, and Mr. Flake):
  S. 699. A bill to reallocate Federal judgeships for the courts of 
appeals, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. President, today I am introducing the Court 
Efficiency Act, a bill that will help some of the nation's busiest 
courts. Hopefully, it will also ease some of the tension that arises 
during debates of D.C. Circuit Court nominees. I am pleased that 
Senators Hatch, Sessions, Graham, Cornyn, Lee, Cruz, and Flake are 
original co-sponsors.
  It is no secret that the D.C. Circuit is the least-busy, least-worked 
appellate court in the nation. By nearly every measurement taken by the 
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the D.C. Circuit comes in a 
distant last. Here are three of the most common measurements using the 
most recent data available for the 12 months ending September 30, 2012.
  First, ``Total Appeals Filed.'' Total Appeals Filed measures the 
amount of work coming into the court. Simply put, it is the total 
number of appeals that a circuit court received in the last 12 months. 
The D.C. Circuit has 108 appeals per authorized judgeship, the lowest 
in the nation. To put this in perspective, the Second Circuit is 4 
times higher and the Eleventh Circuit, the busiest in the nation, is 
more than five times as high, with 583 appeals filed per authorized 
judge.
  Next, ``Total Appeals Terminated'' measures the amount of work the 
court is accomplishing. Once again, the D.C. Circuit is by far the 
lowest in the nation with 108 total appeals terminated per authorized 
judgeship. By comparison, the Second Circuit is 4 times higher and the 
Eleventh Circuit is 5 times higher, at 540 appeals terminated per 
authorized judgeship.
  Finally, ``Total Appeals Pending'' measures the amount of work before 
the court. In other words, it is the number of appeals the court hasn't 
yet addressed or the cases that are outstanding. The D.C. Circuit has 
120 appeals pending per authorized judgeship, which means it is 
essentially tied for last with the Tenth Circuit that has 115. In 
contrast, the Second Circuit and the Eleventh Circuit have 343 and 323 
appeals pending per authorized judgeship, respectively.
  Back during President Bush's administration, my friends on the other 
side of the aisle cited the light work load of that court in order to 
block qualified, non-controversial nominees. Since that time, the D.C. 
Circuit Court workload has only continued to decrease.
  Considering the imbalance between the workloads of the Circuits, my 
bill essentially reallocates those vacancies to other circuits that are 
much busier. The Court Efficiency Act does four things. First, it adds 
one seat to the Second Circuit. Second, it adds one seat to the 
Eleventh Circuit. Third, it reduces the number of authorized judgeships 
for the D.C. Circuit from 11 to 8. Fourth, it would become effective 
upon enactment.
  Adopting this bill would be a step towards rectifying the great 
workload disparities between the circuit courts. The Court Efficiency 
Act would ease some of the pressure on the Second and Eleventh 
circuits. By moving just one judgeship each to the Second and Eleventh 
circuits, we would lower each circuit's respective workload by 
approximately 7.5 percent. This reduction can be accomplished without 
jeopardizing the D.C. Circuit's status as the ``least-busy Circuit.'' 
Even after the D.C. Circuit is reduced to 8 seats, it would still be 
roughly half as busy as the Circuit median in appeals filed, 
terminated, and pending per authorized judgeship.
  I would also like to highlight several things that this bill will not 
do. First, it would not impact the President's current nominee to the 
D.C. Circuit, Mr. Srinivasan, whose hearing occurred earlier today. 
Instead, for the remaining three seats, it removes one and reallocates 
the other two.
  Second, the bill would not affect the president's opportunity to 
nominate two of those Circuit court vacancies. It simply reassigns 
those vacancies to other circuits that are clearly busier.
  Third, this legislation will be effective immediately, rather than 
postponing until the beginning of the next presidential term, as has 
been in the past. Immediate enactment will empower the President to 
quickly act to alleviate some of the heavy workloads of the Second and 
Eleventh Circuits.
  The bill will also save the taxpayer a significant amount of money 
annually. Although the bill has not been scored yet by the CBO, this 
estimate is based on previous estimates offered by the CBO when it has 
scored judgeship bills.
  The last time the D.C. Circuit had 11 nominees was the end of 1999. I 
want to move past the disagreements over the D.C. Circuit and shift 
these judges to circuits where there is a greater need to fill them.
  This is a common sense bill. It moves judges to where they are 
needed, a significant step in addressing the severe imbalance in the 
workloads of some of these circuit courts. It saves the taxpayers 
money. It doesn't negatively impact the D.C. Circuit Court. It won't 
affect President Obama's current nominee, Mr. Srinivasan. I urge my 
colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 699

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Court Efficiency Act of 
     2013''.

