[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 47 (Wednesday, April 10, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2567-S2568]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      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.

                          ____________________