[[Page S2567]]

     SEC. 2. REALLOCATION OF FEDERAL JUDGESHIPS.

       (a) In General.--The President shall appoint, by and with 
     the advice and consent of the Senate--
       (1) 1 additional circuit judge for the second circuit court 
     of appeals; and
       (2) 1 additional circuit judge for the eleventh circuit 
     court of appeals.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 44(a) of title 28, 
     United States Code, is amended in the table--
       (1) in the item relating to the District of Columbia 
     circuit court of appeals, by striking ``11'' and inserting 
     ``8'';
       (2) in the item relating to the second circuit court of 
     appeals, by striking ``13'' and inserting ``14''; and
       (3) in the item relating to the eleventh circuit court of 
     appeals, by striking ``12'' and inserting ``13''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS:
  S. 701. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify 
the definition of full-time employee for purposes of the individual 
mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; to the 
Committee on Finance.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KAINE (for himself, Mr. Chambliss, and Mr. Baucus):
  S. 700. A bill to ensure that the education and training provided 
members of the Armed Forces and veterans better assists members and 
veterans in obtaining civilian certifications and licenses, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce my first bill as 
a US Senator. It has been delivered to the desk. The bill is the Troop 
Talent Act of 2013. I am pleased to note it is cosponsored by Senator 
Saxby Chambliss and Senator Max Baucus.
  The bill begins with a problem which I know concerns all Americans, 
the unemployment rate of our veterans. Currently, the national 
unemployment rate average is 7.6 percent, but the unemployment rate for 
veterans is 9.4 percent. That unemployment rate is particularly acute 
for veterans who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  We can't be comfortable if we see the statistic that our veterans 
have a higher unemployment rate than the national average. It should be 
otherwise.
  In Virginia, where one in nine of our citizens, one in nine of our 8 
million citizens from birth to death is a veteran, this is a 
particularly acute challenge. Frankly, it is only going to get worse as 
more and more people exit military service in the drawdown from 
Afghanistan.
  What is the reason for the veterans' unemployment rate being higher 
than the national average? Some of the reasons have to do with medical 
challenges and issues which are in the province of the VA. I learned of 
another reason as I was campaigning across the State for 19 months. I 
heard stories from veterans, and they would say the following: I was in 
the military. I was a battlefield medic. I got out of the military and 
tried to get a job as a physician's assistant or a nurse, and I was 
told I had no credit for all my military service as I tried to 
transition into the civilian world.
  Another stated: I maintained Naval aviation engines for 20 years. 
Then when I finished and tried to do the same thing on the civilian 
side, I was told I had to go back and start as if I had no experience.
  Another: I operated heavy equipment, but I was told I would need a 
commercial driver's license.
  Many of the members of our military--all of them are gaining skills 
along the way, but they go into a civilian workforce where their skills 
and talents are not recognized. In some ways this is a feature of an 
all-volunteer military. When we had a draft and men were compelled to 
serve, someone departing military service would go into the workforce 
and say they were a gunnery sergeant in the Marine Corps or an E-5 in 
the Navy, and someone in the workforce would know what it was they had 
done.
  Today only 1 percent of our adults serve in the military. We 
appreciate what our military members do, but we don't understand their 
technical skills or their leadership talent.
  This is the genesis for the Troop Talent Act of 2013. It is to make 
sure military members, while they are active, are getting recognized, 
credentialed credit for the skills they obtain, which will help them 
get immediate traction back into the civilian workforce.
  The True Talent Act has three pillars: The first is the credentialing 
of military members for the skills they have obtained and the sharing 
of information between the military branches about the skills they have 
with servicemembers, the private sector, and with agencies who would 
credential them with a civilian credential. This is the first pillar, 
credentialing people for the skills people obtain.
  The second pillar is a bit of a policing function. Sometimes folks 
will prey upon people leaving the military and say: Pay me $500, and I 
will administer a test which will give you a credential. Then it turns 
out their credential is worthless.
  The VA had a working committee to police these credential-granting 
agencies to ensure no one was being ripped off. That committee no 
longer is in service. This bill would restart it.
  Finally, the last thing this bill would do would be to take one 
particular industry sector, information technology, where there is a 
huge need to hire people and where our military members have 
significant skills, and this will accelerate credentialing traction for 
those members back into the military workforce.
  There is a current pilot project DOD is working on with certain 
specialties but not IT. This would seek to expand the pilot programs to 
add IT to the list where people are credentialed.
  In conclusion, this is about doing what the Nation should do for our 
servicemembers and making sure they receive the traction they deserve 
for the service they provided. It is not just about the members 
themselves, it is also about us. We have invested in our service men 
and women. They have skills, technical and leadership skills, which 
would help our society be more successful. To the extent we do not 
allow them traction back in the civilian life, we are not only 
depriving them, we are depriving ourselves of their strengths and 
talents.
  I am pleased to introduce this bill and honored to have Senators 
Baucus and Chambliss as cosponsors.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I am offering legislation 
correcting Obamacare's definition of a ``full-time'' employee to allow 
employees to work 40 hours a week without triggering penalties on the 
businesses that hire them. Currently, Obamacare defines an employee 
working just 30 hours a week as ``full time.''
  Because Obamacare uses an unreasonably low threshold of 30 hours a 
week to define ``full time'' employees, some businesses are restricting 
their employees to no more than 29 hours of work per week, to ensure 
that their workers are considered ``part time'' for purposes of 
Obamacare. This is a consequence of the substantial penalties Obamacare 
imposes on businesses that reach a threshold of 50 ``full time'' 
employees, unless they provide expensive health care coverage which 
many small businesses simply can't afford.
  The penalties imposed by Obamacare begin at $40,000 for businesses 
with 50 employees, plus $2,000 for each additional ``full-time 
equivalent'' employee. These penalties serve as a huge disincentive for 
businesses to grow or add jobs, particularly for firms close to the 50-
job trigger.
  One Maine business I know has 47 employees, and it would like to hire 
more but won't because of these onerous penalties. If more businesses 
follow suit, millions of American workers could find their hours, and 
their earnings, cut back. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics 
nearly 10.5 million Americans work between 30 and 35 hours per week. 
Another 9.7 million work between 35 and 40 hours per week. My bill will 
help protect these Americans who may otherwise find their hours 
curtailed and their earnings cut as a result of Obamacare.
  Obamacare's definition of a ``full time'' employee is completely out-
of-keeping with standard employment practices in the U.S. today. 
According to the American Time of Use Survey published by the Bureau of 
Labor Statistics, the average American works 8.8 hours per day, which 
equates to 44 hours per week. Under Obamacare, working only 30 hours a 
week is considered ``full-time''--nearly one-third lower than actual 
practice.
  Likewise, the Obamacare definition of ``full-time'' employee is one-
quarter lower than the 40 hours per week used by the GAO in its study 
of the budget and staffing required by the Internal

[[Page S2568]]

Revenue Service to implement Obamacare. In that report, the GAO 
described a ``full time equivelant,'' or ``FTE,'' as: ``a measure of 
staff hours equal to those of an employee who works 2,080 hours per 
year, or 40 hours per week for 52 weeks.''
  During consideration of the Budget resolution last month, the Senate 
adopted my amendment calling for legislation setting a more sensible 
definition of a ``full time'' employee for purposes of Obamacare 
penalties. That amendment was endorsed by the National Association of 
Manufacturers, and the National Education Association. The fact that 
these two organzitions--typically thought of as bookends on the 
political spectrum--would agree that Obamacare's definition of a 
``full-time'' employee is broken illustrates how out-of-step it truly 
is.
  Under my bill, a ``full time'' employee would be someone who works a 
40-hour week. This is a sensible definition in keeping with actual 
practice. I urge my colleagues to support it.

                          ____________________